2020 Boston Marathon Cut Off Predictions

WaitingGame wrote:

I ran a 2:58 in Chicago '18 which is nothing super impressive but more worthy of Boston than a 3:27 marathon by some 30 year old woman on a bullshit Revel/Downhill course.

You won't be missed with that attitude.

800 dude wrote:

WaitingGame wrote:

They're walking a fine line with having an appeal of Boston and turning off runners due to the cutoff issues. Personally, this is it for me. I ran a 2:58 in Chicago '18 which is nothing super impressive but more worthy of Boston than a 3:27 marathon by some 30 year old woman on a bullshit Revel/Downhill course. If i don't get in with a 2:58 i'll be going for a 2:50 this coming Spring, but will opt to run NYC over Boston. And from there, absolutely choose Berlin/Tokyo in the future before i ever consider Boston again.

Maybe i'm in the minority there, but the other races have a better process and i think more appropriate gender/age times to put yourself against (15-20 minute gaps, not 30 minutes).

If you can't qualify for Boston, you're definitely not qualifying for Berlin or Tokyo.

Well if you read my post again and put on a 3rd grade reading comprehension hat, you'll see my next goal would be to qualify for NYC. I was in 2:53-2:55 shape for this Spring '19 race and got 85+ and humid on race day. Still finished 33rd overall (top 2%) but with a weak time. No reason to think i won't go sub-2:53 for NYC 2020. We'll see what happens but a 5 minute PR isn't anything crazy. Maybe you think differently.

From there, I indicated clearly that Berlin/Tokyo would be my next goals. Never indicated if it would be 2020 or 2025. Just stating they would be next on my list.

deuces wrote:

WaitingGame wrote:

I ran a 2:58 in Chicago '18 which is nothing super impressive but more worthy of Boston than a 3:27 marathon by some 30 year old woman on a bullshit Revel/Downhill course.

You won't be missed with that attitude.

Don't worry, wouldn't expect it. Thanks for your input.

WaitingGame wrote:

deuces wrote:

You won't be missed with that attitude.

Don't worry, wouldn't expect it. Thanks for your input.

Why don’t you aim for 2:47 and actually get qualified..?

We get it. The hot girl at work turned you down. Now you're telling us how ugly she is. Elbows too sharp, eh?

WaitingGame wrote:

deuces wrote:

You won't be missed with that attitude.

Don't worry, wouldn't expect it. Thanks for your input.

Anyone who thinks they are more worthy of a spot than anyone else is a tool.

Jzs wrote:

WaitingGame wrote:

Don't worry, wouldn't expect it. Thanks for your input.

Why don’t you aim for 2:47 and actually get qualified..?

I could. The point of my post wasn't to crap on the BAA even though it came off that way (probably sounding bitter/childish). It will always have the crazy demand, especially in America. My point was that as my times decrease, i'll be more interested in races that i feel have more just qualifying standards with regard to age and gender.

How old are you? 2:58 would be a good time for 40-44 or 35-39 with a decent cushion for Boston...or maybe with the 30 year old woman comment your just trolling...go qualify and run NY...it's a bit harder to do, but no worries on cutoff times and it's a really fun race. Or just run 5 minutes faster than needed for Boston and enjoy that too...it's all good!

WaitingGame wrote:

No reason to think i won't go sub-2:53 for NYC 2020. We'll see what happens but a 5 minute PR isn't anything crazy. Maybe you think differently.

From there, I indicated clearly that Berlin/Tokyo would be my next goals......

My next goal is to crush you. Any time, any place. You're puny legs running 2:53 won't be any match for me.

*your

deuces wrote:

WaitingGame wrote:

Don't worry, wouldn't expect it. Thanks for your input.

Anyone who thinks they are more worthy of a spot than anyone else is a tool.

That’s a stupid opinion, obviously it is up to debate which standard is relatively harder and if someone qualified with an arguably harder standard they are more worthy of a spot.

Free_the_thigh wrote:

deuces wrote:

Anyone who thinks they are more worthy of a spot than anyone else is a tool.

That’s a stupid opinion, obviously it is up to debate which standard is relatively harder and if someone qualified with an arguably harder standard they are more worthy of a spot.

If you think that you are "more worthy" of a spot in a race because you ran a time somewhere that is objectively more difficult, then you are a loser.

NERunner053 wrote:

I think they gotta try to address the super super downhill courses. I'm not talking their own race or CIM but something like St. George that drops more than 2,000 feet. You can have someone run the Berlin Marathon in 2:58 and someone run 2:57 at St. George and the St. George runner gets in. The St. George runner also gets a lower bib and maybe even a better corral.

Let us suppose that the BAA decided to do just that, putting in a rule that they would not consider qualifying times achieved on courses with greater than say a 500' net descent from start to finish.

What would be the subsequent effect on the future of those races (St George, the Revel series, Tunnel marathons) . Would they continue to exist after being relegated to non-qualifying status?

Agree with this. This time is 8:38 below last year's standard. Based on the reduced numbers of qualifiers in US marathons this year (against the tougher standards), it appears that the new standards have swept aside a huge number of squeakers. You shouldn't have a problem. My guesss (and that's all it is) is that the cut-off will be around 1-2 minutes.

Applicants' times are not going to be randomly distributed as you would expect but they are going to be clustered around various goal times.

It's interesting that, with a database of 3 million finishers in the linked chart, there isn't a smooth bell curve around a defined median but rather we see spikes at 3 hours, 3:30, 4 hours, 4:30 and 5 hours - which are obvious goal finishing times. Plugging my age and gender data into this calcluator, my 3:30-ish PR is about 40 minutes faster than the median but there is a higher number of marathoners who finished 5 minutes faster than I did. I would reason that this is the influence of (a) 3:30 as an obvious goal for casual marathoners aged 50-59 and (b) the influence of BQ thresholds in the 50-54 and 55-59 age groups. So, there are very real goal-influenced clusters in marathon finishers' times.

The question on everybody's minds is if 5 minutes (the change in BQ thresholds from last year) is enough for the BAA to shift the line to below the clusters that they see in the application data they have. Sure, the new BQ marks will just create new clusters around new goals - the question is if marathoners are up to that challenge. I suspect that it will take a few years before the BAA will have to reassess and potentially move their thresholds again.

In the meantime, I think that 3:38 under will be fine for 2020.

WaitingGame wrote:

800 dude wrote:

If you can't qualify for Boston, you're definitely not qualifying for Berlin or Tokyo.

Well if you read my post again and put on a 3rd grade reading comprehension hat, you'll see my next goal would be to qualify for NYC. I was in 2:53-2:55 shape for this Spring '19 race and got 85+ and humid on race day. Still finished 33rd overall (top 2%) but with a weak time. No reason to think i won't go sub-2:53 for NYC 2020. We'll see what happens but a 5 minute PR isn't anything crazy. Maybe you think differently.

From there, I indicated clearly that Berlin/Tokyo would be my next goals. Never indicated if it would be 2020 or 2025. Just stating they would be next on my list.

I ran 2:47 this spring and just received my confirmed 2020 Boston acceptance. Not an impressive time or difficult to reach, in fact I only started running in 2017 to lose weight. Why don't you just train a little harder so you don't have to worry about too many other people being faster than you?

deuces wrote:

Free_the_thigh wrote:

That’s a stupid opinion, obviously it is up to debate which standard is relatively harder and if someone qualified with an arguably harder standard they are more worthy of a spot.

If you think that you are "more worthy" of a spot in a race because you ran a time somewhere that is objectively more difficult, then you are a loser.

Are you stupid?

That is how qualifying times work. The person with the faster time is allowed to race, the other isn’t. They literally are more worthy?

Boston isn’t a lottery, faster you are the more worthy you are to run.

Why didn’t you run quicker then, after all if 2:47 is not difficult surely you could have run faster if you weren’t such a slacker

Free_the_thigh wrote:

nothing impressive wrote:

I ran 2:47 this spring and just received my confirmed 2020 Boston acceptance. Not an impressive time or difficult to reach, in fact I only started running in 2017 to lose weight. Why don't you just train a little harder so you don't have to worry about too many other people being faster than you?

Why didn’t you run quicker then, after all if 2:47 is not difficult surely you could have run faster if you weren’t such a slacker

Yeah definitely could have, but I'm happy running 50-60 mpw in training and having a few beers with friends instead of devoting three-four months of social life to running and being slightly faster. Still easily qualified for Boston again so who cares? Will probably get under 2:45 either this fall or at 2020 Boston but I'm not particularly interested in running Berlin so it's not of much consequence. The difference is I'm not the one complaining about qualifying for Boston being too hard, and I still wouldn't be even if I could only run 2:58. It's not a particularly tough standard for those who desire it.

Ran Erie last weekend and finished in a 2:56:04 (my first marathon too! I'm hooked now). I finished in the top 40ish or so, but people were saying this year was more difficult than previous. I didn't see anything wrong other than maybe being a few degrees above what I'd prefer, but nothing to write home about.

Hoping this ends up being good enough to get in, but I'm just happy to say I'm a marathoner now :) Good luck to everyone else! Hope to see all of you April 20th.