Let's talk about the Boston Marathon qualifying times for women. An 18 y/o F has almost same standard as a 59 year old man.

Just make it simple - pick an appropriate age-graded time and everyone has one closely-equivalent standard, right down to a year-by-year basis.

Cherry picked data. Not long ago I went through all the BQ standards, and most of them age grade to the same standard or close to it. The harshest standards are actually in the women's masters age groups.

Age-grading:

M59 @ 3:40 = 70%

M30 @ 3:02 = 70%

F35 @ 3:40 = 63%

I’ve been completely destroying my body in the hopes of qualifying for this race for the past 20 weeks and as an 18 year old girl I can safely say my 70+ mile weeks have been MUCH less than any guy my age has needed to put forth. Definitely gender biased as far as qualifying times go imho.

Semenyagoat wrote:

Runnergrl wrote:

Your whole race would be men.

It would be the best humans at that skill. Like it should be in companies, politics and sports.

My goodness. You seem to be laboring under the delusion that the open-to-the-public hobby jogger event that is the Boston marathon is somehow a consequential athletic competion. Of course it isn’t. Nor should it be. In fact, no road race that you have to pay to enter is actually a “race” primarily. It’s an event. An event that greatly benefits from having participants of every age, sex, and ability level. This should be very obvious.

All the times are still absolute jokes to qualify for, so what does it matter?

Stop cherry picking. Once you cross the 50 year old line, it is easier as a man to BQ than a woman, percentage wise. And as you go up in age, it gets damn near impossible for women while it is easy for men.

This has been analyzed to death. Just don't ignore the upper age ranges. It is always the younger men who whine. The older women have never protested about this. Let me be the first.

Semenyagoat wrote:

Runnergrl wrote:

Your whole race would be men.

It would be the best humans at that skill. Like it should be in companies, politics and sports.

Why should a hobby be open only to the best?

@semenya wrote:

Semenyagoat wrote:

It would be the best humans at that skill. Like it should be in companies, politics and sports.

Why should a hobby be open only to the best?

With Semenyagoat's logic, the race should just be two separate races with the fastest 50 men and the fastest 50 women. Why even bring in sub-3:10 runners at that point that have no shot in winning.

That's not what Boston is about. The BAA will watch the qualifying times if they need to be changed but the goal is to have the same number of men and women. That's great. The times might not entirely stack up but they're meant to draw equal numbers.

Also get out of here if you think politics brings in the best humans at their skill. Congress is 80% male & 80% white. That has nothing to do with money. It has to do with who was allowed into politics first in this country and with money.

The system for qualifying is pretty good but not perfect. Yes, it is heavily favored toward women. They could lower the women's standard by five minutes (or raise the men's by five minutes) and it would make a lot more sense.

Also, now their standard of the "real" qualifications (what it actually takes to participate in any given year) is very inclusive, but doesn't reward the FASTER runners. For example, one year you had to run like 1:24 lower than your age-group standard in order to actually qualify. So that means a 34-year-old man would have had to run a 3:03:36, but a 40-year-old man would have to run 3:13:36. I believe the preference should be to the faster athletes for that year. Weight it a little bit so the faster people get in. Remember, if you don't get in, you get automatic entry the next year, so you're not really "denying" anybody a chance. It's just deferred for one year.

Hardloper wrote:

They don't want the race to be a sausage fest

Yeah I don't understand how posters don't get this simple fact.

The same thing is true pretty much across athletics, there are less female competitors and so to fill fields the standards are more lax. I'm talking about UK/US/World/Olympic champs also.

Negativesplitter wrote:

unify everything wrote:

Just have one qualifying standard for every single person wanting to run Boston. Make that mark 3 hours 10 mins. That is a very generous time to everybody.

Not to the 59 year old man.

One qualifying time for all ages is ludicrous. I am in my 60's and run 1:09:XX for 10 miles which equates to running under 3:15:00 for the Marathon at age 60. I have a 2:23:36 PR from the 1980's. Should a 60YO who runs 3:15:00 not qualify while a 28YO who runs 3:09:55 qualify?

I'm a guy in my 50's. I'd much rather see more 18-33 year old women in the race than more guys, especially 50-something guys.

Is that so difficult to understand?

Guys: the standard isn't so hard. It's still easier than the pre-1990 standards. More time training == Less time whining

they should pick an age graded percent score and just sit on that one for all age groups.

but it does seem clear that women need extra help, being the weaker sex, more prone to discouragement and emotional breakdowns. They need an easier mark for the olympic trials, they need an easier mark for boston.

I understand what the running community is saying: women need a little extra help, a little extra time.

The Fap Scientist wrote:

Many of us can agree that the current standards for women are completely jacked up, most women can run 20-35 miles a week and qualify while most young males require 50-70 miles a week to drop a sub 3:02/3:03 to gain entry. How would changing the standard to "Anyone sub 3:10 gets in" effect the race? The current "You have to overqualify by "??? minutes/seconds" is complete rubbish.

Seriously, ask yourself, does a fit track stud 18 year old girl have the same fitness as a 59 year old man? Because they are nearly running the same times to qualify.

all high school boy's records are faster than women's world records.....

ALL.

well..... wrote:

I'm a guy in my 50's. I'd much rather see more 18-33 year old women in the race than more guys, especially 50-something guys.

Is that so difficult to understand?

Guys: the standard isn't so hard. It's still easier than the pre-1990 standards. More time training == Less time whining

Agreed! I'm also in my 50's and would like to see the standards loosened for the 18-34 women, and tightened for the 18-49 yo men. More younger woman, and more men with money, should attract more attention to Boston.

ex-runner wrote:

Hardloper wrote:

They don't want the race to be a sausage fest

Yeah I don't understand how posters don't get this simple fact.

The same thing is true pretty much across athletics, there are less female competitors and so to fill fields the standards are more lax. I'm talking about UK/US/World/Olympic champs also.

True, there are fewer female runners at Boston than male runners -- but if you look at hobby jogging/road racing across distances, the industry has changed a lot since the 90's. Races used to be "sausage fests," but the balance goes pretty significantly in the other direction now (57% to 43%). See

The folks at BAA aren't stupid. They know the future of USA road racing generally (and the Boston Marathon specifically) requires marketing toward and creating an appealing product especially to women. Who doesn't get this point?

How about the men's and women's Olympic trials qualifying time differences?

Gary Glitter wrote:

Remember, if you don't get in, you get automatic entry the next year, so you're not really "denying" anybody a chance. It's just deferred for one year.

I don't think this is true.