2019 Boston Marathon Thread (Read 386 times)

My wife convinced me to register for my birthday present. It's the gift that keeps on giving (or is the training taking?). I'm at -4:50, so maybe safe, but not a guarantee.

I aimed for a BQ in my second marathon and got it by way of the :59 grace time. I did not try to go to Boston then, just wanted to see if I could meet that standard. I qualified a couple of more times, but still didn't try to go. But when both of my main running buddies also qualified in Fall 2015, we all decided to sign up. So 2017 was my first Boston where I bombed spectacularly. If I make the cut, 2019 will be number 2.

I'm guessing a 4:41 cutoff.

I'm guessing 4:12 just because the women's world record for the mile is 4:12 and change.

Interesting math: https://mathematicalrunner.com/2018/09/05/mathematical-runners-prediction-for-the-2019-boston-marathon-cutoff/

 

Predicts 4:03 cutoff but I think it will be higher. the BAA said there was a significant increase in applications compared to last year.

Ha, I saw that.

I think your 4:30 is a good guess, but I'm going to go with 4:20 to honor the state of Massachusetts legalizing pot a while back.

I'm thinking in the 4:15 - :20 range too. But that's just a guess.

 

Over on the Boston FB page, the typical complaints are happening: eliminate charity runners, downhill is not fair, etc.

 

One guy argued the definition of qualify means you should get to do it. I responded that he should think of it like a job. You may qualify and apply, but if another applicant has better qualifications, you get a rejection letter.

I do agree with the downhill though. There are so many races that are specifically marketed as BQ races because it allows for people to run 5,000 feet downhill.

If Boston itself was WR eligible they would probably institute a rule that you need to qualify on an eligible course, but it would be quite hypocritical for them to do that. The only real compromise would be an OTQ course.

 

Over on the Boston FB page, the typical complaints are happening: eliminate charity runners, downhill is not fair, etc.

 

This one cracks me up.  Yeah, let's take millions of dollars away from charities because someone can't run a faster marathon.   If anything, they ought to increase the number of charity runners because they do a hell of a lot of good for needy causes.

 

Yeah this one gets shut down pretty quickly. I'm thinking 5000 runners x $5000 each = $25M. Is that right? That's a big freaking number.

That would be the minimum requirement. Many fund raisers do better.

According to this article, they raised > $36 million in 2018.

I'm thinking in the 4:15 - :20 range too. But that's just a guess.

 

Over on the Boston FB page, the typical complaints are happening: eliminate charity runners, downhill is not fair, etc.

 

One guy argued the definition of qualify means you should get to do it. I responded that he should think of it like a job. You may qualify and apply, but if another applicant has better qualifications, you get a rejection letter.

Good counter-point.  But, they only select based on time.  If they selected on something else - like this year, only people who ran marathons with x feet of elevation get in - it would make sense to consider the standard a qualifier.  But, they're only selecting on time.  So, IMHO, they should just toughen the standard.  It's such a waste of time and energy on BAA and the applicants part doing it this way.