Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: New BQ Qualifying Times [SBRinSD] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
So if you run (3:19:22) 2019 Boston at right at the cutoff: qualifying time = 3:20 is there a snowballs chance of gettinig in for 2020?
Quote Reply
Re: New BQ Qualifying Times [Y-Tri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
From what I hear over 30,000 runners have run a qualifying time. How many are duplicates and how many won’t apply?

Some speculate 40” buffer is enough, but most are leaning towards 5’ again. A lot of fast times are being run - combination of needing to run faster and an army of folks wearing Nike 4%.

With your time you are waiting until week two to register.

If it’s important to you, then run another race on a fast course to get yourself more of a buffer.

Good luck!
Quote Reply
Re: New BQ Qualifying Times [SBRinSD] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thanks- not critical to me so I may just see what happens (assuming I won’t and pleasantly surprised if I do).

Maybe I’ll sign up for something if it’s convenient but doubtful.

Thx.
Quote Reply
Re: New BQ Qualifying Times [ericMPro] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ericMPro wrote:
OK this Revel series is bullshit

Couple of weeks ago I ran Mt Charleston (-5100ft elevation) just for fun. I don't want to run Boston again and even if I did, I also have NYC with -11 min BQ time to use as qualifier. I just wanted to see what is it to run a downhill marathon.

It is true, it is much easier for aerobic system. Even taking into account that we started at 7K+ elevation, I was running faster than my threshold pace with RPE and heart rate ~ low aerobic effort. It got progressively harder as temperature rose from mid 30s to mid 80es and the incline flattened out.
At the end aerobically I had still some resources left and was able to pass a bunch of people on the last 3 miles.

It didn't felt during the race, but its much harder on my legs than usual marathon. For 3 days calfs and quads felt completely destroyed. Overall recovery time was double. I think I was lucky the legs survived the marathon, but some people might collapse just because of trashed legs and negate all advantages of the elevation drop.

At the end it was a major PR. 2:50, but I don't count it. :) My normal marathon PR is still 2:57.
Quote Reply
Re: New BQ Qualifying Times [ericMPro] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ericMPro wrote:
OK this Revel series is bullshit

Pun_Times wrote:
themuse1 wrote:
It's interesting when you look at the races that provide the highest percentage of qualifiers. They really aren't the elevator shaft downhill races, which surprised me.

Of course, the race that has 9000 qualifiers (the next closest race is 670 in Erie PA) is Boston. So, apparently Boston is the easiest course to qualify for Boston...or it may have runners who qualified to get there so they can again qualify.

Revel Las Vegas and Run for the Red, both nice downhill courses, come in at 11 and 15.

http://www.marathonguide.com/...nQualifyingRaces.cfm



Maybe not "elevator shaft" downhill, but 9 of the top 16 races in the list you linked to are downhill marathons.

5 - Light at the End of the Tunnel Marathon (2000 ft drop)
6 - Tunnel Light Marathon (2000 ft drop)
7 - Revel Mt Hood Marathon (4800 ft drop)
9 - Mountains 2 Beach Marathon (~700 ft drop from start to finish, short climb in the first few miles)
11 - Revel Mt Charelston (5100 ft drop)
12 - Sugar Loaf Marathon (~600 ft drop from start to finish, short climb around mile 9)
13 - Revel Rockies Marathon (4700 ft drop)
15 - Pocono Mountain Run For The Red Marathon (1400 ft drop)
16 - Jack and Jill Downhill Marathon (2100 ft drop)

While these marathons are downhill the only ones I have an issue with are the Revel ones. They are expressly made as "cheater" courses. However, I agree with the BAA to not do anything about this. It's hard enough to keep up with enforcing qualifying standards and controlling for all sorts of other cheating. The last thing they need is to take on the expense to police races all over the world as to elevation drop. Besides some of the marathons in the list above are long-time awesome races and it does very little to penalize them for something so petty.

If (only IF) they had to address this issue I would do it as a time tax on the races. Something like if the race is over 2,500 or 3,000 foot drop then subtract two minutes to your qualifying time. Again, I doubt they would do this due to the expense and unnecessary hassle.

I actually have an 8 min buffer for Boston 2020 but since the St. George Ironman is coming back I am not doing Boston next year. I'm already signed up for IMSTG and already can't wait to tackle that beast!

------------------
http://dontletitdefeatyou.blogspot.com
Quote Reply
Re: New BQ Qualifying Times [Lock_N_Load] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don't think it would be to hard for BAA to set up some type of elevation drop standard. Races already need someone to come out and verify the race distance so it shouldn't be hard to figure out its elevation drop throughout the course. If I were them I'd probably grandfather in all races from say 2020 and earlier. Then set the standard for new courses to allow maybe no more than 1000ft of elevation drop.
Quote Reply
Re: New BQ Qualifying Times [mstange22] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm 27. I didn't run in college but always played sports and came into running pretty thin. I tried for three years to run a BQ and really wanted to run Boston. I ran 3:03, 3:05, 3:07 and 3:08 off 40-60 mpw and low 37's 10k. Broke 37 minutes once. When the 3:03 wasn't good enough to get me in, I quit running marathons and am now cycling, where I'm competitive in Cat 3. I wouldn't say it's easy to go sub 3. Marathons are hard.
Quote Reply
Re: New BQ Qualifying Times [stevendex] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
stevendex wrote:
I'm 27. I didn't run in college but always played sports and came into running pretty thin. I tried for three years to run a BQ and really wanted to run Boston. I ran 3:03, 3:05, 3:07 and 3:08 off 40-60 mpw and low 37's 10k. Broke 37 minutes once. When the 3:03 wasn't good enough to get me in, I quit running marathons and am now cycling, where I'm competitive in Cat 3. I wouldn't say it's easy to go sub 3. Marathons are hard.

The post you quoted didn't at all say it's "easy" to go sub-3. He said it wasn't "sub-elite".
Quote Reply
Re: New BQ Qualifying Times [FuzzyRunner] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
FuzzyRunner wrote:
I don't think it would be to hard for BAA to set up some type of elevation drop standard. Races already need someone to come out and verify the race distance so it shouldn't be hard to figure out its elevation drop throughout the course. If I were them I'd probably grandfather in all races from say 2020 and earlier. Then set the standard for new courses to allow maybe no more than 1000ft of elevation drop.

I doubt the BAA would ever address it. The qualifying standards and the registration process are a good tools to control the size of the field. Why would they ever take on themselves any more complication and PR headaches. The only people clamoring for this are the competitive purists who probably make up about 10% of the field at Boston. IMO, addressing this would be a waste of time and money for the BAA.

------------------
http://dontletitdefeatyou.blogspot.com
Quote Reply
Re: New BQ Qualifying Times [g_lev] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
g_lev wrote:
stevendex wrote:
I'm 27. I didn't run in college but always played sports and came into running pretty thin. I tried for three years to run a BQ and really wanted to run Boston. I ran 3:03, 3:05, 3:07 and 3:08 off 40-60 mpw and low 37's 10k. Broke 37 minutes once. When the 3:03 wasn't good enough to get me in, I quit running marathons and am now cycling, where I'm competitive in Cat 3. I wouldn't say it's easy to go sub 3. Marathons are hard.


The post you quoted didn't at all say it's "easy" to go sub-3. He said it wasn't "sub-elite".

Yup, and I still stand by this:

mstange22 wrote:
"One-sport marathoners, or even triathletes, durable enough to string together a solid block with 60-70 mpw for 6-10 weeks should be able to BQ without much of a problem. It's not easy, necessarily, but it's certainly doable."
Quote Reply
Re: New BQ Qualifying Times [mstange22] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mstange22 wrote:
g_lev wrote:
stevendex wrote:
I'm 27. I didn't run in college but always played sports and came into running pretty thin. I tried for three years to run a BQ and really wanted to run Boston. I ran 3:03, 3:05, 3:07 and 3:08 off 40-60 mpw and low 37's 10k. Broke 37 minutes once. When the 3:03 wasn't good enough to get me in, I quit running marathons and am now cycling, where I'm competitive in Cat 3. I wouldn't say it's easy to go sub 3. Marathons are hard.


The post you quoted didn't at all say it's "easy" to go sub-3. He said it wasn't "sub-elite".


Yup, and I still stand by this:

mstange22 wrote:
"One-sport marathoners, or even triathletes, durable enough to string together a solid block with 60-70 mpw for 6-10 weeks should be able to BQ without much of a problem. It's not easy, necessarily, but it's certainly doable."


Agreed. I did my first BQ off "residual fitness" coming out of tri season. I finished that year with a 9:57 IM in October, and ran a 3:04 BQ in December (when my BQ time was 3:10). I didn't even bother with 60+mpw. I think I topped out around 50 miles, but I kept the overall volume up after the IM.

My second BQ was a 2:59, and again, same deal, it was residual fitness coming off tri season with a few weeks of 45-55mpw after posting a 9:29 IM.

I hardly consider myself "sub-elite" or anything of the sort. Just someone who works hard and consistently. I'll save the "sub elite" tag for people doing 2:40 marathons. Not my "just sub-3".

What I will say I am is "durable". I can keep at it for months on end and not get injured, or too fatigued. In that I am supremely lucky. But there are plenty of people MUCH faster than me.
Last edited by: g_lev: May 17, 19 10:21
Quote Reply
Re: New BQ Qualifying Times [g_lev] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm sure the multi-sport training helps with durability, too. Spreading out the load. And I've always looked at 2:40 as like a holy grail time for amateur marathoners.

But back to the topic at hand...what are people thinking about the cut now? I'm sitting at -5:33 after a miserable training season and wondering if I need to get in another race before registration. My guess is that it will be enough, but I'd sure be more comfortable with a -10. There aren't that many great options between now and then and I'd rather sit tight and race something fast in the fall to improve my seed if I can get my act together.
Quote Reply
Re: New BQ Qualifying Times [mstange22] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mstange22 wrote:
I'm sure the multi-sport training helps with durability, too. Spreading out the load. And I've always looked at 2:40 as like a holy grail time for amateur marathoners.

But back to the topic at hand...what are people thinking about the cut now? I'm sitting at -5:33 after a miserable training season and wondering if I need to get in another race before registration. My guess is that it will be enough, but I'd sure be more comfortable with a -10. There aren't that many great options between now and then and I'd rather sit tight and race something fast in the fall to improve my seed if I can get my act together.

Well with the times dropped by 5 minutes over previous years, I would be pretty comfortable with anything better than -5:00. And I am guessing even that won't be necessary.
Quote Reply
Re: New BQ Qualifying Times [mstange22] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
what are people thinking about the cut now? I'm sitting at -5:33//

I was just looking at what they did from last year, and they dropped the qualifying times by 5 minutes, and the average time you had to be under to make it last year was 4;52. So I would think you would be good to go now, that 5 minute drop should eliminate virtually everyone that made the cut last year but didnt get in..


You all got it easy, I had to go 2;50 to get in. Back when the race was for the pointy end. Later on the 60+ guys still had to do 3;30, so guessing that is still pointy end for the old farts. After doing 80 of the 100/100 runs in this past challenge, I was thinking to have a go maybe. Thought I would never do another marathon, ever, but I suppose I could do a lot of high 8 minute miles if I had a mind too. Is going to Boston still fun these days, or a shit show of just too many people???
Quote Reply
Re: New BQ Qualifying Times [monty] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
monty wrote:
what are people thinking about the cut now? I'm sitting at -5:33//

I was just looking at what they did from last year, and they dropped the qualifying times by 5 minutes, and the average time you had to be under to make it last year was 4;52. So I would think you would be good to go now, that 5 minute drop should eliminate virtually everyone that made the cut last year but didnt get in..


You all got it easy, I had to go 2;50 to get in. Back when the race was for the pointy end. Later on the 60+ guys still had to do 3;30, so guessing that is still pointy end for the old farts. After doing 80 of the 100/100 runs in this past challenge, I was thinking to have a go maybe. Thought I would never do another marathon, ever, but I suppose I could do a lot of high 8 minute miles if I had a mind too. Is going to Boston still fun these days, or a shit show of just too many people???

I ran Boston this year and had a really disappointing race. I think it may be the worst I have every done at anything (swim, run or triathlon) in the last 35 years.

But to answer your question: it was still an amazing race and a great deal of fun for me. When you turn onto Boylston and there is a crowd 10 deep on both sides of the road screaming and cheering you feel like you are a rock star. And the people in the city - uber drivers, folks at the hotel, waiters at restaurants - truly embrace the race and the participants.

I've decided to do it again in 2021.
Quote Reply
Re: New BQ Qualifying Times [ajthomas] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ajthomas wrote:
monty wrote:
what are people thinking about the cut now? I'm sitting at -5:33//

I was just looking at what they did from last year, and they dropped the qualifying times by 5 minutes, and the average time you had to be under to make it last year was 4;52. So I would think you would be good to go now, that 5 minute drop should eliminate virtually everyone that made the cut last year but didnt get in..


You all got it easy, I had to go 2;50 to get in. Back when the race was for the pointy end. Later on the 60+ guys still had to do 3;30, so guessing that is still pointy end for the old farts. After doing 80 of the 100/100 runs in this past challenge, I was thinking to have a go maybe. Thought I would never do another marathon, ever, but I suppose I could do a lot of high 8 minute miles if I had a mind too. Is going to Boston still fun these days, or a shit show of just too many people???


I ran Boston this year and had a really disappointing race. I think it may be the worst I have every done at anything (swim, run or triathlon) in the last 35 years.

But to answer your question: it was still an amazing race and a great deal of fun for me. When you turn onto Boylston and there is a crowd 10 deep on both sides of the road screaming and cheering you feel like you are a rock star. And the people in the city - uber drivers, folks at the hotel, waiters at restaurants - truly embrace the race and the participants.

I've decided to do it again in 2021.

The crowd experience is unmatched for the whole race. There was a guy sitting in his front yard drinking beers as we're walking to the start from the athlete's village! The crowds reminded me of the 4th St Live finish at IMLou, but for 27 miles.

But for me, it'll be a once in a lifetime event. I'm generally not a fan of races that size and the shoulder to shoulder pack for the first 5 miles. Obviously it's going to be up to you to decide if you like the crowds or not.
Quote Reply

Prev Next