Bad news for those of us wanting to BQ for next year’s BostonMarathon

Hmm. I assume you're worried 2:56 won't suffice because you're in the male 18--34 age category?

I suppose one thing to keep in mind is that those results are for all age groups and sexes -- it's debatable, of course, but some argue the standards are easier to achieve in other categories.

But I also suppose that the make-up (distribution across age groups and sexes) of qualifying times for Boston 2020 would be similar to 2019's edition.

Gaining entry last year required exceeding the standards by 4:52. I realize it's predicated on how many people actually apply, but I'd have to assume the improvement amount will only be larger for 2020 (continuing the recent trend). It's interesting to me that they apply this same improvement amount across all categories, irrespective of the number of entrants per category. And that they do so in an absolute fashion, not a relative one.

I'm in the male 35-39 category and have been assuming I'll have to run more than five minutes faster than the 3:05 standard to gain entry.

I could be reading this wrong but it looks like there are actually less. The following link lists the 2020 qualifiers in yellow compared to the number of qualifiers that met the old standard. For example, CIM had 2470 under the old standard (31.6%) and only 2120 under the new standard (27.1%).

http://findmymarathon.com/bestbostonmarathonqualifiers-2018.php

My time from last fall is 26 minutes under my BQ time, so I'm not worried. It's the one silver lining of getting old.

Blame all the should be illegal pure downhill races on the list, which have highest % of qualifiers

San Diego Hobby Jogger wrote:

Blame all the should be illegal pure downhill races on the list, which have highest % of qualifiers

yeah, 13 foot over a mile...it's like a ski slope!!! LOLOLOL!!!!!!!

Can you break 4 hours yet San Diego??????

Boston Creme Pie wrote:

It looks like the new faster BQ times did little to limit the number of runners qualifying.

MORE people BQ’d at Chicago and CIM than did the year before even though the BQs dropped by 5 minutes. And basically the same number of people have qualified compared to same time last year in all races.

http://findmymarathon.com/bostonmarathonqualifiers-2020.php

I’m worried my 2:56 won’t hold up.

RUN FASTER!!!!! I had to break 2:50, get over yourself already. RUN FASTER or stay home.

reader of yellow print wrote:

I could be reading this wrong but it looks like there are actually less. The following link lists the 2020 qualifiers in yellow compared to the number of qualifiers that met the old standard. For example, CIM had 2470 under the old standard (31.6%) and only 2120 under the new standard (27.1%).

http://findmymarathon.com/bestbostonmarathonqualifiers-2018.php

Obviously you are going to have fewer under the new standards than the old standard when looking at the same race because the new standard is tougher - what are you trying to say?

OP is pointing out that there are more under the new standard this year compared to the number under the old standard last year in two of the big qualifying races, despite the tougher standard. NYC will somewhat offset that.

2019 - 22,122

2020 - 21,149

Looks to me like 1,000 less for 2020

You have to remember the weather was nearly ideal for every big fall marathon in 2018 while 2017 had some pretty tough conditions for a lot of races. This has to have a pretty big impact on total number of qualifiers.

San Diego Hobby Jogger wrote:

Blame all the should be illegal pure downhill races on the list, which have highest % of qualifiers

The downhill marathon trend only started in recent years and does not produce a large number if runners. The problem is the non-qualified runners who take spots away. The BAA gives priority to a 5-hour marathoner who raised some money for charity and refuses entry to a runner who runs 3:01 when the qualifying time is 3:05. All qualifiers should get in and the rest of the available spots can go to charity runners.

Revel is not the problem wrote:

San Diego Hobby Jogger wrote:

Blame all the should be illegal pure downhill races on the list, which have highest % of qualifiers

The downhill marathon trend only started in recent years and does not produce a large number if runners. The problem is the non-qualified runners who take spots away. The BAA gives priority to a 5-hour marathoner who raised some money for charity and refuses entry to a runner who runs 3:01 when the qualifying time is 3:05. All qualifiers should get in and the rest of the available spots can go to charity runners.

Actually Revel does produce a lot of BQs. Of corse not as many as the majors, but a lot none the less.

What you need to consider is how many of those downhill marathoners qualified BECAUSE of the course. For example, I qualified for 2020 at Twin Cites this year by 12 minutes. Had I not run TC and instead ran a Revel course I may have qualified by 20 minutes. This does not mean I qualified because of the course; I can qualify on the legal flat course. But statistically speaking, I would be counted as a downhill qualifier. I'm sure there are lots of people who qualify on downhill courses who could also qualify on a flat course. Now, if someone BQs by less than 5 minutes on a Revel course then I'd say the course made the difference. If you looked at the numbers of those who barely qualified it would be a lot less.

wtf is a BQ?

Boston Qualifier, sucka!

ximon wrote:

wtf is a BQ?

BQ = Boston Qualifying (time, for the Boston Marathon)

cmon man :-)

mathsman wrote:

reader of yellow print wrote:

I could be reading this wrong but it looks like there are actually less. The following link lists the 2020 qualifiers in yellow compared to the number of qualifiers that met the old standard. For example, CIM had 2470 under the old standard (31.6%) and only 2120 under the new standard (27.1%).

Obviously you are going to have fewer under the new standards than the old standard when looking at the same race because the new standard is tougher - what are you trying to say?

OP is pointing out that there are more under the new standard this year compared to the number under the old standard last year in two of the big qualifying races, despite the tougher standard. NYC will somewhat offset that.

No he's saying there are fewer runners in 2018 under the new standard than there were in 2017 under the NEW standard, not the old standard, which is what this blog post is saying.

Hardloper wrote:

there are fewer runners in 2018 under the new standard than there were in 2017 under the NEW standard

That's not accurate.

You're right, upon further inspection that isn't accurate, but that's what he was trying to say.

Not all downhill marathons are created equal. Some start at 5,000 feet and end at 500 feet. Others start above 10,000 ft and end near 6,000 feet. Yeah, you are going down a lot, but you are still running at an average of nearly 8,000 ft elevation. That is not easy. Most of the downhill marathons are at relatively high elevations which can negate much of the advantage compared to a flat sea level course.

Performance in downhill marathons (for a given altitude) seems to very closely correlate to how well trained the runner is to running downhill. Runners who don't specifically train for downhills and think they'll just show up crush their PR often just get their legs destroyed and go away disappointed.