Looking for BQ times from the 70's, 80's 90's. I know current times. (Read 1106 times)

If my memory serves me correctly --when I was in the 35-39 age group back in the late 70's I think I would have needed a 2:50 to qualify. In my 40-44 age group in the early 80's I think I would have needed a sub 3 hr.I would like to see the BQ times over the last 3+ decades. Seems times have got a lot easier. Why is this I wonder? This info and your thoughts may generate some interesting discussion. Thanks. Nick--BQ'er(age 64) finally after 32 yrs of running! PS I guess I am glad they have made it easier to qualify.

I tried (unsuccessfully) to BQ in the late 70's/early 80's. Open qualifying time was 3:00. My last effort was summer 1981. Shortly after that (can't remember if it was 1 or 2 years later), the Open time went down to 2:50.

Monday, April 20, 1970 Qualifying standards were introduced. The official B.A.A. entry form stated, "A runner must submit the certification...that he has trained sufficiently to finish the course in less than four hours…" http://www.bostonmarathon.org/BostonMarathon/Milestones.asp 9/5/2002 Online Registration for 2003 Boston Marathon Begins Monday, September 9 For the first time in 13 years, the Boston Athletic Association has adjusted the qualifying standards for runners in the Boston Marathon. The new qualifying times affect runners who are 45-years of age and older, and three new age groupings have been created: 70 to 74-years old; 75 to 79-years old; and 80-years and older. http://www.bostonmarathon.org/Archives.asp?id=25 Qualifying Times: Boston's first 1,000-plus field (1,150) came in 1969. To limit numbers, the B.A.A. began to impose standards the following year, asking runners to certify that they had trained hard enough to finish under 4 hours. "This is not a jogging race," stipulated the entry blank. Even with that warning, 1,011 entered. The qualifying standard was progressively lowered from 3:30 to 3:00 to 2:50, then relaxed to its current 3:10 for men and 3:40 for women, with graduated times depending on age. http://www.runnersworld.com/events/boston06/i_facts.html And finally... The Boston Marathon relaxes its qualifying standards--at least for older runners By Hal Higdon, 2002 Life suddenly became easier for runners wanting to run the Boston Marathon--particularly older runners--as the sponsoring Boston Athletic Association relaxed its qualifying standards for the first time in more than a dozen years. The new standards, posted toward the end of June on the BAA's Website, offer a 5-minute break for men and women over 45, up to an hour for those still running at age 80. The standards date back to 1970. A record 1,152 runners started Boston the previous year, way too many thought trainer Jock Semple, who shepherded runners each Patriot's Day along with race director Will Cloney, a full-time employee of Keystone Funds. Tired of poseurs, who trained improperly and sometimes appeared dressed as King Kong or smoking cigars, the pair asked runners to certify their ability to finish faster than four hours. "I could walk that fast," claimed Semple, who had placed ninth in 1944 with 2:51:34. As a writer for Runner's World (then called Distance Running News), I objected, both in print and to Semple personally the next time I saw him. I felt the standards would stifle both Boston's and running's growth. How wrong I was! As the standards were progressively tightened over the next decade, runners accepted them as a challenge and trained harder to make the field. Tightening standards For the 1976 race, Cloney and Semple tightened entry standards to an imposing 3:00 for men and 3:30 for women and masters (those over 40). But nothing helped stem the tide. The running boom had begun. The ranks swelled to 7,877 entrants in 1979, with easily a third as many bandits tagging behind. So in 1980, standards came down to 2:50 for men, 3:10 for masters men and 3:20 for women, eventually 3:30 for masters women (defined then as those over age 40). Numbers dipped in 1981, but by 1982 7,439 entered. By then, the flood had crested. As the running boom continued through the 1980s, every major city had a marathon, siphoning off some of the energy that in previous decades had been focused almost solely on from 3:30 to 3:00 to ultimately 2:50 for men and 3:10 for women Boston. During the 1990s, a new breed of runner arrived more interested in finishing a marathon, rather than finishing it fast. With greater volunteer support, the BAA realized it could tolerate fields near 10,000 and decided to relax its qualifying times to 3:10 and 3:40 for men and women aged 18-34. Every five-year age group after that, runners received a 5-minute qualifying cushion up to maximums of 3:50 and 4:20 for men and women over 70. Those standards worked for younger runners, but failed to reflect the fact that past age 50, aging runners lose more than they gain. According to one survey posted to my Virtual Training Forum, while 637 men and women aged 35-39 qualified for Boston at the fast 2001 LaSalle Bank Chicago Marathon, only 12 men and 1 woman over 60 made the cut. None over 70 did. Even as gifted an athlete as two-time winner John A. Kelley failed to match the standard after age 72, although he continued to run late into his 80s. Fair or not? That imbalance apparently has been remedied. The new standards reward older runners, beginning with an extra 5 minutes at age 45, 10 minutes at age 55, 20 at age 60, 30 at age 65, 40 at age 70, 50 at age 75 and an hour at age 80. But younger runners get no break, and not all posting to Virtual Training seemed pleased. "I still think the disparity between the men's and women's times are grossly unfair," claims Jeff Bennett, age 25. "While I have already solidly beaten 3:40, I'm not sure I possess the athletic talent to run a 3:10. At least not for a couple more years." Whether the new standards are fair will be subject for debate between now and next April, but as another poster, John Borchers, commented: "In a few years nobody will remember that the Boston qualifying times changed. There will only be those who qualified and those who did not." ____________________________________________________________ Hal Higdon, Senior Writer for Runner's World, placed fifth at Boston in 1964 with 2:21:55.

Higdon's article paints the broad picture of the relaxing on the BQ standards. However, he has some deatils wrong. Before the standards were relaxed for older runners in 2002, they were last adjusted in 1988 and in the early '80's before that. In 1985 when I was 47 years old the standard for age 45-49 was 3:15. I was a 3:30 marathoner and doubted if I could reach 3:15 in the following two years. So, I targeted the then 50-54 standard of 3:20 for the year I turned 50....1988. I didn't make it....I reached 3:22....but that was the year the standards were relaxed and the 50-54 standard dropped to 3:30. So, I BQ'd through the back door. Shortly afterwards, my first running life ended. At that time, the standard for all older age groups decreased by 5 minutes. Thus, the 55-59 standard was 3:35 and the 60-64 standard was 3:40. When I began my second running life in 1997 at age 58, the standard for the 55-59 and 60-64 age dividions still stood at 3:35 and 3:40, respectively. So, I targeted spending 3-5 years to reach the 60-64 age division. As it turned out, my second running life was cut short by a major change in lifestyle. (I bought a sailboat and went to sea. ) I only reached 3:57 in 1998 at age 60, which left me 17 minutes short of a BQ, although it would have Q'd me under the current standards that were established four years later.

Far and away the number one reason why average marathon times have slowed so much is that they don’t train nearly as much as they used to. It would have been unthinkable when I started running to attempt a marathon on 30-40 mpw like so many runners do nowadays. There are 2 marathon formums that I joined on RunningAhead where many of the members run less than 100 miles a month. It’s unbelievable. I couldn’t run a decent 5k off that kind of mileage. When new runners see others jumping into marathons off that kind of training they think they can do it and so they do. It has spread just like any other fad. It’s good to see so many more people running, but there are large percentage them who are capable of so much more than they realize.

This is deviating somewhat from Long Run Nick's original topic, but the tightening and then loosening of Boston qualifying times seems to have followed the desire of BAA to originally limit then increase and diversify their field of registered runners. Nowadays, the standards seem tough but doable for a fair percentage of runners out there. I wonder how many runners would qualify if BAA accepted an "equivalent performance" at 5k or 10k? The number of qualifiers would probably be much higher. A 2:50/3:10 standard nowadays is placing the bar too high especially considering the number of runners required to make the Boston Marathon economically successful. For many average folks like me, it is a stretch goal that is probably out of reach. Plus there are probably a lot of runners like me who are adult-onset athletes. Running didn't stick as a habit until I was 29 years old. In 2 1/2 years I'll be 40, and while one of my goals is to run a sub-3h marathon in my lifetime, the chances don't look so great and will probably get less and less the older I get. I suspect that a lot of other runners already feel that the current standards are a stretch. Not sure everybody would agree, but the times that BAA have settled on nowadays seems to make it possible for the average Joe and average Jane to reach if they put in the work. If you think about when the qualifying times were 2:50/3:10, the marathon was mostly something that only crazy people did, not yer average jogger.

but I wish the standards were a little tougher--even if it would mean I wouldn't qualify.

I read somewhere that the standards in recent years have been aligned to try and reflect that the fastest 10% of runners in each age group can get to Boston. I use this barometer now for all races I run - trying to hit top 10% of my AG.

For many people it seems that the goal is to finish the longer races, rather than compete for a good time. Running is sold as a lifestyle rather than a sport. Here in Canada the RunningRoom stores are really driving this. I do not believe it is a bad precedent to be more inclusive. I think the overall health benefits for the population outweigh any benefits from exclusivity for races such as Boston. Even if 2:50 was the standard, you're still running at a recreational pace and not really competitive compared to the pros. For myself, with hardly any running mileage at all last year (less than 500 km/300 mi) I placed in the top 5% in a half marathon (I do swim regularly which helps with the cardiovascular base). I'm sure with only a bit more running this year I should be close to running a BQ time without any serious mileage under my belt.

I am certain that consdierably more than 10% of runners have the ability to BQ. Average age group times have slowed a lot over the years but it's not because runners have any less talent. The great majority of people who spend so much time talking about running don't run nearly enough. Just click on the "Browse Running Logs" link and you'll see what I mean. I coudn't run within 20 minutes of the times I can now on the training that more than 75% the people I see are doing--I'm not exaggerating. I think a lot has to do with commercialization and how trends tend to spread from one person to the next.

I agree that more than 10% of runners could qualify for Boston if they trained properly. However, reality is that only 10% actually do BQ. If that is the BAA intent, then the current standards do a good job of facilitating it. (See http://mysite.verizon.net/jim2wr/id202.html.)