Looking at the qualifying times for women, and men compared to elites, men certainly have to reach a higher level. Where I am atleast there certainly way more depth in men's running.
Meh, they can do whatever they like. There are plenty other races anyway. For marketing etc. I can see why they want closer to gender parity in numbers, which means they have to have harder standards for men.
Cut 10min off every standard and anyone that can't run 20min under shouldn't be allowed to enter
women at boston wrote:
I actually think Boston is massively unfair to women of childbearing age. Women must deal with all the reasons men that might prevent them from running at Boston - injury, sickness, family obligations - and also pregnancy.
[...]
good point.
and now stop whining losers, all it took for me to run BQ-8min was about 8 months of running, starting from some baseline average joe fitness level, as a young man.
How about this...A 73 year old woman qualified for Boston last year, 1 min under her BQ time. She would be 74 when she ran Boston. She was so excited that she accomplished this goal and represented super senior women. AND, Boston wouldn't let her in because she needed to qualify by less than 3 min (or whatever). The joke is. How many women at 73 BQ? Um, maybe 25. In years past the women's 70-74 age range that completed Boston was about 15. Sorry, but Boston is not playing fair here. It's not like it's easy to BQ again as she (anyone) approaches 75. Let's be honest, her BQ was probably a once in a lifetime event. And Boston wouldn't recognize that.
women at boston wrote:
I actually think Boston is massively unfair to women of childbearing age. Women must deal with all the reasons men that might prevent them from running at Boston - injury, sickness, family obligations - and also pregnancy.
Pregnancy lasts nine months. I would say for an *average* women, it probably takes two years to regain the fitness to qualify for Boston if you are at all marginal after childbirth. Let's say 12 months at an absolute minimum to regain the fitness to COMPLETE Boston. I realize some women who run professionally and some women who are just amazing do it faster ,but that is NOT typical. It took me more than two years after my last pregnancy to get anywhere near pre-pregnancy fitness. Many women suffer injuries that take a LONG time to resolve. Pregnancy is no joke.
Are you Serena? Whining about the effects of pregnancy like it's an injury. I thought you were strong athletic women, in control of your body. If you get pregnant and want to be pregnant, then so be it. The same as a lot of people working lots of hours in the years after college to start their lives and families up, then as the kids get out of the house they get more serious about it again. Might that be a possible reason for the big jump in 45-49 age group for men, kids are gone more time for themselves?
Pregnancy is a life choice, not an injury.
this... wrote:
Cut 10min off every standard and anyone that can't run 20min under shouldn't be allowed to enter
So for the fastest men, sub-2:35... it'd be cool for the US to have its own Fukuoka where the fastest men & women can go out and chase fast times. Boston is not that place. Boston is a spectacle with 30,000 runners and people lined the whole way, people who come out and cheer for the elites but also stay for most of the field. The standards are fine. They give amateurs a challenging but reachable time goal and something worth training for. And in a race like that you need/want equal representation. I don't get why a small number of people on here are so anti-Boston. Yea it's some sort of parade but it's a like minded one where men and women set out and hit their time goal and then get to soak in the Patriot Day tradition. It's one of the most amazing races out there. I ran this year and the year support was still amazing with the garbage weather day we had. Boston is a brand. It'd be silly to just line up a couple hundred people and change the event. May as well put the elites on a track at that point.
Old White Male. wrote:
The 2020 standards for women (specifically older women) needs to be tightened up by 5+mins per age group (leaving the mens times the same), i'm willing to be that the majority of the overqualifiers in Boston are older women running 3:40 - 4:15 easily making everyone else have to overqualify by X amount.
What do you guys think? What gender/age group standard has the most amount of overqualifers?
What will Boston do to correct this?
Boston is too easy for most serious runners.
I can qualify pretty much anytime I decide I want to go back and do it.
I ran a bit in high school but not great and I didn’t run for over 10 years.
A friend of mine qualified after training for about 4 years- he was never a runner before and no one ever would have thought that he’d even consider doing a marathon when he was in his 20s.
Don’t blame women because you’re not good enough!
Train better or race somewhere else...
ex-golfer wrote:
Or you could look at the data, but that would be work.
According to this paper qualifying times for older women are too hard.
If YOU looked at the data it suggests lowering the standards for all women under 55.
But seriously, 7:00? Most races close at 6:00.
darkwave wrote:
women at boston wrote:
I actually think Boston is massively unfair to women of childbearing age. Women must deal with all the reasons men that might prevent them from running at Boston - injury, sickness, family obligations - and also pregnancy.
As you note, pregnancy is one of many life events that can pause training for a year or more. What about battling a serious illness - cancer or the like? What about having to place life on hold to take care of an aging parent? Or mandatory military service in some countries? Or your mission, if you're Mormon? Do women who adopt get to defer in this way? And if so, shouldn't adoptive fathers also get that option?
I don't think one life event should pause the clock in a way that others don't. And I definitely don't think that the opportunity to defer should be offered to only those in one age bracket.
I respect your right to an opinion, but I strongly disagree with this.
These other events you cite, like cancer, are shared equally by women and men. Pregnancy is the only major life event that most members of one gender or the other experience and that disrupts the ability to qualify and then run Boston for years at a time.
Your military example is perhaps the best counterpoint since far more men participate in the military than women, but only 15% of men have served in the military, and many of those are older men who were alive during the drafts for WWII, Korea, or Vietnam. By contrast, 86% of women have children. Childbearing is a unique life event which benefits all humans and seriously disrupts women's lives. If we were in a country with mandatory military service for men, then the impact of that should be explored, but since we're not, it's a moot point.
Adoption is not even remotely like bearing a child in terms of impact on ability to qualify for Boston. This should be breathtakingly obvious.
bostonbetsy wrote:
I kind of agree. Tired of seeing women in Instagram post their BQ triumphs, ringing the BQ bell and what have you, and it's like 3:44 at Revel or Mtns 2 Beach or something like that. Brutal. I ran a 3:03 last year and couldn't manage to make the cut. So yeah, Ill run a little faster and break 3 and get in, but still.....
Who is forcing you to look at these Instagram posts?
Endorphins wrote:
How about this...A 73 year old woman qualified for Boston last year, 1 min under her BQ time. She would be 74 when she ran Boston. She was so excited that she accomplished this goal and represented super senior women. AND, Boston wouldn't let her in because she needed to qualify by less than 3 min (or whatever). The joke is. How many women at 73 BQ? Um, maybe 25. In years past the women's 70-74 age range that completed Boston was about 15. Sorry, but Boston is not playing fair here. It's not like it's easy to BQ again as she (anyone) approaches 75. Let's be honest, her BQ was probably a once in a lifetime event. And Boston wouldn't recognize that.
Good point. The cut off times for 60+ should not be adjusted downward. Respect the elders, and few runners are affected anyway.
This thread made me check about when sign up is and then what the qualifying standards are.
I'll be 50 by race day and my last marathon was 2:43:03.
The readout was: "You have bettered the qualifying standard for your age and gender by 46:57."
Then I checked what the window for qualifying was. September 16, 2017 or after.
Unfortunately, I ran that marathon at the end of 2016 and didn't run a marathon last year or this.
Last year, I forgot to register in time.
Out of luck again.
I was one of the slowest runners in HS. Never broke 5 minutes for the mile or 11 minutes for the 2 mile. Started running marathons at 44 and have BQ'd in most of them. Sometimes the older men and women's standards seem relatively easy but then one must realize they are not so easy with injuries/pregnancies and life events. If you stay healthy maybe the times are easy but staying healthy isn't always easy. I haven't needed to deal with pregnancies but I have had to deal with at least 3 injuries (running and non-runnning) that have forced me to a minimum of 6 weeks off. It is not so easy coming back after a lay-off of 6 to 13 weeks. Fortunately I have not had to deal with illness close to a race. Maybe for some people the times seem easy but for those with lives that get in the way, the times may not be easy. There is no perfect solution so just stop wasting energy on complaining.
I looked at the top 50 marathons in the US this year, most of the female winners were 3:05 or SLOWER - yes the WINNER, the winner in most Marathons isn't even meeting the minimum 18-35 standard for men.
The top 3 Women in Omaha Marathon this year were -
17 235 Whattam Vanessa- 03:13:49.094 F
21 1258 Watson Brooke 03:18:20.038
26 197 TRUE Tammy- 03:21:42.001
Yes, those are the WINNERS somehow.
Basically the standards are so low for women that it's caused even medium sized marathons to be pretty slow as most women only reach for a 3:30 as they can more or less walk that and get in.
Ah, the annual “women’s bq’s are too easy” post.
Would it really make you feel better to get in knowing the only reason you were able to was the BAA made it easier for you? In that case why not just run for charity?
They should scale the cut-offs. It's harder to be -4 minutes at 3:05 than slower times. That should give a few seconds back.
Caster Semenya wrote:
Ask Caster Semenya as I think she has found a way around this.
**he**
women at boston wrote:
I actually think Boston is massively unfair to women of childbearing age. Women must deal with all the reasons men that might prevent them from running at Boston - injury, sickness, family obligations - and also pregnancy.
Pregnancy lasts nine months. I would say for an *average* women, it probably takes two years to regain the fitness to qualify for Boston if you are at all marginal after childbirth. Let's say 12 months at an absolute minimum to regain the fitness to COMPLETE Boston. I realize some women who run professionally and some women who are just amazing do it faster ,but that is NOT typical. It took me more than two years after my last pregnancy to get anywhere near pre-pregnancy fitness. Many women suffer injuries that take a LONG time to resolve. Pregnancy is no joke.
Now you can qualify for Boston 2019 between September 2017 and September 2018. Let's say you qualify for Boston in September 2017. You become pregnant in October 2017. Baby is born July 2018. That leaves 10 months to get in shape to complete the race - absolutely not enough time. So, you cannot qualify, become pregnant, and then compete.
So now let's consider the amount of time you must be pregnancy-free to compete in Boston. If you leave qualification until the last minute and qualify in September of 2018, you'll have had to have your baby no later than November of 2016, if you are a runner for whom qualifying presents some level of challenge. (For women who will never be good enough to qualify, or who are so good the qualifying times are not a factor, this discussion is obviously meaningless.) Therefore, in order to complete the race, you'll have to be pregnancy-free for 2.5 years.
Being pregnancy-free for 2.5 years actually means your children are 3.25 years apart. The vast majority of women have their children closer together than that. Let's say your typical woman Boston qualifier (higher than average socioeconomic status) has two kids 2.5 years apart starting at age 28. She's pregnant or recovering from pregnancy from age 27 until 32. No matter what timing she chooses, she loses at least 5 years of opportunity to qualify for Boston.
I would much rather Boston tighten qualifying times for women between 25 and 38 but give women in that age bracket the chance to defer a qualifier by up to three years.
I realize I'm addressing only one age bracket here, but I was mulling this in annoyance this morning as I contemplate another child and the havoc it'll wreak on my ability to run my next marathon.
You could just buy some kids like the Halls did.
Old White Male. wrote:
The 2020 standards for women (specifically older women) needs to be tightened up by 5+mins per age group (leaving the mens times the same), i'm willing to be that the majority of the overqualifiers in Boston are older women running 3:40 - 4:15 easily making everyone else have to overqualify by X amount.
What do you guys think? What gender/age group standard has the most amount of overqualifers?
What will Boston do to correct this?
The Boston Athletic Association won't do anything to change this. They are happy with the mix of runners that they have.
Besides women are apt to spend much more money at the expo than men do.
It took me many attempts to get below my 3:10 qualifying time. I got it on attempt #15.
I ran Boston as a qualifier the following year. I really didn't think much of the course.
Of you think the Boston standards for women are easy, you need to look at London. 45 minutes slower across the board.
https://www.virginmoneylondonmarathon.com/en-gb/how-to-enter/good-age-entry/
Am I living in the twilight zone? The Boston Marathon weather was terrible!
Des Linden: "The entire sport" has changed since she first started running Boston.
Ryan Eiler, 3rd American man at Boston, almost out of nowhere
Matt Choi was drinking beer halfway through the Boston Marathon
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion