It doesn't matter if those posting on here are lying about easily breaking 3 - it doesn't change the fact that the OP is whining over nothing. I almost threw up in my mouth reading this sob story some guy posted on the KC - Boston Facebook page:
"Anyone else get shafted by the
Boston Athletic Association?
I qualified in Boston under the worst conditions in 123 years and they
Have sent me their regrets. Seems my 2 min 45 sec was not good enough.
It would have been far smarter to choose one the “easy” courses.
Also for 2020 they have set qualifying times 5 min faster"
The mens 18-35 time now with a 15 min buffer is the womens OTQ standard, lol. A womens 18-35 - 15 is a 3:15. Let that sink.
Training Advice/Discussion
Marathon
Report Thread
You are reporting this thread to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum.
-
-
averagejoe_retired wrote:
Agree. Want the women's standards to come down? Then help grow the women's sport. More female runners = more race entrants and a more competitive race. You'll get your 50/50 split and faster qualifying times for women. The alternative attitude - "Why do women have it so easy?" - does nothing to help grow their sport. On a similar note, what is the sport's status regarding equal cash pay-out for female winners?
Why would women get equal pay? Its equal pay for equal performance. Of the best women run 2:20 Marathons they should get paid like 2 :20 male runner -
Haha. Ran 2:38 at 240+lbs off of MAYBE 15 miles per week (mostly weights). No desire to do that again, but i am living proof that a sub-3 is possible for most any male.
-
My gawd, what a whinner you are.
Life is not fair. The everyone gets to play rules are gone when you are an adult. You get what you earn. You did not earn a Boston spot. Period.
The standards are based on how many people they can let in for each age-group and sex. There are not as many female runners. So their standard is easier than the male standard. Just accept that and stop crying.
You have two options: get faster, run longer (as in keep running as you get older - eventually you'll hit an age group where you can qualify). In the meantime, buck it up, dude. Maybe next year, you'll run faster. As Tom Petty said: "Even the losers get lucky sometimes". -
ol' salty wrote:
MRMRMRMR wrote:
Doubt wrote:
What did I just read wrote:
A Woman Faster Than OP wrote:
-women get harassed (or killed) when they go out for training, makes it way less pleasant to get in the mileage necessary to have fast marathon. YOU try and run a 70+ mile week when men are yelling at you and grabbing you. During my current marathon build-up, I have been yelled at, followed, grabbed, and/or threatened multiple times a week. I have cut more than a few runs short just because I am tired of dealing with stupid asshats.
Dear Lord, where are you training, the Attica prison yard?
One of the dillusional crazies.. I’m a 37 year old attractive women, not only does none of this happen to a normal person, the person who typed it probably is the type of person making all women look bad recently with bringing up fake 30 year old rape allegations.
This happens all the time. You are the delusional one. In this very thread there is a gross old man talking about how he wants to run behind young women at Boston so he can stare at their asses.
For example, here is an article about a woman who was followed and groped while out on a jog yesterday morning at Green Lake (a very popular running spot in Seattle). I think this type of behavior is disturbingly commonplace.
https://q13fox.com/2018/09/28/my-life-was-at-risk-woman-on-early-morning-run-attacked-in-seattle/
Also this one: :(
https://wtop.com/dc/2018/09/mother-of-dc-woman-killed-during-a-run-says-she-forgives-killer/slide/1/
Pretty nice area in DC too. -
Ok if you can't run under 3 you are a male hobby jogger.
I know you might think of yourself as a runner but you might not be as good as you think you are.
I'm very Sorry but 7 minute miles is basically jogging. Any human with any talent can break 3. If you can't you have really bad genetics. If 40,000 people get into Boston lets not call it elite.
Now if your running 6:30s we can talk about fast jogging almost running... woman or men running 6 minute pace is definitely running. I'd say anything under 2:45 as a male or female is legit. -
3:00 is easy wrote:
Ok if you can't run under 3 you are a male hobby jogger.
I know you might think of yourself as a runner but you might not be as good as you think you are.
I'm very Sorry but 7 minute miles is basically jogging. Any human with any talent can break 3. If you can't you have really bad genetics. If 40,000 people get into Boston lets not call it elite.
Now if your running 6:30s we can talk about fast jogging almost running... woman or men running 6 minute pace is definitely running. I'd say anything under 2:45 as a male or female is legit.
6:40 pace for 26 miles is not jogging man lol. Smh -
I think that it's great that Boston has decided to make the qualifying standards a little more competitive. This will enhance the feeling of achievement for all runners who are successful in gaining a slot. I believe that these standards are achievable by the vast majority of people who run providing they are willing to put in the necessary training. I am living proof of this as my marathon debut (age 26) was 3:54, I qualified for Boston during my 7th marathon (age 32) with a 3:09 and set my lifetime PB of 2:31 (age 40) in my 13th marathon. The improvement in my times was purely down to a desire to improve and a willingness to train. I was untalented as a youngster and was one of the slowest runners at my school, I recall finishing second to last in the mile when I was 15, believe I ran something like 9 mins.
-
old knackered ex-runner wrote:
I think that it's great that Boston has decided to make the qualifying standards a little more competitive. This will enhance the feeling of achievement for all runners who are successful in gaining a slot. I believe that these standards are achievable by the vast majority of people who run providing they are willing to put in the necessary training. I am living proof of this as my marathon debut (age 26) was 3:54, I qualified for Boston during my 7th marathon (age 32) with a 3:09 and set my lifetime PB of 2:31 (age 40) in my 13th marathon. The improvement in my times was purely down to a desire to improve and a willingness to train. I was untalented as a youngster and was one of the slowest runners at my school, I recall finishing second to last in the mile when I was 15, believe I ran something like 9 mins.
Proof or it didn’t happen -
Just not good enough wrote:
Yeah Okay Boston wrote:
I ran a 3:00:47 and missed my BQ. I had a female friend on FB saying "You got it you just gotta train harder" Um, these times aren't even balanced. Also to all the morons saying "2:5X" is easy, go look up the statistics on it less than .9% of all marathoners ever run that fast. It's unreasonable considering overweight hobbyjogger women can hit a 3:30 so easily.
The mens 18-35 time now with a 15 min buffer is the womens OTQ standard, lol. A womens 18-35 minus 15 is a 3:15. Let that sink.
Stop blaming other people because you’re slow.
A fat male friend has run Boston 3 times and I don’t think he’s a good runner.
He’s never run under 3 though has come really close but then again he’s a couple of decades past his prime.
And 2:5x is easy if you ‘re a good runner with good endurance - clearly you are not one.
I would love to see someone obese/fat running 26 miles at 6:55 pace. That is legit not even possible -
A 70 year old women ran a 3:27 marathon over qualifying for the women’s 18-35 age group.... it’s safe to say the women’s standards are officially a joke.
-
Ed Whitlock ran sub-3 at age 72. So, by the logic of "if a septagenarian can do it must be easy," we're back to women's and men's standards being pretty reasonably aligned. Quit complaining.
