Boston cutoffs are getting ridiculous

Martymart wrote:

How about tightening women’s qualifying time 1st?

Found THAT guy

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

This is the dumbest take, strict Boston standards are a good thing. There are plenty of races for hobby-joggers, not every race needs to cater to them.

2:49.17 when I was running that fast in the 70s. No complaints.

But this speaks volumes, then, doesn't it?

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

[quote]otter wrote:

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.

Bruh,

I'm guessing people who can "just roll off the couch and run 2:57" have spent anywhere between 5 to 20 years training for other distances. In fact they've put in far more work than 99% of the population who need to train 3-4 months immediately prior to a BQ. So quit your moaning and run more.

my 2c wrote:

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."

Or they could say: "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. "

Which, yeah, they do. in red font. on the BQ site.

Why is there a thirty minute gap between men's and women's standards when their world records are less than 14 minutes apart? In any case, all the standards should be higher and there shouldn't be charity (or really downhill marathon qualifiers) exceptions, because the fields are really watered down. I see no reason not to have a 2:50 standard for 18-34 (48+ minutes off the men's world record) and 3:05 or 3:10 for women that age. Fukuoka actually has a 2:42 standard for everyone, I believe. 40 year old men should have to break 3, at least. New York for a long time and maybe still today had a 2:55 open standard for qualifying.

zxczxcv wrote:

Why is there a thirty minute gap between men's and women's standards when their world records are less than 14 minutes apart? In any case, all the standards should be higher and there shouldn't be charity (or really downhill marathon qualifiers) exceptions, because the fields are really watered down. I see no reason not to have a 2:50 standard for 18-34 (48+ minutes off the men's world record) and 3:05 or 3:10 for women that age. Fukuoka actually has a 2:42 standard for everyone, I believe. 40 year old men should have to break 3, at least. New York for a long time and maybe still today had a 2:55 open standard for qualifying.

I'm not so bothered by the slightly softer BQs for women...the goal is to promote more women running in the race (the assumption is that they don't get enough applicants) to something closer to parity, so no big deal for me.

But the NYC standards aren't a bad starting point:

18 to 34 years old (2:53 for men, 3:13 for women)

35 to 39 (2:55 for men, 3:15 for women)

40 to 44 (2:58 for men, 3:15 for women)

45 to 49 (3:05 for men, 3:38 for women)

....

I'd be interested to know what % of NYC runners are time qualifiers, though.

zxczxcv wrote:

Why is there a thirty minute gap between men's and women's standards when their world records are less than 14 minutes apart? In any case, all the standards should be higher and there shouldn't be charity (or really downhill marathon qualifiers) exceptions, because the fields are really watered down. I see no reason not to have a 2:50 standard for 18-34 (48+ minutes off the men's world record) and 3:05 or 3:10 for women that age. Fukuoka actually has a 2:42 standard for everyone, I believe. 40 year old men should have to break 3, at least. New York for a long time and maybe still today had a 2:55 open standard for qualifying.

Why should there even be separate standards for women?

Geeeez wrote:

zxczxcv wrote:

Why is there a thirty minute gap between men's and women's standards when their world records are less than 14 minutes apart? In any case, all the standards should be higher and there shouldn't be charity (or really downhill marathon qualifiers) exceptions, because the fields are really watered down. I see no reason not to have a 2:50 standard for 18-34 (48+ minutes off the men's world record) and 3:05 or 3:10 for women that age. Fukuoka actually has a 2:42 standard for everyone, I believe. 40 year old men should have to break 3, at least. New York for a long time and maybe still today had a 2:55 open standard for qualifying.

Why should there even be separate standards for women?

0/10

Former D3 nobody, couldn’t even qualify for baby nationals, got fat after college and started running again, did like 50-60 mpw for 6 months and ran 2:52 while 25-30 lbs over my college racing weight. I don’t see why people are complaining about 2:55 being the proposed standard.

THOUGHTSLEADER wrote:

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.

50 miles per week isn't the Olympic Trials. Say you put in an 18-20 mile long run on the weekend. That leaves you 5 miles a day for the rest of the week - that's a 40 minute commitment.

An hour a day devoted to exercise is not a hefty time commitment. Most people probably spend 2 or three times that watching TV.

zxczxcv wrote:

Why is there a thirty minute gap between men's and women's standards when their world records are less than 14 minutes apart? In any case, all the standards should be higher and there shouldn't be charity (or really downhill marathon qualifiers) exceptions, because the fields are really watered down. I see no reason not to have a 2:50 standard for 18-34 (48+ minutes off the men's world record) and 3:05 or 3:10 for women that age. Fukuoka actually has a 2:42 standard for everyone, I believe. 40 year old men should have to break 3, at least. New York for a long time and maybe still today had a 2:55 open standard for qualifying.

i see no reason why the BAA or anyone should care how you think it should work

I fail to understand how tightening the standards more than what they're already doing makes any sense. They have a system now where standards are set to a level such that the race fills up (along with some % of charity runners - not a huge fan of this, but I understand why they do it.) If they tightened the standards more, they'd either have to have a smaller field or accept more unqualified charity runners. The race organizers don't want a smaller field, and I don't think anyone here would advocate for accepting more unqualified runners. So, I don't really see what the problem is. The current system isn't perfect, but it's pretty darn good.

NYC has vastly improved their qualifying standards in recent years by adding qualifiers for older runners. I think their system is OK, too, though most runners who run NYC don't get in by time. But it's nice that they have the option. Wish London would add it for American runners!

The BAA is in the business of making money by promoting the sport of running. Hardcore runners are notoriously cheap, fitness enthusiasts are the ones buying a $160 Adidas jacket, a pair of Boston-commemorative shoes, and whatever other expo paraphernalia to prove that they were there. It behooves the BAA to include as many of these folks as possible, because after about the first 100-odd runners, it's all enthusiasts anyway. It doesn't make sense to put on the race for 100 people and it's not profitable.

Tougher standard? Go run 2:19 and be included in America's most exclusive marathon.

bandit the race, plain and simple

One benefit of tighter standards is the race would not sell out in September. Runners could wait until January or February to register. If they set it right the race would sell out somewhere in February or March.

One nice thing about Boston is it is one of the most age group competitive marathons, with some depth across all AGs. BAA needs to balance maintaining depth across the AGs with truly equivalent age-graded qualification standards. I would be against anything that reduces competitiveness.

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

I like it. Boston is a prestigious race. It should be reserved for people who "earn" a spot. Not for people who raise $5000 or run 4 hours. It's Boston!!!

Let the others open their doors to the charity fundraisers and 5 hour marathon joggers.

I do think it's ridiculous to be able to BQ on the fast downhill courses, when Boston isn't a fast downhill course. I think if they just changed the standards for BQ courses, not as many people would bet getting in, and the cutoff wouldn't get much harder.

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

Other Major Marathons with no real history of qualification standards have already implemented stiffer "good for age" standards than Boston. Boston in 1983 required sub 2:50 for men 18-40 (now it's 3:00 for 18-35). Boston also lets in 5+ hour runners. Aside from bringing parity to the womens standards (which I don't foresee them doing), they should make them as stiff as they can so long as they can fill the field. I'm not sure why a race that has historically kept standards for entry should make an effort to accommodate more slow runners than it already does.