1234

What will Boston entry be like next year? (Read 1469 times)


A Sweetheart

    WAY less. 47% in 2011, 13% in 2012.

     

     

     

    Those percentages are actually lower.  Marathonguide provides the BQ stats, but for some reason that I don't understand, they exclude marathons over six hours.

    I want to do it because I want to do it.  -Amelia Earhart

      Those percentages are actually lower.  Marathonguide provides the BQ stats, but for some reason that I don't understand, they exclude marathons over six hours.

       Well, according to this link, it is 43% and 13%. So yes, I guess a little lower on the number last year. I assume they don't count marathons over 6 hours because most races start cutting off "official" times around that point. But that is just a guess.

        I  believe in the article in the 2012 Boston Marathon program it stated that registration would go past the two weeks if it did not fill up (on a first-come, first-serve basis).

         I believe this is the case. They close registration after the set tiered portion, fill it from fastest to slowest of the remaining, then reopen it if it is not full, leaving it open until it does.

        DoppleBock


          It would be even more interesting if they do not fill for a couple of months with new standards ~ would they then lower the standard to fill?  Increase charity entries ... One thing is for sure - They want to get a certain # of peoples money both for entry fees and spending at local hotels, resturants and stores.

           

          I personally think that a higher percent of people within the tougher standard group will sign-up then before.  Ex)  I was 34 (35 for the Boston Race) for my 1st marathon.  I ran a 3:09:48 ... I did not run Boston until 4 years after than ~ I was not afraid of the qualifying time (3:15) ~ If the Q time was harder the more likely I would have signed up ASAP.  It may not be a significant delta - But I do think a higher % of people who qaulify will sign up.

           

          The final question ~ They upped OTQ standards because quality in US running had improved (Maybe) ~ Will people commit to training a little smarter or train more etc to reach tougher standards?  Will it lift the masses to be faster marathon runners on average?  I do not think so, but it could happen.  If it did happen there would not be as large as a decrease in the pool of runners as we all think.

          http://a-big-horse.blogspot.com/ 

          2013 Goals ~ Mar < 3:00, 5M < 29, 10k < 35  

           

          DoppleBock


            If I had to PR to run Boston and wanted to run Boston, I would dedicate myself in a more focussed manner to PR.

            http://a-big-horse.blogspot.com/ 

            2013 Goals ~ Mar < 3:00, 5M < 29, 10k < 35  

             


            Feeling the growl again

               I believe this is the case. They close registration after the set tiered portion, fill it from fastest to slowest of the remaining, then reopen it if it is not full, leaving it open until it does.

               

              I think this is the way it should be. 2011 was a fiasco, but I give BAA a lot of credit for putting in place a thoughtful, effective solution.

              "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

               

                I personally think that a higher percent of people within the tougher standard group will sign-up then before.  Ex)  I was 34 (35 for the Boston Race) for my 1st marathon.  I ran a 3:09:48 ... I did not run Boston until 4 years after than ~ I was not afraid of the qualifying time (3:15) ~ If the Q time was harder the more likely I would have signed up ASAP.  It may not be a significant delta - But I do think a higher % of people who qaulify will sign up.

                I think the only people who might be more motivated to sign up would be those not beating their BQ times by large margins.  The folks doing BQ-20min to BQ-10min have preferred registration status and no obstacles to entry other than their own desire to go to Boston and run.  For the people running BQ-30sec, it's still a computer/Internet-connection-speed race, and they also might more legitimately fear not having a qualifying time next go-round.

                 

                Personally, I kind of like that the tighter standards push people to run their fastest time, rather than running to hit the BQ number on the nose.  That's how I'm taking it, anyway.

                “Everything you need is already inside.” -- Bill Bowerman

                  For the people running BQ-30sec, it's still a computer/Internet-connection-speed race, and they also might more legitimately fear not having a qualifying time next go-round.

                   

                   

                  That's actually not the case.  It's a 2 week (or one week, I can't remember) window where everybody enters and then they select the fastest people.  I had a BQ time of -38 seconds and signed up on the first available day, but I really could have waited until the last day to get the same rejection email. 

                   

                    For the people running BQ-30sec, it's still a computer/Internet-connection-speed race

                     That's not true. EVERYONE who has the minimum BQ standard has the opportunity to submit their registration fairly. The race is now filled from fastest to slowest of that last group, and has nothing to do with first come/first serve.

                     

                    Oops- Guess I should have read L Train's post before I posted. He already answered that.

                      Glad to be proven wrong!

                      “Everything you need is already inside.” -- Bill Bowerman


                      I'm back!

                        Yeah, they didn't totally make that clear last time around, but that's how it works.

                          I still think the way they set the time standards could use some improving.

                           

                          As an example, as a 42 year old male, I need to run 3:15:00 - just qualify.

                           

                          But, in 3 years I can get in with just a 3:25:00!!

                           

                          If you are going to age grade the times, why not do it in a more gradual basis, like 2 minutes for every year after 40?

                          2014 Goals

                          Weight - 200 lbs (stuck around 211)

                          2000 miles (1190 as of July 1)

                          Work on stretching and flexibility (doing so much better at this!)

                          Stay healthy for Boston 2015 (have a BQ -9:00 time) - check!

                          Marathon - 3:10 (Goal Race in October)

                          HM 1:29:59 (Goal race in July)

                          10k - 39:59 (no goal race yet)

                          5k - 19:55 (19:43 July 4, 2014)

                           


                          Feeling the growl again

                            I still think the way they set the time standards could use some improving.

                             

                            As an example, as a 42 year old male, I need to run 3:15:00 - just qualify.

                             

                            But, in 3 years I can get in with just a 3:25:00!!

                             

                            If you are going to age grade the times, why not do it in a more gradual basis, like 2 minutes for every year after 40?

                             

                            The size of the age blocks is a compromise between complexity and fairness, I would assume.  Take it down to 1-year, and all of a sudden the difference between when you run the qualifier and when you run the race is very significant.  IMHO a 1-yr difference is too fine...training is much more relevant than aging 1 year.  But yes, there is a good difference between 41 and 45.

                             

                            Look at it this way, is not sub-39 a single age group?  I can tell you from personal experience that there is a hell of a difference between 28 and 33....much less 22 and 39.

                            "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                             

                              London "good for age" places are even stranger - same time needed (3:15) at 40-59 for men.


                              A Sweetheart

                                London "good for age" places are even stranger 

                                 

                                They are a whole lot of strange.  A guy my age needs to run a 3:10 but I only need to run a 3:50?  Bizarre.  And why does it say 3:15-3:50 for my age group, which is another weird thing.  18-49?  Wow.

                                 

                                Here's some NYC guaranteed entry times just because I felt like looking them up.  Unlike Boston they use age on qualifying race day.  One birthday gives you 15 extra minutes.  Crap.  I thought I was getting better with age, but they think I'm going to come to a screeching halt. 

                                I want to do it because I want to do it.  -Amelia Earhart

                                1234