seattle prattle wrote:
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.
You’re welcome...
https://sites.google.com/site/tarcdrbdontrunbostonraces/DownhillDownyDown wrote:
San Diego Hobby Jogger wrote:
[quote]DownhillDownyDown wrote:
I think a lot of the downhill courses that are "crazy" are at altitude (otherwise they couldn't be crazy, because you have to be so high to begin with to have crazy downhill). I believe they started as a way to negate the negative effects of altitude. No one can run as fast of a marathon at altitude as they can at sea level. But, they've clearly gone too far. A 1,000 foot drop at 5,000 feet of elevation is still in line with or slightly slower than a flat sea level course. But now they have course with 4-5-6,000 feet of downhill, and that is driven entirely by people wanting easy BQs and easy PBs. So, I think either limit downhill races at altitude to a level of drop that makes it aerobically equal to a flat sea level (around 1,000 feet) or eliminate downhill races and give altitude, flat course an altitude adjustment like they do in the NCAA. Otherwise, runners at altitude are at a major disadvantage and can only qualify by spending money to travel.
Utter stupidity. You maybe spend 20 minutes at altitude that affects you, and you are still going downhill
I have. In the opposite way.. up! Mt baldy and pikes peak ascent
Good take. I think for transparency/clarity just make the standards apply only to first-time runners. Then put it on a rolling basis. Would not make a major impact on the actual standards, but would widen participation/provide a service for the people with the most riding on it. I’m sure there’s some frustration if you’re going for your second or eighth BUT as people have been yelling at me try harder/aim for faster for your place than your first time in.
800 dude wrote:
These cutoffs are "fair" in the sense that qualifying is based completely on merit as a runner. They're "unfair" in the sense that all sports are unfair: Not everybody has the talent to qualify. Some people on this thread seem to be implying that there's something wrong with the new cutoffs because they have this idea that Boston is supposed to be hard but attainable. That's just nonsense.
First, Boston implemented qualifying times because they couldn't handle the numbers. It wasn't part of a plan to be an elite race; it just reflected the mentality at the time that the fairest way to allocate scarce spots was by giving them to the fastest runners. That's still essentially how it works; the cutoffs change organically as a reflection of how many fast people want to race. The standards are not based on anyone's abstract idea of what good challenge would be.
Second, as people on this thread keep demonstrating, there is no qualifying standard that could be generically "hard but attainable" for the majority of people. Some people beat their time by a minute per mile without too much trouble. Others will never get there no matter what they do. Some consider it unreasonable to have to train 12 hours/week while working full time. Some train even more than that just because they enjoy it.
It's frustrating to watch a big accomplishment slip beyond your grasp, but that's sports. I actually think if there's a single most important lesson you can learn from being an athlete, it's that you can do everything right and still lose. At the end of the day, you have to be satisfied with how you fought.
So 0.1% drop is considered downhill? Don’t know, just askin. Thx.
“That's not true for 99% of the population”
Yes, that’s exactly the point. It’s not meant to be an “anyone can participate” event.
Next year I may not make it, need to train harder or just give up.
seattle prattle wrote:
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).
I have run all of the majors, but I actually found it more interesting to try to qualify for the sub-elite sections of major races like Bay to Breakers, Philly Distance Run, etc.
I guess I’m in a better class than people chasing a BQ, though!
800 dude wrote:
First, Boston implemented qualifying times because they couldn't handle the numbers. It wasn't part of a plan to be an elite race; it just reflected the mentality at the time that the fairest way to allocate scarce spots was by giving them to the fastest runners. That's still essentially how it works; the cutoffs change organically as a reflection of how many fast people want to race. The standards are not based on anyone's abstract idea of what good challenge would be.
Very stupid post.
This is not like 100 years ago when the entire field qualified. You know that, right?
A large proportion, many thousands of runners, get into Boston by paying their way in with charity partners.
The marathon decides EXACTLY how many people can buy their way in vs race their way in, which impacts quite predictably and precisely on the cut-off.
So both the QT and the cut-off are very much based on someone’s prioritization of ability vs revenue.
Duh.
I think the BAA is balancing accessibility and exclusivity reasonably well. Based on BM application rates, I would suggest that at least half of the top 10-20% of marathon finishers are aware of what a BQ is and want to run in Boston. And local marathon race directors certainly use the "Boston Qualifier" label pretty liberally on their website - which I think further stimulates interest both in their race and in Boston. Yup, the BAA has bottled a great deal of cachet here - and, although they could probably do what they want, they are smart enough to just tweak the rules every once in a while.
As for the part that the standards play in this, I think it's interesting that they are just tough enough that only about 10% of marathon finishers can boast that they BQ'ed - leaving at least another 10% of finishers knowing that a "reward" is within their sights provided they train a little harder and/or get better conditions on race day. Raise those standards too much and that group that is now 10 minutes off a BQ might just give up. I know many who have - and it's just one more reason they have for not amping up their training. It is those who make subsequent attempts that are good for race organizers everywhere. Not to mention running stores, etc.
I am fairly new to running and to marathons. When I first took up running 6 years ago, I hadn't even thought about running a marathon. Next April, will be my first Boston and now my sights are set on running in other majors as well.
You don’t get wrote:
800 dude wrote:
First, Boston implemented qualifying times because they couldn't handle the numbers. It wasn't part of a plan to be an elite race; it just reflected the mentality at the time that the fairest way to allocate scarce spots was by giving them to the fastest runners. That's still essentially how it works; the cutoffs change organically as a reflection of how many fast people want to race. The standards are not based on anyone's abstract idea of what good challenge would be.
Very stupid post.
This is not like 100 years ago when the entire field qualified. You know that, right?
A large proportion, many thousands of runners, get into Boston by paying their way in with charity partners.
The marathon decides EXACTLY how many people can buy their way in vs race their way in, which impacts quite predictably and precisely on the cut-off.
So both the QT and the cut-off are very much based on someone’s prioritization of ability vs revenue.
Duh.
The real solution is here.
Set the cut off. Let all the runners who met the cut off in and then fill the rest with charity runners, rather than vice versa
The same old complaints. Women, downhill courses and charity runners clogging up Masshole on Patriots Day.
Run, qualify based on your age and gender and shut your whiney mouth. Pathetic hobby joggers. Pinheads. No wonder why people hate runners
The economics of running don't support this race without the charity runners and multitiered qualifying standards.
How many spots are 'lost' to entrants from downhill courses? What's the data to support some of the arbitrary elevation loss suggested in this thread?
BTW. Boston is downhill, point to point and not record eligible for good reason. A little tailwind on a cool day is a recipe for a PB on the course.
Ottawa Runner wrote:
I think the BAA is balancing accessibility and exclusivity reasonably well. Based on BM application rates, I would suggest that at least half of the top 10-20% of marathon finishers are aware of what a BQ is and want to run in Boston. And local marathon race directors certainly use the "Boston Qualifier" label pretty liberally on their website - which I think further stimulates interest both in their race and in Boston. Yup, the BAA has bottled a great deal of cachet here - and, although they could probably do what they want, they are smart enough to just tweak the rules every once in a while.
As for the part that the standards play in this, I think it's interesting that they are just tough enough that only about 10% of marathon finishers can boast that they BQ'ed - leaving at least another 10% of finishers knowing that a "reward" is within their sights provided they train a little harder and/or get better conditions on race day. Raise those standards too much and that group that is now 10 minutes off a BQ might just give up. I know many who have - and it's just one more reason they have for not amping up their training. It is those who make subsequent attempts that are good for race organizers everywhere. Not to mention running stores, etc.
I am fairly new to running and to marathons. When I first took up running 6 years ago, I hadn't even thought about running a marathon. Next April, will be my first Boston and now my sights are set on running in other majors as well.
10% BQ???? BS
More like 4-5% bq.
Thought policer wrote:
Ottawa Runner wrote:
I think the BAA is balancing accessibility and exclusivity reasonably well. Based on BM application rates, I would suggest that at least half of the top 10-20% of marathon finishers are aware of what a BQ is and want to run in Boston. And local marathon race directors certainly use the "Boston Qualifier" label pretty liberally on their website - which I think further stimulates interest both in their race and in Boston. Yup, the BAA has bottled a great deal of cachet here - and, although they could probably do what they want, they are smart enough to just tweak the rules every once in a while.
As for the part that the standards play in this, I think it's interesting that they are just tough enough that only about 10% of marathon finishers can boast that they BQ'ed - leaving at least another 10% of finishers knowing that a "reward" is within their sights provided they train a little harder and/or get better conditions on race day. Raise those standards too much and that group that is now 10 minutes off a BQ might just give up. I know many who have - and it's just one more reason they have for not amping up their training. It is those who make subsequent attempts that are good for race organizers everywhere. Not to mention running stores, etc.
I am fairly new to running and to marathons. When I first took up running 6 years ago, I hadn't even thought about running a marathon. Next April, will be my first Boston and now my sights are set on running in other majors as well.
10% BQ???? BS
More like 4-5% bq.
He's right - it ranges between 10-12% depending on the year.
https://www.podiumrunner.com/what-percent-of-marathon-finishers-go-on-to-run-the-boston-marathon_126494Boston McBostonFace wrote:
Thought policer wrote:
10% BQ???? BS
More like 4-5% bq.
He's right - it ranges between 10-12% depending on the year.
https://www.podiumrunner.com/what-percent-of-marathon-finishers-go-on-to-run-the-boston-marathon_126494
That's old data. Not the same % today. More like 4-5% is probably the range.
Thought policer wrote:
Boston McBostonFace wrote:
He's right - it ranges between 10-12% depending on the year.
https://www.podiumrunner.com/what-percent-of-marathon-finishers-go-on-to-run-the-boston-marathon_126494That's old data. Not the same % today. More like 4-5% is probably the range.
Bro. It has been that way for a while -this year 10.1%. Last year 10.8%.
Another link
https://findmymarathon.com/bostonmarathonqualifiers-2020.phpWhy not limit the number of times an individual (with the exception of elites and maybe people from the Boston area) can run Boston to, say, 3 times? That should free up more spaces for those who meet the qualifying time.
Trondheim wrote:
Why not limit the number of times an individual (with the exception of elites and maybe people from the Boston area) can run Boston to, say, 3 times? That should free up more spaces for those who meet the qualifying time.
How about you can'r re-qualify at Boston.
better idea wrote:
Trondheim wrote:
Why not limit the number of times an individual (with the exception of elites and maybe people from the Boston area) can run Boston to, say, 3 times? That should free up more spaces for those who meet the qualifying time.
How about you can'r re-qualify at Boston.
Because the runners that are good enough to requalify at Boston are especially deserving to run it again (unlike myself, qualified and ran in Boston last 2 years, but couldn't manage to requailfy there.) It's a good system, merit based, by age group. It's a privilege, not an entitlement.
Or, how about if everyone who wants to be sure they’ll get in trains hard enough to make sure the cutoff won’t be an issue? I mean, c’mon people, a 5min-ish buffer to guarantee entry is like 10sec/mi. Just make it happen. Arbitrary methods that place the accountability on anyone other than the runner themself are distorted and likely to yield more problems than they solve.
Cappy McJewinstein wrote:
Or, how about if everyone who wants to be sure they’ll get in trains hard enough to make sure the cutoff won’t be an issue? I mean, c’mon people, a 5min-ish buffer to guarantee entry is like 10sec/mi. Just make it happen. Arbitrary methods that place the accountability on anyone other than the runner themself are distorted and likely to yield more problems than they solve.
Last year people did have a 5 minuteish buffer and still didn’t get in.
10/sec mike is nothing? You obviously never ran a marathon.