Why do most runners at Boston finish much slower than qualifying times?

Several reasons I know of. Some live in the northern states and don't train as well because of the weather. One guy I know got in using one of the big downhill races. And I know of some that run it slow to take it all in and enjoy it. Although that might just be an excuse for a slow run in Boston. But I know what you mean. The first year I ran it I saw all the bib numbers a lot lower than mine in my age group, but I finished way higher than I expected based on those that got in with a faster time.

A couple weeks ago I had this conversation with my brother-in-law, who has run Boston quite a few times. Today was the first time he ever got a BQ at Boston, and that was his goal this year (and he barely made it so he'll need to run another to come back next year).

He mentioned several things. The course is tricky and hard to get a fast time on. He lives in a cold place (Pennsylvania) and it's tough to be prepared for even a little warm weather. In years like 2018 when it's cold, somehow that's even worse. Also, the travel might be a factor as he does better closer to home.

The course can be extremely rough for a lot of people. The early downhill sections can really crush quads, and although it's point-to-point, the number of turns also adds to difficulty.

Combo of people still not knowing how to pace & people not adjusting for the weather.

Boston runs a minute or two slower than a fast/flat course. A lot of people get their BQ from courses that advertise as a good place to get it & often have good weather & maybe even a decent net downhill.

Then you get to race day in Boston & people don't realize that you have to be in 2:58 shape to run 3:00. & that, with the 10am start, it can be warm/humid/windy/etc, & you should make another pace adjustment. If you're ready for 3 hours-flat, that's a 3:02 at Boston. Now it's 60s, gonna get up to 70, with a slight head wind. Now that 3:02 should be more like a 3:05. But that runner gets swept up in the excitement & goes out at 2:50-2:55 pace & ends up running 3:10, saying after the race that they were on PR pace but the hills got them!! Their pacing got them. It was a day to run 3:05.

It's hard to PB in Boston. So many things go against you -- course, weather, wait time, fast start, etc. This year was the exception. Wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of PBs or course PBs this year. But so many think you bank time in Boston. Unless you're named CJ Albertson, you shouldn't be pushing the opening downhills. You should start a little slower than goal pace & settle into goal pace by 5k/10k. Then run an even effort, let the course do its work, & be ready to rip from 21 to the finish. That means starting slow, making adjustments if the day calls for them, & not fighting the hills. Lose time purposefully there.

More should think about place versus time at Boston. It's the kind of course where you run by effort & see what time that gets you on the day. It's hard to show up to Boston like it's Berlin & say I'm going to run 6:00-flat from the gun. It doesn't work like that.

I'll echo what others have already said - it's a difficult race to pace yourself properly for a few reasons:

1) Atmosphere/excitement combined with a downhill start often leads people to go out WAY too fast - I'm always surprised how people bomb down that hill.

2) Weather can be wildly unpredictable - for most runners, 60 degrees in April after training through the winter is very different from 60 degrees in October

3) It's a difficult course to pace - you have to thread the needle of using the downhills early to get a little time in the bank that you can spend on the uphills from 17 to 21. Overdo it slightly, and those downhills after 21 are just painful!

It's a great event though - I can't wait to go back!

People use severe down hill races to qualify for Boston now

"Turns"?! I don't think so.

I just finished Boston nearly an hour off my qualifier (2:54) the main reason being it’s been over two years since my BQ and I haven’t been training nearly as much during that time (work, baby, injuries, etc).

Quite frankly, I’m done chasing PRs and just went out and enjoyed the run.

So, the lag might have something to do with it, but some people are content with qualifying and don’t want to/can’t fully commit to another training.

(And for the record, I lined up with the corral assignment I *earned* and stayed to the far right to be respectful. If you’re pissed off at folks like me, you should run a faster qualifying time).

It's a tough course, it's easy to get carried away with the amazing crowd support in the first half, and the hills of Newton will punish anyone who doesn't understand how much harder they make the course, including many who do.

All of the above, plus the late start and transportation to get there. Plus you're walking a lot around Boston the day(s) before. Plus the added stress that it's Boston, and even all the worry about the course in the weeks ahead takes a toll. It's hard to go into the race relaxed.

I was 20 minutes slower today in Boston after qualifying @ 2:55. The logistics of the race were a factor. Not a big city guy, all the hype was a lot. Getting to the start line is a hassle. Also, it is hard to train on hills in cold climates.

Imagine it's all the reasons people said, plus celebration. For many, I have to imagine that it's the BQ that's the chase, and then Boston itself is the celebration, where they take it a little easier. Boston is on my bucket list, and I can guarantee you that if I get in, I'm not going to race it. I'm going to run, enjoy myself, and soak up the atmosphere, because it's possible (likely?) that I'll only be there once.

How has nobody mentioned charity runners yet? Plenty of people dont hit the BQ, but get in by raising money for an organization.

So yeah Im sure some people run an hour+ off their marathon pr, but most of the slower times are likely coming from charity qualifiers.

My worst races were Boston and NY. I used to get race nerves and had trouble sleeping the night before a marathon. When running my home race or smaller races like VT or The Woodlands, the time between getting up, driving to the races and the start is pretty minimal. But at Boston and NY it takes an eternity to get from the hotel to the start line and then for the beginning of the race. And Boston's 10 am start time means that you are running the hardest part of the race during lunchtime.

Also, despite the fact that Boston is a big net downhill, there are a lot of uphills on the course that really suck if you are not able to train on similar terrain.

1. it is tricky course to run fast and compound that with people going out too fast. if you are feeling good you pass tons of people the last 4 miles.

2. People don’t go to race it. they do it to enjoy it and don’t redline it. they take in whole experience.

3 people might not be in peak shape but do it anyway because the B.A.A. puts on a great event and people don’t want to miss out on their chance to run it.

I just ran the race, noticed the discrepancy and the majority of this is explained by three factors.

1) Boston is a tough course. Ask my quadriceps. Many people target easy marathons, whether flat (Chicago), or net-downhill (CIM) and are in for a rude awakening when Boston comes.

2) Injuries. A large percentage of people suffer some sort of injury during their buildups. Since Boston is such a big deal, many people run and shoot for a slower time when they would have pulled out of a smaller, less notable race.

3) Simple regression to the mean. There are so many variables to marathoning and its hard to run many good marathons in a row. Many people who likely ran excellent races to qualify thanks to a little luck may have experienced the opposite side of the coin in Boston.

First - charity runners make up 20% of the field. They didn't BQ to get there.

Second - not all men are required to run sub 3; vast majority have a BQ time that is much slower. A 3:10 could be a BQ-30 for them.

Third - As you get closer to the BQ time, the more runners there are. A lot of those runners PR-ed to get their BQ. They may have done that after several cycles of trying, on a perfect day, or even trained up and then picked a race based on weather. It is a lot harder to be at your best on a specific day. Thus, they don't PR again.

Fourth - pretty easy to blow up at Boston.

And you assumed Boston would have have faster average times than what? What are you comparing it to? It has faster times than Chicago; nearly an hour an average.

Logistics are a pain the butt at Boston, getting to the start line is a marathon in itself.

I was 49 when I ran, qualified in 3:11, ran a 3:47 in Boston. I had never been to Boston before and two days before walked the Freedom Trail with wife. Next day walked around Hardvard, MIT campuses all day. Monday race morning as everyone says get up at crack of dawn, take the bus out, sit around for an hour freezing, walk to start. Lots of miles in days leading up added up for me but I really didn't care about my time just wanted a finisher medal.