11,000 people denied. 1/3 applicants. Slow people go home devastated.
The 'going home devastated' bunch really should have known better. You really don't have to be an actuary to ballpark these cutoff numbers. Lets say you assumed 5 min. At a very minimum you train to run your qualifier at your BQ less 10 min. These people going in thinking you just need to squeak in under your BQ are only doing enough to get buy.
The old adage: If you only do enough to get by, you'll only make enough to get by; except at the BM - you get gone.
Lol, you make it sound like most people can simply 'train' to get whatever time they'd like! Oooookay....
The 'going home devastated' bunch really should have known better. You really don't have to be an actuary to ballpark these cutoff numbers. Lets say you assumed 5 min. At a very minimum you train to run your qualifier at your BQ less 10 min. These people going in thinking you just need to squeak in under your BQ are only doing enough to get buy.
The old adage: If you only do enough to get by, you'll only make enough to get by; except at the BM - you get gone.
Lol, you make it sound like most people can simply 'train' to get whatever time they'd like! Oooookay....
BQer: I want to run Boston because it's a challenging accomplishment.
Cutoff times are announced.
BQer: I didn't want it to be that challenging.
(But yeah, I do get that people feel as though there are moving goalposts, especially for those who might have reasonably figured that -4 or -5 was a sufficient buffer).
Does the B.A.A. still have a rule that people who have run 10 or more Boston Marathons in a row only have to meet the minimum standard?
If the still have that, anyone know how many people have a 10+ streak going? Is that a small number?
I am fine with the streak rule if it is still in place. Just curious if it played a part in having a much tougher qualifying standard than I thought it would be.
I think there would be a lot fewer complaints if they had accepted the normal 23,000 qualified runners and kept the cutoff to just under 5:00. There was a long-held assumption that a BQ-5 is “safe,” and many smart runners trained and raced with that expectation. And that has always been true except for the pandemic in 2021. So a 5:29 stemming from the refusal to admit the normal number of qualified applicants comes as a legitimate surprise to a lot of runners.
The BM is indeed an awesome event - the whole week before and the day after. Even though I am guilty, the BM should limit the number of times (4 at most - arbitrary number) you can participate so as to make way for those that quality and haven't yet been there. You can spot the excitement in the first-time BM runner a mile away.
The BM is indeed an awesome event - the whole week before and the day after. Even though I am guilty, the BM should limit the number of times (4 at most - arbitrary number) you can participate so as to make way for those that quality and haven't yet been there. You can spot the excitement in the first-time BM runner a mile away.
Absolutely not. If you can't qualify, join one of the 8,000(!?!?) charity runners and run that way.
BQer: I want to run Boston because it's a challenging accomplishment.
Cutoff times are announced.
BQer: I didn't want it to be that challenging.
(But yeah, I do get that people feel as though there are moving goalposts, especially for those who might have reasonably figured that -4 or -5 was a sufficient buffer).
It quite literally IS a moving goal post every single year and that is the problem. You never know if you have to be 7 minutes under or 4 or if everyone will get in. It’s absurd and takes away from the whole magic of finally achieving a BQ. If they need to tighten up the qualifying standards again, particularly for women, then DO IT. But running a BQ time should mean you actually get in to the race.
And men who run 2:55 not getting in is absolutely f$!&ing absurd! And I’m a woman saying that.
Can someone please tell me why they do this stupid thing every year? How in the world is it a qualifying time if it doesn't get you into the race? Why don't they just set an actual time that if you hit you are in, period?
BQer: I want to run Boston because it's a challenging accomplishment.
Cutoff times are announced.
BQer: I didn't want it to be that challenging.
(But yeah, I do get that people feel as though there are moving goalposts, especially for those who might have reasonably figured that -4 or -5 was a sufficient buffer).
It quite literally IS a moving goal post every single year and that is the problem. You never know if you have to be 7 minutes under or 4 or if everyone will get in. It’s absurd and takes away from the whole magic of finally achieving a BQ. If they need to tighten up the qualifying standards again, particularly for women, then DO IT. But running a BQ time should mean you actually get in to the race.
And men who run 2:55 not getting in is absolutely f$!&ing absurd! And I’m a woman saying that.
Why do people think they're entitled to run Boston? The BAA is crystal clear about the qualification process. I'm sure those 11,000 people are all disappointed. But hitting the standard only allows you to apply. People get rejected almost every year.
The BAA has no way of knowing how many people will apply and what their times will be. They try to estimate best they can. But they are extremely limited on the field size due to the logistical constraints of the course.
I'm sure people would like to see fewer charity runners. But these people raise enormous amounts of money for a good cause. The BAA has made a conscious decision to keep this number sizeable.
Can someone please tell me why they do this stupid thing every year? How in the world is it a qualifying time if it doesn't get you into the race? Why don't they just set an actual time that if you hit you are in, period?
Because they're stuck. They need the revenue of a sold out race, but aren't willing to risk setting a standard that might reduce headcount and revue. Better to annoy a handful of people that will just be back next year rather than lose money this year.
Can someone please tell me why they do this stupid thing every year? How in the world is it a qualifying time if it doesn't get you into the race? Why don't they just set an actual time that if you hit you are in, period?
The Olympics and Worlds have qualifying times, but hitting it doesn't always get you into the race. Do you understand how that works?
Does the B.A.A. still have a rule that people who have run 10 or more Boston Marathons in a row only have to meet the minimum standard?
If the still have that, anyone know how many people have a 10+ streak going? Is that a small number?
I am fine with the streak rule if it is still in place. Just curious if it played a part in having a much tougher qualifying standard than I thought it would be.
Yes. Their press release says that 660 qualified as 10+ runners. I was one but had a large cushion anyway and that is likely true of many streakers, so the impact likely isn't significant.
We've updated our BetterRunningShoes.com web site to make it easier to find good deals on the best shoes. To keep it great we need new shoe reviews from you.