Being a little over a month out and with a drop in qualifying standards this year I was just interested in everyone’s thoughts on what this year’s Boston Marathon cut-offs might be?
Being a little over a month out and with a drop in qualifying standards this year I was just interested in everyone’s thoughts on what this year’s Boston Marathon cut-offs might be?
I think unless you are -3:20 there is no way you are getting in.
Jshhshd wrote:
I think unless you are -3:20 there is no way you are getting in.
Even with the new standards?
pakefreeman wrote:
Being a little over a month out and with a drop in qualifying standards this year I was just interested in everyone’s thoughts on what this year’s Boston Marathon cut-offs might be?
I'm guessing it will be back to 2016-2017 numbers: right around 2:30.
As the other poster said, truly think it's going to be 3 mins-ish. Have you seen the amount of BQ'ers even with the new standards? It's not looking good for squeakers. I think the vaporfly's and runners targeting downhill / super flat races is going to shave more time off. In any case, I think in a year or two they will lower the standards again. Then cut-off the super downhill races.
I'm sitting on a BQ-3ish and I'm not getting my hopes up for getting in.
Jshhshd wrote:
I think unless you are -3:20 there is no way you are getting in.
The last time they dropped the standards by 5 minutes, no one was cut. Not going to use that as the absolute answer since it was 7 years ago at this point (i assume there will be a cutoff), but let's just start with that.
From 2014-2019 the average drop per year in cut time was -49 seconds (2 years it slowed down, 4 years it sped up). Of the 4 years that it sped up, the average drop was -1:27. To think that we're going to have a ridiculous outlier like -3:20 is just idiotic.
The BQ rate this year has gone from 10.5% to 9.9%, with a 7.6% overall drop in the total number of qualifiers (-3,600 BQs total). Now, how the times have actualized within those groups is another story and up for speculation.
My Guess: BQ- 1:01
It will be interesting and I wonder what percentage of qualifiers ran downhill courses compared to the past. There are a lot of marathons that have been created for fast times mostly to qualify for Boston in the past few years.
It has to be a high percentage these days since those on the margin with the funds are going to find a downhill course to improve their chances.
I know I ran a downhill course to qualify and think it is about 7 minutes faster than I could have run on a flat course. I found it pretty nice and enjoyable to run a downhill course. I think I will stick to them. I wouldn't count the time as a PR but it serves its purpose to qualify for Boston.
Since 2012, the biggest year to year change was this year's 1:29 hike from 2018's cut-off. Anything faster than BQ minus 1:30 for 2020 would be unusual but it is certainly possible.
You're looking at the data wrong. Despite adjusting the time qualifications 5 minutes, the drop in BQ rate was only 0.6%. Number of Qualifiers for 2020 so far is 44,036, 2019 was 47,640. We are not even done with races that qualify yet!!!
I think the BAA is going to have a tough time when they see all the applications despite tightening the standard. My prediction is they will let a few more qualifiers than past years in to lower the cut-off somewhat. If not, we will see a 3+ minute cut-off. They will need to tighten the standard another 5 minutes next year or the year after.
I think you may be looking at it a bit wrong. The 2019 and 2020 total qualifying numbers are apples to apples. Meaning, the -3,500 delta in qualifiers is true (using the exact same time frame). It's not like the 2020 number will continue to build and surpass the total of 2019. That is, assuming there are no non-comp races that were straight additive to the total.
The other number we aren't factoring in is how many of these BQs will be used for Olympic Trials on Feb 28th. You figure 500+ runners will forgo Boston to run Atlanta.
I admit to incorrectly looking at the 44,036 and 47,640 figure, thanks!
3,000 less BQ'ers in the same time window I don't think is going to help runner's who are squeakers. It further helps the BAA popularize the race and keep the buzz going. I'm no math expert but dropping 3,500 runners out of the equation still will yield a significant cut-off based on previous years qualifiers not accepted that would still be in the range of 2 minutes (though that depends on where people are in that buffer range).
But as you said there there is the Olympic standards push so maybe that drops the time a bit. We shall see in less than two months...
StandCorrectedOn%Figure wrote:
I admit to incorrectly looking at the 44,036 and 47,640 figure, thanks!
3,000 less BQ'ers in the same time window I don't think is going to help runner's who are squeakers. It further helps the BAA popularize the race and keep the buzz going. I'm no math expert but dropping 3,500 runners out of the equation still will yield a significant cut-off based on previous years qualifiers not accepted that would still be in the range of 2 minutes (though that depends on where people are in that buffer range).
But as you said there there is the Olympic standards push so maybe that drops the time a bit. We shall see in less than two months...
With the lower cutoff I suspect a lot of the "serious" male runners in their 30s will be just running a few minutes faster. I (4 minutes below standard) am counting on my fellow women and maybe the veterans not being able to reach the new standard.
I waste no energy or time even thinking about this because it's not something I can control at all.
I know a woman who qualified by like 3 minutes with the new standard and she is absolutely obsessed over what the cutoff might be...the other point where it seems like every other post on social media is about it. Because she is so obsessed with "chasing the unicorn", she has signed up for one of the downhill marathons in Washington just to try to get a better BQ time for 2020.
Not sure your thought on Women and Older runners not being able to reach the new standards. BAA would never do ANYTHING to impede the qualifying rate for Women and Older runners. That's where all the money is. The standards in the end are always going to be disproportionately harder for Men U35 (compared to their Age-Standard) as they spend the least amount on merchandise and the overall "experience"
5kPace wrote:
londonlass wrote:
With the lower cutoff I suspect a lot of the "serious" male runners in their 30s will be just running a few minutes faster. I (4 minutes below standard) am counting on my fellow women and maybe the veterans not being able to reach the new standard.
Not sure your thought on Women and Older runners not being able to reach the new standards. BAA would never do ANYTHING to impede the qualifying rate for Women and Older runners. That's where all the money is. The standards in the end are always going to be disproportionately harder for Men U35 (compared to their Age-Standard) as they spend the least amount on merchandise and the overall "experience"
This. Plus inclusivity is so hot right now.
I got some numbers from findmymarathon.com to write a blog post about the Boston cut-off. According to them, the races that are left until qualifying ends accounted for about 2900 BQs last year. There have also been two new downhill races added that could increase the number a bit - Revel has a new one in Canada and Jack & Jill's added a race in Idaho.
So, it will probably stay close to that -3500 range compared to last year. With the Trials, you may be looking at a net reduction of ~4000.
It will interesting to see how it plays out.
This is a good assessment. We can all fret over the BQ rate not dropping as much as we'd hope. But at the end of the day, we still have no understanding over the average marathon time within those BQs. That's the only way you can really have a good sense. I have a feeling a lot of these BQs are squeakers compared to previous years. We'll hold steady on the cutoff time and drop another 45-90 seconds to a BQ- 1:00 or in that neighborhood.
The guesses I see so far are:
3.:20
2:30
1:01
1:00
It's highly likely all four are underestimating.
I think it will be minimal. The 5 minute tightening is most likely due to VF.