Boston cutoffs are getting ridiculous

A better solution is to make each standard about 15 minutes faster, and let that be the final cutoff. The standards are already very slow and it should actually mean something to qualify.

dfa wrote:

I was surprised just how aggressive these standards are getting higher and higher.

At this rate, 2:55 won't be safe in two years... just think about that.

Yeah, that would require men under the age of thirty-five to complete a marathon within five minutes of the Boston qualifying time of 2:50 that was in place forty years ago for men under the age of forty.

Why is it getting harder to qualify/why are the standards going back down?

Greater participation in the sport? Better training? More international interest? Faster qualifying courses?

Not sure how this is a "better solution" when it hits hard at the Boston Marathon's revenue (would make them have to go to other means to fill field size) AND makes a great race less inclusive. It'd basically turn Boston into the NYC Marathon, which has 9+1 (pretty clear money grab by NYRR) and lottery system (just completely arbitrary) as the other mechanisms for filling in the gaps outside of charity runners and a more prestigious class of runners (2:53 QT, faster standards across the board). So, you could do that or find a system that has more transparency for runners trying to get in (maybe favor first timers, and have those auto standards for runners who have already done a Boston).

well actually wrote:

A better solution is to make each standard about 15 minutes faster, and let that be the final cutoff. The standards are already very slow and it should actually mean something to qualify.

What we need is a running event on par with the Boston Marathon for other distances, and that would take some pressure off of all the demand to get into that one oversubscribed event.

Let's say there was a half marathon of that appeal and draw - I would sign up for that much more wholeheartedly than the Boston Marathon. The big reason for people to do BM for me and many others is because it's the big one.

And if there were some renowned shorter races out there, less people would be drawn to the BM and then the cut-offs would be relaxes (less demand).

The system should be guaranteed entry at 2:40 for open men for example and scale the age and gender groups from there. Everyone else is thrown into a lottery like New York.

The qualifying thing is a big gimmick at this point. I'm your average jogger nowadays and I can roll of the couch and qualify. The standards are really soft.

otter wrote:

The system should be guaranteed entry at 2:40 for open men for example and scale the age and gender groups from there. Everyone else is thrown into a lottery like New York.

The qualifying thing is a big gimmick at this point. I'm your average jogger nowadays and I can roll of the couch and qualify. The standards are really soft.

Honestly, I'm happy for you to be so fast, but that system stinks for just about everyone.

Who likes lotteries? Who likes pay-for-play (9+1)?

I'm glad for you that you if you're in the 18-34 age group, you can just roll off the couch and run 2:57 or faster. Or if you're older you can do the equivalent. That's not true for 99% of the population, who would have to at least put in 3-4 months of 45-50mpw+ at least to sniff that.

So, you might think you're being very cool by thinking the average jogger is easily hitting the fast-improving Boston standards, but you're out of touch with reality.

If you are not running at least 50 miles a week for 3-4 months do you really deserve to get in? That is only about an hour a day of running.

dfa wrote:

I made this year's cut, so I'm not complaining..

But I was surprised just how aggressive these standards are getting higher and higher.

At this rate, 2:55 won't be safe in two years... just think about that.

My proposal: Ban all downhill races with more than 500 feet of net decline (looking at you:)

- Jack and Jill series

- Revel

How about tightening women’s qualifying time 1st?

well actually wrote:

A better solution is to make each standard about 15 minutes faster, and let that be the final cutoff. The standards are already very slow and it should actually mean something to qualify.

This.

In fact, make it 2:30 for open men, on a par with the Tokyo International Marathon.

Would be so much better wrote:

well actually wrote:

A better solution is to make each standard about 15 minutes faster, and let that be the final cutoff. The standards are already very slow and it should actually mean something to qualify.

This.

In fact, make it 2:30 for open men, on a par with the Tokyo International Marathon.

You don't need a 2:30 to get into Tokyo.

try harder wrote:

If you are not running at least 50 miles a week for 3-4 months do you really deserve to get in? That is only about an hour a day of running.

Again this isn’t the Olympic Trials. It’s the Boston Marathon. Only about an hour, I mean...that is if you’re running 7 days a week and still is a pretty hefty commitment of time. Outside of this site I don’t think many would scoff at that. And a lot of people would not hit 2:57 with that. Would I rather have a 2:50 standard where everyone has to run 65+ mpw to reach it on their merit as opposed to a lottery? Uh, no. Pretty obvious why not.

I think the best solution is for the Boston Marathon to say, "Hey, we're holding a marathon on Patriot's Day, and we'll take the fastest people who sign up from each age group. Here's some goal times to aim for, but we can't make any promises until we see who signs up. We'll take as many as we can, but there's only so many people who fit in Hopkinton. If that doesn't work for you, there are lots of great marathons around the country you may want to consider instead of Boston."

That’s essentially what has happened...

dfa wrote:

I made this year's cut, so I'm not complaining..

But I was surprised just how aggressive these standards are getting higher and higher.

At this rate, 2:55 won't be safe in two years... just think about that.

My proposal: Ban all downhill races with more than 500 feet of net decline (looking at you:)

- Jack and Jill series

- Revel

Bro, back in the early 1980s you had to run 2:50:59 or ..you sat home .. I’m not sure what your issue is.

Martymart wrote:

dfa wrote:

I made this year's cut, so I'm not complaining..

But I was surprised just how aggressive these standards are getting higher and higher.

At this rate, 2:55 won't be safe in two years... just think about that.

My proposal: Ban all downhill races with more than 500 feet of net decline (looking at you:)

- Jack and Jill series

- Revel

How about tightening women’s qualifying time 1st?

It they did that, it will be another sausage festival. Women's times are fine. Just ban all stupid downhill races.

dfa wrote:

I made this year's cut, so I'm not complaining..

But I was surprised just how aggressive these standards are getting higher and higher.

At this rate, 2:55 won't be safe in two years... just think about that.

My proposal: Ban all downhill races with more than 500 feet of net decline (looking at you:)

- Jack and Jill series

- Revel

BQ standards dropping is great for the sport! It's inspiring people to work harder and push themselves. It's a fantastic case study of what humans can do when they're inspired to do it. You act like 2:55 is some ridiculous, elite time. It's not. It's more than 45 MINUTES behind the elites. The elites are cooling down as a 2:55 guy is heading up heartbreak hill with another 10K to go still!

In addition, almost everyone qualifies on a much faster course than Boston...because boston is extremely slow. It's run in the middle of the day at a time of year when the weather is usually really bad for racing a marathon. Why make an arbitrary cut for the downhill courses? Why not say any race easier than Boston gets thrown out? Why? Because it's ridiculous. If people want in, they can do what they need to. If that means running 100 miles a week, fine. If that means traveling to Tucson to completely destroy your quads on a downhill course and hope you're not crawling the last 10K, fine.

Yeah, a lot of people will NEVER get that BQ time. But they can choose another marathon!

runnER/DR wrote:

BQ standards dropping is great for the sport! It's inspiring people to work harder and push themselves. It's a fantastic case study of what humans can do when they're inspired to do it.

This. There are so many people training harder than they ever would have just to secure that BQ. The fact that the times keep dropping shows that everyone is working harder.

These boards are so funny. Half the posts are about how slow everyone is these days, and then we threads like this complaining about BQ times dropping and how we need to get rid of qualifying courses.

Moo Goo wrote:

Martymart wrote:

How about tightening women’s qualifying time 1st?

It they did that, it will be another sausage festival. Women's times are fine. Just ban all stupid downhill races.

Yeah, this argument is dumb. All the qualifying times are between 65-70% age grading for men and women, and while men's times are harder, there's also way more men who are applying - supply and demand. It's like auditioning for a play as a kid: if you're a white blonde girl you have to be a lot better to compete above all the other white blonde girls.