Forums >Racing>2019 Boston Marathon Thread
RIP Milkman
They already announced the changes in that article. Here they are going forward:
5K: 16:37 (11/20) | 10K: 34:49 (10/19) | HM: 1:14:57 (5/22) | FM: 2:36:31 (12/19)
https://www.baa.org/2019-boston-marathon-qualifier-acceptances - 4:52 Amazing. I'm out. :P And they're dropping the standard by 5 minutes.
https://www.baa.org/2019-boston-marathon-qualifier-acceptances
- 4:52
Amazing. I'm out. :P
And they're dropping the standard by 5 minutes.
Wow Matt, I didn't realize you were at 4:50. That is horrible.
This stinks. Sorry.
My blog is JT Running DC. It's awesome. Guide to Washington DC Area Running Routes. Guide to the New York City Marathon. Guide to the Boston Marathon. Guide to Running Gear. Guide to Running Clothes.
Problem Child
I guess I have my work cut out for me. As if I needed any more motivation for next weekend.
They already announced the changes in that article. Here they are going forward: 2020 BOSTON MARATHON: UPDATED MEN’S AND WOMEN’S QUALIFYING STANDARDS Age Group MEN WOMEN 18-34 3hrs 00min 00sec 3hrs 30min 00sec 35-39 3hrs 05min 00sec 3hrs 35min 00sec 40-44 3hrs 10min 00sec 3hrs 40min 00sec 45-49 3hrs 20min 00sec 3hrs 50min 00sec 50-54 3hrs 25min 00sec 3hrs 55min 00sec 55-59 3hrs 35min 00sec 4hrs 05min 00sec 60-64 3hrs 50min 00sec 4hrs 20min 00sec 65-69 4hrs 05min 00sec 4hrs 35min 00sec 70-74 4hrs 20min 00sec 4hrs 50min 00sec 75-79 4hrs 35min 00sec 5hrs 05min 00sec 80 and over 4hrs 50min 00sec 5hrs 20min 00sec
Many of us aren't sure what the hell point you are trying to make and no matter how we guess, it always seems to be something else. Which usually means a person is doing it on purpose.
VDOT 53.37
5k18:xx | Marathon 2:55:22
Wow, nuts. It's so interesting to see how the standards have changed over time.
Sorry to hear it, mattw4jc. That sucks.
Wow, sorry mattw4jc. That really sucks. That's also crazy that 7248 people were rejected with 30,000 accepted. That's nearly a 20% rejection rate. I'm sure it's easier said than done but I'm surprised they can't expand the field...if they allowed 36,000 runners in 2014, it seems like they could allow 32K which might have put the cut off back down to 4:00 or something like that.
+1. Crap. Going into the application process, most people would have thought this was a lock.
Dave
if they allowed 36,000 runners in 2014, it seems like they could allow 32K which might have put the cut off back down to 4:00 or something like that.
They'd have to kick out those charity runners and everyone else who (something something) gets fingers pointed at them from people who don't make it in. Cutting the number of runners 4,000 overall sure didn't help with keeping the qualifying times where they were. 2016 was the firs tyear you needed to be over 2 minutes faster than your BQ. Almost half the number of people rejected could have made it in if they kept the 36,000 quote.
Thanks all. I'm not upset. I hadn't really planned on going and only decided to apply when both running buddies were in. I ran in 2017. Maybe I'll go back again sometime.
Crazy though that it was such a high cutoff and so many got rejected. I'm glad that they're changing the times. But I will still tell people to aim for 2 or 3 minutes under the new times to be safe. 5 minutes if your that week 1 guarantee.
From the BAA site:
5,256 Qualifiers met their qualifying time by 20 minutes, 00 seconds or faster.8,620 Qualifiers met their qualifying time by 10 minutes, 00 seconds or faster.8,545 Qualifiers met their qualifying time by 05 minutes, 00 seconds or faster.220 Qualifiers met their qualifying time by 4 minutes, 52 seconds or faster.433 Qualifiers were accepted based on finishing 10 or more consecutive Boston Marathons.270 Qualified Athletes with Disabilities have been accepted
7,384 were not accepted
All that Week 2 agita to add another 220 runners.
delicate flower
Thanks all. I'm not upset.
Good attitude but it still sucks. Really sorry for the near miss, Matt.
<3
The BAA had announced that a "small percentage" of those registering in week 2 would be accepted. That was vague enough to mean anything from 0.1% up to 49%.
If 220 runners had -4:52 to -5:00, and 7,384 were slower than that, then the "small percentage" is less than 3% by my calculations. I figured small would mean 20 - 30%.
I can imagine the BAA knew by the end of week 1 that it the cutoff would be really close to 5 minutes under. They may have even been sweating it a little with Berlin and those few other marathons happening the weekend between registration weeks.
The BAA had announced that a "small percentage" of those registering in week 2 would be accepted. That was vague enough to mean anything from 0.1% up to 49%. If 220 runners had -4:52 to -5:00, and 7,384 were slower than that, then the "small percentage" is less than 3% by my calculations. I figured small would mean 20 - 30%. I can imagine the BAA knew by the end of week 1 that it the cutoff would be really close to 5 minutes under. They may have even been sweating it a little with Berlin and those few other marathons happening the weekend between registration weeks.
Yeah, it's surprising that they accepted week 1 entries all they way down to 5:00, when it was this close. There was a lot of talk about whether they could do that and still make the cutoff for week 2 entries >5:00. I guess they can do whatever they want, but that would have been somewhat disturbing.
I know there's been speculation on this, but I'm a little confused why people think that they wouldn't accept week 1 qualifiers, but possibly reject week 2 qualifiers with faster times. If they were to do that, why even have registration split up? What's the point of having people with guaranteed faster times register first if there's no benefit to doing that? The only justification I could see if it wasn't priority in registration is that their servers couldn't handle that many people trying to register at once.
It stinks that so many people went through registering in Week 2, only to be rejected (and the BAA knew that would be the case). But I'm sure all that data from the registrations was very helpful in helping confirm that they need to adjust the cut-off. They kind of said this in a very roundabout way ("data-informed"), but I wish they would be more explicit since there are a lot of people out there feeling disappointed and bummed. I know very well - my wife is one of them. Yet another scene in the Boston registration circus.