2024 Boston marathon times are set at 5:29 faster than qualifying times

For 2025, B.A.A. should make the BQ for the all qualifying times for each age group equal the current BQ minus 5:29. For men 55 to 55, 2025 BQ would be 2:55 minus 5:29 or 2:49:31. If the B.A.A. needs a cutoff for 2025, than they subtract the cutoff from 2026’s BQ. The B.A.A. should do this until they don’t need a cutoff time. Just keep lowering it until a cutoff isn’t needed. Lower it and they will not come or the shoe companies will make faster shoes.

Great. Do they make it really strict, not identify the number of charity slots until all qualifying spots have been filled, and then give the remaining to charity?

Because if they don't make it extremely strict, they'll have more qualified applicants than they're permitted to have on the course. And they'll have no fair way of telling which of those qualifiers don't get to run (if they've eliminated the cutoff time).

I suppose for those who are -7 or -8 now, that would result in just not getting in, but at least they'd know that ahead of time.

For some reason, I don't think that's what a lot of -1 to -5 people have been wishing for.

Well Mouseketeers, this one's over with. If you got in - GREAT. If you did not get in analyze where you could do better for next year. On to 2025.

Perhaps they could reduce the qualifying times to a level at which they are sure qualifiers will not exceed limits and then add as needed by selecting people that missed the time by the nearest margins. The problem is that the qualifying times would need to be at least 10 minutes faster than they are currently and this approach would probably discourage a lot of folks from even trying.

Ever think that is your talent? I have some speed (low 1:20s half at 43) but getting close to 50 mpw is an injury pretty quick.

How would this be any different from the current system? Same number of entrants, except you'd then be admitting people who registered even though they didn't qualify. This makes zero sense.

Get rid of extreme downhill races and make QT 5 minutes harder. It wouldn't be in the B.A.A.'s interest to cut time by 10min. They like have unpredictable cutoffs because it keeps their race in the conversation. Instead of people talking about Chicago or Berlin they are talking about Boston Cutoffs and if they are going to make it.

I lost respect for this race when I saw people do those downhill marathons and qualify. Guys would run 3:05 on a normal course and then ran 2:55 on a downhill one. Then Boston is net downhill, the end result of all that work is still not having a genuine marathon personal record - you have no idea how fast you are if you don't do a race on a fair course.

Sometimes it is NOT easy to qualify, even for reasonably fit runners. Last year my chosen qualifying race had temperatures in the 70s (vs the historical average of 50s). Another time my attempt was with winds over 25mph (Atlantic City - always a risk)

A typical runner only has one or two shots at qualifying any given year.

I hope you understand.

Yeah, it's a pretty safe assumption that if you've made it in 10 times in a row, you're well under the BQ.

So now Boston is no longer a legit PR course? I will say, it can be a fast course if you run it properly, but it still isn't nearly as fast as a flat course. Let me know what you think if you ever end up running it.

"Targeting" - my favorite. Right up there with "I think I'm hoping for". Replace with with "I am going to . . ." and you'll do much better.