Should Boston’s Q Times be revised?

beersandmiles wrote:

lol @ the prestige comment.

Personally, I just wish they would not allow stupid races like Big Cottonwood or those other massive downhill races.

Real Q wrote:

That’s not even a debate. “Fast lol we BQ u” type cheater races needs to be cleaned up as well.

beersandmiles wrote:

lol @ the prestige comment.

Personally, I just wish they would not allow stupid races like Big Cottonwood or those other massive downhill races.

the standard wrote:

beersandmiles wrote:

lol @ the prestige comment.

Personally, I just wish they would not allow stupid races like Big Cottonwood or those other massive downhill races.

I agree that Boston should ban times from the massive downhill courses. They're creating this reinforcing loop where Boston gets too many qualifiers due to all the cheater courses, so they have to drop the standard, and then people find the new standard too hard so even more of them resort to cheater courses. I think they're reluctant to do it because it would instantly destroy most of these races, but it's really getting out of hand.

The standard should be that gross elevation loss must be less than net elevation gain, or maybe allow a max of 100m or something. That would allow honest courses with plenty of uphill to remain.

the standard wrote:

I agree that Boston should ban times from the massive downhill courses. They're creating this reinforcing loop where Boston gets too many qualifiers due to all the cheater courses, so they have to drop the standard, and then people find the new standard too hard so even more of them resort to cheater courses. I think they're reluctant to do it because it would instantly destroy most of these races, but it's really getting out of hand.

The standard should be that gross elevation loss must be less than net elevation gain, or maybe allow a max of 100m or something. That would allow honest courses with plenty of uphill to remain.

Back in the Day wrote:

The thing I liked about running was that, outside of genetics, it was basically a level playing field. Everyone would throw on a pair of shoes and run the race. Maybe certain courses, like Grandma's, were faster, but it's progressively getting more ridiculous.

It's becoming a lot more like triathlon where you can "buy speed." One can pay to fly across the country to run a course with a 2,000’ elevation drop that in a pair of $500 super shoes that objectively do enhance performance.

the standard wrote:

beersandmiles wrote:

lol @ the prestige comment.

Personally, I just wish they would not allow stupid races like Big Cottonwood or those other massive downhill races.

I agree that Boston should ban times from the massive downhill courses. They're creating this reinforcing loop where Boston gets too many qualifiers due to all the cheater courses, so they have to drop the standard, and then people find the new standard too hard so even more of them resort to cheater courses. I think they're reluctant to do it because it would instantly destroy most of these races, but it's really getting out of hand.

The standard should be that gross elevation loss must be less than net elevation gain, or maybe allow a max of 100m or something. That would allow honest courses with plenty of uphill to remain.

Boston Course wrote:

the standard wrote:

I agree that Boston should ban times from the massive downhill courses. They're creating this reinforcing loop where Boston gets too many qualifiers due to all the cheater courses, so they have to drop the standard, and then people find the new standard too hard so even more of them resort to cheater courses. I think they're reluctant to do it because it would instantly destroy most of these races, but it's really getting out of hand.

The standard should be that gross elevation loss must be less than net elevation gain, or maybe allow a max of 100m or something. That would allow honest courses with plenty of uphill to remain.

100 meters net loss would eliminate Boston itself from being a Boston qualifier. The race starts at 470 feet (143 meters) and ends at 10 feet (3 meters) so it drops 360 feet, or 140 meters, net.

the standard wrote:

Boston Course wrote:

100 meters net loss would eliminate Boston itself from being a Boston qualifier. The race starts at 470 feet (143 meters) and ends at 10 feet (3 meters) so it drops 360 feet, or 140 meters, net.

Net loss must be less than total (cumulative) gain ( I wrote that backwards). So the Boston finish is 360 feet lower than the start, but the sum of all the uphills is ~800 feet, so therefore it's an honest course. CIM and some others with net drops would also qualify.

Real Q wrote:

Let’s be honest. With the cutoff likely 5’ these are way too easy for men and women.

With women’s WR time about 8.5% behind the men’s, the Q time for women is 17% which for equality should be closer to 10% or less.

I’d rather see more prestige come back to Boston rather than worry if I’d get in.

so to reach the cap should they adjust women’s times only? That would create a huge stir. So what times should Boston be?

id say it’s kind of embarrassing that they need to change the standards all the time. Should be set it and forget it.