Women have it easier as with older runners because they don't want a stag party of 18-29 year olds at Boston. It's plain and simple.
Women have it easier as with older runners because they don't want a stag party of 18-29 year olds at Boston. It's plain and simple.
I sure would like to see Boston get rid of the "cut-off" time and just let everyone in, especially if its just about 1000 runners being excluded. Runners who qualify for Boston should know the instant that they crossed the line. Waiting a year or so, and wondering whether to run another marathon for a better time, has stripped away the glory that was once Boston.
Why not treat the charity runners the same way:
"Due to field size limitations, achieving one's charity goal of $5,000 does not guarantee entry into the event, but simply the opportunity to submit for registration. Once the number of qualified runners are determined, we will release the adjusted charity amount required to guarantee entry into the event."
LetThemIn wrote:
Waiting a year or so, and wondering whether to run another marathon for a better time, has stripped away the glory that was once Boston.
Lol, based on what? Your hurt feelings?
DUMB DUMB DUMB wrote:
Tunnel Light 2019 is good for BQ 2020 and 2021. I assume it's a double BQ type race each year.
I only copy/pasted from findmymarathon BQ 2020/2019 stats page. If people are using that for calculations they are screwing sh1t up.
Tunnel Light is a fairly meaningless marathon in the grand scheme of 45k+ qualifiers over the last year. Nothing is getting screwed up.
Run BQ-5, it will assure you a spot. Yes, it's hard for us hobbyjoggers, it's supposed to be.
LetThemIn wrote:
I sure would like to see Boston get rid of the "cut-off" time and just let everyone in, especially if its just about 1000 runners being excluded. Runners who qualify for Boston should know the instant that they crossed the line. Waiting a year or so, and wondering whether to run another marathon for a better time, has stripped away the glory that was once Boston.
Why not treat the charity runners the same way:
"Due to field size limitations, achieving one's charity goal of $5,000 does not guarantee entry into the event, but simply the opportunity to submit for registration. Once the number of qualified runners are determined, we will release the adjusted charity amount required to guarantee entry into the event."
Back in the day men 18-39 had to run 2:50:59 or better... today they let you bums in. You run 2:43:10 ..you knew the second you crossed the line and wiped the tears off your face..you knew you made it to Boston.
Not really relevant, but 278 runners from China have been accepted to Boston thus far. 507 in total were accepted LY.
I'm always interested in how many from China get in with their cheating culture.
ChinaChina wrote:
Not really relevant, but 278 runners from China have been accepted to Boston thus far. 507 in total were accepted LY.
I'm always interested in how many from China get in with their cheating culture.
The cheating has become a bit common in every country to nab a BQ (or Instagram likes or fame within your doctors group). All you have to do to spot them is scan splits at any big city marathon or even smaller marathons if they even offer splits. Just by the numbers, there will far more cheats that sneak into Boston from the USA than from any other country.
pattylover2001 wrote:
If BAA was fair, they would not give women a 30 mins leeway from the mens. That would change the percentage down a bit. Follow New York, like a 15-20 mins is plenty of time.
I'd much rather they not make it harder for women to qualify.
USA USA wrote:
ChinaChina wrote:
Not really relevant, but 278 runners from China have been accepted to Boston thus far. 507 in total were accepted LY.
I'm always interested in how many from China get in with their cheating culture.
The cheating has become a bit common in every country to nab a BQ (or Instagram likes or fame within your doctors group). All you have to do to spot them is scan splits at any big city marathon or even smaller marathons if they even offer splits. Just by the numbers, there will far more cheats that sneak into Boston from the USA than from any other country.
By the total numbers, sure. I'm not hating on it. As you say, it's part of the game. But the density of cheaters over there are far greater than here.
In anycase, they spend a ton of money. So i'll take it. Helps the local economy more.
runner stat guy wrote:
Ottawa Runner wrote:
Applications for us squeakers starts at 10 am Eastern today.
Over the weekend, it rained and I was bored and crunched some numbers:
Last year US qualifiers vs this year: 49,812 vs 45,769
Last year Boston spots awarded to qualifiers vs total applications: 23,074 vs 30,458
Last year Boston applicants who would not meet this year's BQ marks: 7,604
Last year Boston applicants who did 5-10 mins better than last year's BQ: 8,545
Last year, Boston applicant squeakers were distributed roughly 28 applicants per second over those accepted under the 10 minute mark
Note applicants are international and US qualifiers are not so the populations are not easily comparable
So...
The number of US qualifiers this year is down 4,043 from last year but if runners' efforts/results had been the same as last year, we should have expected that number to be down 7,604. In other words, 3,561 more runners qualified this year than expected if all things remained constant. Last year, only 61% of BQ qualifiers applied but a good chunk of those who applied last year (53%) would be this year's squeakers but these may still be distributed at roughly 28 runners per second as they were last year. If the same ratios hold this year and 61% of those 3,561 runners apply...
Therefore...
I expect roughly 9,200 spots to be open today for roughly 10,717 squeakers who will apply. That suggests a cut-off of around 54 seconds faster than the standard.
Using the accepted list provided at
http://registration.baa.org/2020/cf/Public/iframe_EntryLists.cfmthere are approximately 15875 people already accepted which would leave at most 7,200 open spots (assuming the same field size as last year), not 9,200. I would expect that the number of accepted applications from last week will also climb.
Now sitting at 16,740 applicants accepted. That leaves ~6300 spots remaining if the field size remains the same as last year.
runner stat guy wrote:
runner stat guy wrote:
Using the accepted list provided at
http://registration.baa.org/2020/cf/Public/iframe_EntryLists.cfmthere are approximately 15875 people already accepted which would leave at most 7,200 open spots (assuming the same field size as last year), not 9,200. I would expect that the number of accepted applications from last week will also climb.
Now sitting at 16,740 applicants accepted. That leaves ~6300 spots remaining if the field size remains the same as last year.
Seems like we’re still trending towards a ~1min cutoff. Thanks for the update.
The BAA just tweeted the following:
"The @BAA applauds all who have risen to the challenge of the new #BQ standards! We continue taking submissions, closing registration tomorrow at 5pm ET. Due to field size limitations, we are unable to accept all qualifiers who submitted applications for next April’s race."
This is the first time (I think) that the BAA has explicitly stated that they will not accept all qualifiers for 2020. Thus, there will be a cut-off below the qualifying standard. This isn't surprising, but there were a fair number of people who thought that the BAA might expand the field size to accept all qualifiers under the new standards -- that does not appear to be the case.
BAA just tweeted - there will be a cutoff this year. Sorry to those who were holding out for a field size increase large enough to accommodate all qualifiers.
Just posted on Twitter (so much for letting everyone in):
Boston Marathon
@bostonmarathon
@BAA
applauds all who have risen to the challenge of the new #BQ standards! We continue taking submissions, closing registration tomorrow at 5pm ET. Due to field size limitations, we are unable to accept all qualifiers who submitted applications for next April’s race.
evandmiller wrote:
The BAA just tweeted the following:
"The @BAA applauds all who have risen to the challenge of the new #BQ standards! We continue taking submissions, closing registration tomorrow at 5pm ET. Due to field size limitations, we are unable to accept all qualifiers who submitted applications for next April’s race."
This is the first time (I think) that the BAA has explicitly stated that they will not accept all qualifiers for 2020. Thus, there will be a cut-off below the qualifying standard. This isn't surprising, but there were a fair number of people who thought that the BAA might expand the field size to accept all qualifiers under the new standards -- that does not appear to be the case.
That same message has been included in their note on their website when you go through registration. This is not new.
read it read it wrote:
evandmiller wrote:
The BAA just tweeted the following:
"The @BAA applauds all who have risen to the challenge of the new #BQ standards! We continue taking submissions, closing registration tomorrow at 5pm ET. Due to field size limitations, we are unable to accept all qualifiers who submitted applications for next April’s race."
This is the first time (I think) that the BAA has explicitly stated that they will not accept all qualifiers for 2020. Thus, there will be a cut-off below the qualifying standard. This isn't surprising, but there were a fair number of people who thought that the BAA might expand the field size to accept all qualifiers under the new standards -- that does not appear to be the case.
That same message has been included in their note on their website when you go through registration. This is not new.
The website and everything until now has said that a qualifying time does not guarantee entry. This is the first time the BAA has confirmed that would be the case for 2020.
This is actually what the site has always said:
Due to field size limitations, achieving one's qualifying standard does not guarantee entry into the event, but simply the opportunity to submit for registration.
This is a more direct response that they are now unable to accept all qualifiers. Not that they may be unable, but they are unable. Cutoff is happening, and I sweat more.
BQ-3:34
evandmiller wrote:
read it read it wrote:
That same message has been included in their note on their website when you go through registration. This is not new.
The website and everything until now has said that a qualifying time does not guarantee entry. This is the first time the BAA has confirmed that would be the case for 2020.
That exact same sentence was in my "Registation Application has been received" email. This is not the first time BAA has said this.
The BAA probably tweeted this out just now because they surpassed their allowance (whether that is 23k, who knows). They've basically indicated there would be a cutoff the whole time, but this just confirms the've exceeded space.
So to me, this means it took roughly 2 days of 2nd week registrations to exceed 23k BQs (or whatever the number is).