Boston Marathon qualifying articles

[Doonst]

-5 minutes reduction across the board.
-shorter 12 or 13 month qualifying window, so you only get one Boston per qualifier. maybe Dec 01-Dec 01.
-some tightening of unqualified runners.

[Hammie]

I wonder if they might start making people run qualifying times based on their age on qualifying day, not Boston Marathon day (ie if you're 39 on your BQ day, you need to qualify as a 39 year old, even if you're 40 on race day). I would be curious to know how many people that would affect.

Otherwise, I'd expect:
5 min decrease for women <40, but not for men <40
5 min decrease for everyone >40
Lose the 59 seconds grace
12 month qualifying period

[La]

My votes are for:

12-month qualifying window (but grandfathering those who've already qualified for 2012).
Losing the 59 seconds
Age on qualifying race day (not BQ race day)
Reduction of 5 minutes for the 45-49AG.

[Tori]

My guess is:

-Reduction of 5 minutes across the board for males
-Reduction of 10 minutes across the board for females
-Lose the 59 seconds grace

I don't think they will go as low as the 1980's qualifying times though.

[canalrunner]

Good ideas.

My guesses/suggestions are:

-Reduction of 5 minutes for males starting at 45 year old males (3:30 becomes 3:25)
-Reduction of 10 minutes across the board for females
-Lose the 59 seconds grace (and lose the ablity to write in and explain another minute--what is this, Oprah?)
-One year qualifying period
-One BQ time gets you one BQ --likely solved by shorter qualifying period (no more fall marathon BQ gets you two Bostons)
-BQ time needed based on age when you run qualifying time
-Preference to faster BQ times regardless of age or gender (this isn't New York)
-Hybrid entry (combo BQ and charity bibs)
-Slight increase in field--slight decrease in non-qualifying entrants
-No grandfathering/mothering, no transition period: need to run a BQ in 2011 for 2012 (maybe harsh but even typing this, it seems silly that you can already be qualified for the 2012 Boston Marathon given the problem and need for change)

They need to get this done.

[Jwolf]

-Lose the 59 seconds grace (and lose the ablity to write in and explain another minute--what is this, Oprah?)

To be fair, there never was any "explaining". You just simply sent in the entry. That has already been eliminated anyway, since the race filled up on-line.

[canalrunner]

-Lose the 59 seconds grace (and lose the ablity to write in and explain another minute--what is this, Oprah?)

To be fair, there never was any "explaining". You just simply sent in the entry. That has already been eliminated anyway, since the race filled up on-line.

To be fair, it made no sense either way.

Whatever changes they make, it is likely that there will be more time than this year, but it will likely not return to earlier when you could run the Houston Marathon at the end of January and register.

[SteveF]

I agree about the shorter qualifying window - I had no idea that a fall BQ could work for two Bostons!
Tighten the standards for all under 40s, the 18-34 MENS should be 3:00 at the most, 35-40 closer to 3:05. Tighten the 18-34 FEMALES alot, at least to 3:20.
No extra :59s, no write ins.

[alexk]

Steve, 3:20 for F 34 and under - that's fast. I don't know too many women who can run that (could count them on one hand) and I know lots of women runners (of all ages). Maybe keep M at 3:10 and change F to 3:30 (34 and under)? NYC's Q time for F 39 and under is 3:23; men is 2:55...but they also have a lottery. I think Boston has grown because its Q times, though tough, are attainable. It'd be nice if they stayed that way.

[Jwolf]

Those suggestions (Steve's) are decent good ones but would likely limit the field too much. The BAA has to find a balance between times that are more challenging but not so much that they shrink the field too much. And enough such that they don't have this problem again in a few years.

I really doubt that any age-group would tighten by 20 minutes.

[rambo999]

Tighten the standards for all under 40s, the 18-34 MENS should be 3:00 at the most, 35-40 closer to 3:05.

Are you kidding?
I think the 3:10 is a big big challenge already and you want to shorten TWO age categories faster than that?!

[canalrunner]

New York has those type of qualifying standards and doesn't draw that many qualifying runners. Aside from their bizarreness in allowing qualifying through a half marathon time, the NYQ times would be the extreme limit of lBQ times. To get 20,000 qualified runners at Boston, you probably want slightly easier times. You could add 5 iminutes, perhaps 10 minutes, to the times below and come out with reasonable BQ times. Definitely challenging but likely appropriate. Also note that for New York there is no 59 second gift and it is age on the day of the qualifying race.

Open (Age 18-39) Masters (Age 40+) Veterans (Age 50+) Veterans (Age 60+)

NYQ Men 2:55:00 3:10:00 3:30:00 3:45:00
Women 3:23:00 3:38:00 3:52 4:13.00

* All times must be run at, or faster than, the posted time.
** Your age on the day of the qualifying race.

They really need to get on with the decision and they should forget a transition period. There are still at least two marathons (spring and fall 2011) for people to qualify for 2012 if they set the deadlines right. No need to allow 2010 times.

[mcshame]

No need to allow 2010 times.

Booo!!! Hissss!!!! I'm glad you don't run the organization there. They need to find a balance in the transition not to piss a bunch of people off. People like me training in 2010 with the goal of qualifying. to throw away that year of my life and accomplishment would not be well received.

[Jwolf]

No need to allow 2010 times.

Booo!!! Hissss!!!! I'm glad you don't run the organization there. They need to find a balance in the transition not to piss a bunch of people off. People like me training in 2010 with the goal of qualifying. to throw away that year of my life and accomplishment would not be well received.

+1

In the article they indicate that they intend to honor times run in the traditional qualifying window for 2012-- but I hope that means the old times as well as the old window.

[chunkymonkeymelonhed]

No need to allow 2010 times.

Booo!!! Hissss!!!! I'm glad you don't run the organization there. They need to find a balance in the transition not to piss a bunch of people off. People like me training in 2010 with the goal of qualifying. to throw away that year of my life and accomplishment would not be well received.

DOUBLE Boo !!!! Hiss!!!!!!!!

They definately don't want to piss off me or Lorne

[canalrunner]

No need to allow 2010 times.

Booo!!! Hissss!!!! I'm glad you don't run the organization there. They need to find a balance in the transition not to piss a bunch of people off. People like me training in 2010 with the goal of qualifying. to throw away that year of my life and accomplishment would not be well received.

I hear you and they may not do it for that reason and because so many people who had qualifying times for 2011 got shut out by the one day sell-out. That was unfair to both spring and fall Boston qualifiers. That being said, people who qualified in fall 2010 and are running in the 2011 Boston, shouldn't be able to run again in 2012 based on the same BQ race.

They definitely need to fix this for 2012. My comment is that from a logic, numbers and opportunity to requalify for 2012 in 2011 perspective, they likely don't need to have transition measures. At some point, a change in BQ times will be 'unfair' to someone and someone will be pissed off. New times--old window, new times--new window, old times--new window, old times, old window. It is bound not to work for someone. I am not a big fan of temporary measures. Regardless of what they do, your runs in 2010 were stellar and certainly nothing to throw away. If you are not running in Boston 2011, I certainly would want you running in Boston 2012.

[Jwolf]

At some point, a change in BQ times will be 'unfair' to someone and someone will be pissed off.

There will definitely be people upset no matter what, but it would be pretty bad form for them to not allow those that think they've already qualified for 2012 to be able to register. That would include anyone that ran what they thought were qualifying marathons from late Sept 2010 to whenever they announce the changes. Most of these people will NOT be running Boston 2011 since the qualifying window for 2012 started just weeks before the registration date for 2011. Most ran after 2011 was full, assuming they were aiming for the next year anyway.

Of course they can do whatever they want, but they want to keep as many people happy as possible. They also want to make sure they don't have to make changes again soon. But a transition year seems inevitable.

[mcshame]

No need to allow 2010 times.

Booo!!! Hissss!!!! I'm glad you don't run the organization there. They need to find a balance in the transition not to piss a bunch of people off. People like me training in 2010 with the goal of qualifying. to throw away that year of my life and accomplishment would not be well received.

I hear you and they may not do it for that reason and because so many people who had qualifying times for 2011 got shut out by the one day sell-out. That was unfair to both spring and fall Boston qualifiers. That being said, people who qualified in fall 2010 and are running in the 2011 Boston, shouldn't be able to run again in 2012 based on the same BQ race.

They definitely need to fix this for 2012. My comment is that from a logic, numbers and opportunity to requalify for 2012 in 2011 perspective, they likely don't need to have transition measures. At some point, a change in BQ times will be 'unfair' to someone and someone will be pissed off. New times--old window, new times--new window, old times--new window, old times, old window. It is bound not to work for someone. I am not a big fan of temporary measures. Regardless of what they do, your runs in 2010 were stellar and certainly nothing to throw away. If you are not running in Boston 2011, I certainly would want you running in Boston 2012.

I'm just playing , a bit. It's difficult to do be detached from this decision emotionally as so much of us goes into achieve the qualifying time. Being at the end of the season, I'm tired and the thought of re-qualifying at a higher standard is sobering. But I'm sure if they were to change it, I would find the fire and reserves to do it again.

If I were the BAA, I would do what was necessary to maintain the organizations integrity and business model.

[alexk]

I didn't know you could use a Q time twice if it was a fall marathon. They should dump this one, for sure. I'm using my Chicago 2009 time this year because it's the best of my 3 times and will give me the best start but I didn't run last year; if I did, I don't think it would have been fair for me to use it again. No double dipping, I guess!

[Kimdawg]

I'm hoping to run Boston 2012. I qualified at the Hamilton marathon in November with a 3:56:27. It's funny, when we were running (I ran with 2 friends), I kept thinking in the back of my mind that we should be pushing for at least a 3:55 in case the qualifying times change but one of my buddies was having a rough time around the 32k mark so we stayed together and I'm really glad we did. It just wouldn't be the same if the 3 of us didn't go together. We just have to hope that they "grandfather" our times in if they change and that we all manage to get registered.

[RayMan]

I didn't know you could use a Q time twice if it was a fall marathon. They should dump this one, for sure. I'm using my Chicago 2009 time this year because it's the best of my 3 times and will give me the best start but I didn't run last year; if I did, I don't think it would have been fair for me to use it again. No double dipping, I guess!

I always find this train of thought interesting - the BAA decides what's "fair", it's not meant to accommodate everyone's moral compass. When I played basketball a 10-foot rim seemed unfair but I tried my hardest anyway...

[mcshame]

I didn't know you could use a Q time twice if it was a fall marathon. They should dump this one, for sure. I'm using my Chicago 2009 time this year because it's the best of my 3 times and will give me the best start but I didn't run last year; if I did, I don't think it would have been fair for me to use it again. No double dipping, I guess!

I always find this train of thought interesting - the BAA decides what's "fair", it's not meant to accommodate everyone's moral compass. When I played basketball a 10-foot rim seemed unfair but I tried my hardest anyway...

Tell me about it!

[Geisha Girl]

I didn't know you could use a Q time twice if it was a fall marathon. They should dump this one, for sure. I'm using my Chicago 2009 time this year because it's the best of my 3 times and will give me the best start but I didn't run last year; if I did, I don't think it would have been fair for me to use it again. No double dipping, I guess!

I always find this train of thought interesting - the BAA decides what's "fair", it's not meant to accommodate everyone's moral compass. When I played basketball a 10-foot rim seemed unfair but I tried my hardest anyway...

Tell me about it!

Just saying...

[mcshame]

I don't know what Ray is complaining about I have a valid complaint!

[RayMan]

I don't know what Ray is complaining about I have a valid complaint!

Ha ha but to get back to the topic of "fair", I played against a guy that was 6'11" and the ease with which he dunked a ball didn't seem "fair" to me. I could dunk with reckless abandon if that rim was just 6 inches lower!

Since the BAA (1897) has been around longer than the NBA (1946), I think their practice of allowing BQ times to be valid for 19 months is equally "fair" and simply part of the sport.