Boston Marathon qualifying buffer is unfair

There were 7,443 female finishers and 7,942 male finishers. What do you want?

>While hard working single dads like 4:30miler can run 2:55 and they may not even squeak in.

Lol lmao. There aren't that many single dad runners out there and this isn't "their" event. Same would be for single moms. But also you're a total F'ing moran because as a 35 yo male the Q time is 3:05. So At BQ-10 you'd EASILY get in. . Show me one year in the history of the race that BQ-10 didn't get in?

I'm a dad of 2 and can run under 2:40. These standards are easy as F. I could BQ 7 days a week if I wanted to.

Either bad troll post or outdated mofo. Your pick.

The buffer shouldn’t be big at all for 2022. If this past Boston had a full field there wouldn’t have been a cutoff.

If you are so desperate and slow just change your gender to female. That is completly acceptable in Boston, one of the most liberal cities in the country

Yes we live in a fear-mongering culture right now, but maybe lets wait to see what the cutoff is.

As a kind of old runner myself I have to agree it is easier for older runner. My last 30 marathons in just over 10 years have all been BQs, many by better than 20 minutes. Most were in the last 4 years since I started qualifying for the 65-69 group. At 67 my 4:05 age standard adjusts to 3:06:12, not 3:00 like the youngsters need. And in a year I start qualifying for 70-74, so 15 more minutes. Also I think the women have it easier yet. If they don't change it good luck on staying healthy and getting old.

mr38 wrote:

umm, ok wrote:

there's already a disporportionate number of younger people in the race; runners under 40 made up 32% of the people in the race this year. 40-50 is 31%, and it drops significantly from there.

I can't tell if you're joking, or actually innumerate. Over 50% of the general population is under 40. So having 32% representation in the race means they are under-represented.

How many of that 50% is under 18? Because they’re not eligible. Is a third of the US population between 18-40?

Good for you, but the number of entrants in your age group shows it’s not actually that easy.

Good point, the numbers do drop a lot after 65. Just from my experience injuries can be a problem. Also I think running gets to be more of a social thing, some just want to hang out with other runners. Some of my friends want to get a BQ, but don't want to do the hard work and make it hurt to make it happen. But some just seem to lose speed a lot faster than others.

Exactly. This is sort of the overall point: as you get older, more life gets in the way, and it’s harder to qualify. OP might want a 30,000 person race with all 32-year old men, but in many ways it’s much harder to qualify with a slightly slower time at a more advanced age.

If you really want to know the facts instead of guessing, this guy has analyzed it to death. As noted by another poster, there are more men than women in every age category except the youngest. https://ade3.medium.com/boston-marathon-data-analysis-part-1-4891d1832eba

Qualifying time for a male 26-year old: 3:00:00 = age-graded 69.4%

Qualifying time for a female 67-year old: 4:35:00 = age-graded 75%

Sounds like the men have an easier standard than the women, and the OP needs to spend some more time looking at the facts.

You do realize you slow down after age 35 right? Probably quite a bit more than 5 minutes per 5 years as well. So its harder for a 45 year old to get in than you because they're at least 10 minutes slower(Probably more like 15 or 20) than age 34 just because they're older.

colder and wiser wrote:

Qualifying time for a male 26-year old: 3:00:00 = age-graded 69.4%

Qualifying time for a female 67-year old: 4:35:00 = age-graded 75%

Sounds like the men have an easier standard than the women, and the OP needs to spend some more time looking at the facts.

Incorrect -- under current standards, 4:35 for a a 67-year old female is 71% not 75%.

It is true that the qualifying times for older women represent slightly higher age grading than the times for younger men and women alike. I suspect that is because the age grading for older women is somewhat soft. Not many older women have been racing the marathon until recently, and the data pool is small. With more competitors in these groups, the fastest times will come down, and the age graded percentages of the Boston times will come down correspondingly. Over time the numbers will likely converge with those of men and younger folks.

All of these words and none of them argue why it’s UNFAIR.

There is a reason why few older women run marathons at the upper levels. Performance levels drop faster than men. Already for many years, more women than men run marathons. Why isn't the percentage of women running Boston increasing?!

Also, women fall apart more as hormone levels drop. Men don't have this nearly as badly.

Every year some young male takes up the torch against women's qualifying standards, usually relying on anecdotal evidence. Women still bear the brunt of childcare duties leaving less time for training and their bodies have to withstand childbirth, fluctuating monthly hormones, and the ravages of menopause. These whiny men don't know how good they have it.

I don't see a problem. The organizers are aware of the effect of their standards and presumably are fine with the result. Their race, their choice. Admittedly, as an old guy I benefit if the standards are skewed in my favor. But when I was 30 I needed to run under 2:50 to qualify, and I did. You do what you need to do or you go home.

Having run Boston once, I'm not really inclined to spend the money to do it again.

Couldn’t have said it better myself. Man up and run faster. My husband is 42 with a full time job (as do I) and 2 kids in a multitude of sports that we also coach.

He just ran his first marathon at NYC in 2:47 (time qualified with a half). Signed up for Boston and will easily make it in.

Disko Eric wrote:

As mentioned many times, the women’s times are soft. And then as you get into the older age groups, the times get pretty weak.

ALL of the Boston standards are soft and weak, including the open standards. Your post is like a dude with a 2.3 GPA complaining that the local community college is accepting other people who have 2.29 GPAs. With the slightest effort, you'd be above having to worry about it.

All anyone has to do to qualify for Boston is run one marathon that isn't absolute dog sh!t. And you are complaining about this instead of simply going out and running one marathon in a time that isn't absolute dog sh!t.

weak standards all around wrote:

Disko Eric wrote:

As mentioned many times, the women’s times are soft. And then as you get into the older age groups, the times get pretty weak.

ALL of the Boston standards are soft and weak, including the open standards. Your post is like a dude with a 2.3 GPA complaining that the local community college is accepting other people who have 2.29 GPAs. With the slightest effort, you'd be above having to worry about it.

All anyone has to do to qualify for Boston is run one marathon that isn't absolute dog sh!t. And you are complaining about this instead of simply going out and running one marathon in a time that isn't absolute dog sh!t.

A bit harsh, but I agree with the sentiment. In fact, if I were to agree with the poster and propose a solution, it would be to stiffen the requirements for the older ages, not loosen them for the open runners.

Boston is to be earned. I qualified in my second marathon having never run T&F/XC in HS or college on a base of about 50 mpw. You have to be willing to suffer a bit.