How about if you DONT re-qualify at Boston, you can't register for the next one.
This will keep people who don't try and race it out.
How about if you DONT re-qualify at Boston, you can't register for the next one.
This will keep people who don't try and race it out.
About 5,000 BQ at downhill Revel and Tunnel/Jack and Jill "marathons" according to Marathon Guide. These folks can have a lot of trouble requalifying at Boston.
It is those who can requalify at Boston who deserve to run again. Boston is an Olympic Time qualifier course; the Revel and the like are not. Let's hope the BAA uses the OTQ and not just USATF standards in the future. If they did this, there would have been no cutoff this year.
I trained my ass off, peaked at 75 miles a week with daniels 2q, and I just ran a 2:59:35. Last year, same plan but 70mpw, ran a 3:00:16. I took 41 seconds off. I could dedicate two more summers of running, peaking at 75, averaging 68, and still not make it. It's discouraging. I don't have a lot of natural ability but I am willing to put the work in, but that's not good enough. I've been trying to get in since the time was 3:05. If I ran my time 2 years ago I'd be all set. It's all so depressing. :(
gregmacd wrote:
[quote]
What bugs me is that they added a 4th wave and allowed 36,000 runners to run the 100th-anniversary race in 1996 and again in 2014 after the bombings. But then they cut it back to 30,000 and said that was their agreement with local towns. Why the BAA agreed to that, I dunno. Maybe to get free press coverage and create a buzz by restricting supply to increase demand. At least they got a clue, and increased it to 31,500 this year.
But why not always have a 4th wave and 36,000 runners? They announced in their news release: "This year the B.A.A. was unable to accept 3,161 qualifiers due to field size limitations. " What! They could have increased the field to 34,661 and let everyone in, and this would have been still less than the 1996 and 2014 field sizes of 36,000. It's almost like they don't want everyone to get in.
https://help.tcsnycmarathon.org/customer/en/portal/articles/1826954-time-qualifiers
there was no '4th wave' in 1996. there was one mass start with essentially 3 corrals on Main, Grove, and Hayden Rowe
and there were 38,000 - a lot more than the BAA had originally planned on. they greatly underestimated the number of qualifiers they would get.
if i remember correctly, they expected at most 15,000 time qualifiers and got more than 27,000. they had a lottery that year for 5,000 non-qualifier spots. and then several thousand invitees made up the rest of the field
one of the issues is space in Hopkinton. it can handle more than 30,000 but it's not efficient and it's really, really crowded
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.
Because if everyone did that there would still be cuts.
This is literally what has been happening. Cut off moves down, people train harder, cut off moves down, people train harder ...
Instead of limiting bq, they should limit charity runners. Let in everyone who qualifies and fill the rest of the field with charity runners, simply solution.
There has to be a breaking point. It can't keep going down every year. 2021 is supposed to be what, 2:56? Wil 2022 be 2:54?
I'd expect the times to yoyo back at some point. That there is a time threshold and once crossed people won't be pushing to break it, but instead giving up on trying. 2021 could easily go up a minute simply because people see the current 2:58:21 as too difficult.
what if it gets easier wrote:
There has to be a breaking point. It can't keep going down every year. 2021 is supposed to be what, 2:56? Wil 2022 be 2:54?
I'd expect the times to yoyo back at some point. That there is a time threshold and once crossed people won't be pushing to break it, but instead giving up on trying. 2021 could easily go up a minute simply because people see the current 2:58:21 as too difficult.
it's bounced back and forth before...
1:38 for 2014 down to 1:02 for '15...
jumped to 2:28 for 2016 and back down to 2:09 for '17
but then up the next two years... which lead to the latest standards
what if it gets easier wrote:
There has to be a breaking point. It can't keep going down every year. 2021 is supposed to be what, 2:56? Wil 2022 be 2:54?
I'd expect the times to yoyo back at some point. That there is a time threshold and once crossed people won't be pushing to break it, but instead giving up on trying. 2021 could easily go up a minute simply because people see the current 2:58:21 as too difficult.
Hopefully it will bounce back (as I may be able to run a 2:59 or 2:58 in my upcoming marathon, but sure can’t run a 2:57 or less).
My main point was just the absurdity of the other persons statement, as if everyone just runs faster, everyone doesn’t get in, the cut off just move down.