Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
New BQ Qualifying Times
Quote | Reply
I'm curious as to how the new BQ qualifying times will affect the qualifying standard. The standard for 2019 was 4:52 compared to 3:23 for 2018. Do you feel that the new qualifying times will bring the standard closer to 2-3 mins or should we expect another 5 mins for the 2020 marathon.
Quote Reply
Re: New BQ Qualifying Times [mmtri10] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I would think the idea was to set the times so that achieving them meant you would be accepted into the race. Safer to come in a few minutes under them.

There are some sites that will estimate the cutoff times as race results start being collected. You could choose a later race and let those estimates guide you.
Quote Reply
Re: New BQ Qualifying Times [mmtri10] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think it will be closer to the 1-2 minute under qualifying time and as the years progress it'll slowly creep back to 2,3,4 minutes. I would love to see the break down of race age groups by minutes under qualifying time. I know it is talked about a lot but I think it's easier for women to qualify than men in the younger age groups so I wonder if the qualification standard affects women as much as the men or even the older age groups vs. the younger age groups. The faster you get the more precious each minute is.
Quote Reply
Re: New BQ Qualifying Times [FuzzyRunner] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It all depends on what your definition of "easier" is. If the field is evenly split at 50/50 male/female ration, which I believe it is, does it mean that one gender has it easier than the other?

I read somewhere where the BAA's race director said that the qualifying times are more favorable to the older age groups vs easier for women than men. Within the past 10 years we've seen the :59 seconds removed from the BQ time and the cutoffs being reduced by 5 minutes, twice. That means that the BQ times have gotten faster by 11 minutes over the past 10 years. It's still not as fast as back in the old days when pretty much all of the males had to go sub-3 and all women had to go sub 3:15(?) to get in.


FuzzyRunner wrote:
I think it will be closer to the 1-2 minute under qualifying time and as the years progress it'll slowly creep back to 2,3,4 minutes. I would love to see the break down of race age groups by minutes under qualifying time. I know it is talked about a lot but I think it's easier for women to qualify than men in the younger age groups so I wonder if the qualification standard affects women as much as the men or even the older age groups vs. the younger age groups. The faster you get the more precious each minute is.


__________________________________________________________________________
My marathon PR is "under three, high twos. I had a two hour and fifty-something."
Quote Reply
Re: New BQ Qualifying Times [FuzzyRunner] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
FuzzyRunner wrote:
I think it will be closer to the 1-2 minute under qualifying time

Yep, it's unlikely to be almost 5 minutes again, but quite how far under is tricky.

Pacing is an interesting problem, I'd probably aim for a minute under at half way, then just see whats possible.
Quote Reply
Re: New BQ Qualifying Times [mmtri10] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The BAA should set a limit for how much elevation drop certified courses can have. Don’t allow anything over 200 meters of elevation drop - I think that would bring the qualifying times and standards very close together

Matt
Quote Reply
Re: New BQ Qualifying Times [Pun_Times] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I agree. I know Boston has a net drop on their course so maybe make the cutoff the same as Boston's elevation drop.
Quote Reply
Re: New BQ Qualifying Times [zoom] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
zoom wrote:
It all depends on what your definition of "easier" is. If the field is evenly split at 50/50 male/female ration, which I believe it is, does it mean that one gender has it easier than the other?


http://raceday.baa.org/statistics.html


Not an even split. Men and women have to hit the same time under the stated BQ standard to actually register.


You can still argue that one or the other have softer base qualifying standard (women of the same age get 30 minutes vs. men), but that is a different matter.
Quote Reply
Re: New BQ Qualifying Times [dfroelich] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Not trying to split hair here, but the stats you gave are for all runners at Boston. ~25% of the field are there by means other than qualification. However, the stats you gave shows that there are a lot more men than women there. I wonder what the general ratio is for men/women at all marathons. That would give us a good look at whether the BAA ratio of men/women are on par with the national average or not.



dfroelich wrote:
zoom wrote:
It all depends on what your definition of "easier" is. If the field is evenly split at 50/50 male/female ration, which I believe it is, does it mean that one gender has it easier than the other?


http://raceday.baa.org/statistics.html


Not an even split. Men and women have to hit the same time under the stated BQ standard to actually register.


You can still argue that one or the other have softer base qualifying standard (women of the same age get 30 minutes vs. men), but that is a different matter.


__________________________________________________________________________
My marathon PR is "under three, high twos. I had a two hour and fifty-something."
Last edited by: zoom: Oct 5, 18 13:35
Quote Reply
Re: New BQ Qualifying Times [zoom] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don't know the exact numbers but I do know that there are always more men than women in marathon races (and almost all racing type events, unless it's women only). What I do find interesting is that women outnumber the men in the 18-39 year old age group by 1000. This obviously could be because of the charity slots, etc. but I would venture that some of that difference is qualifying times. I will also mention that that same age group is almost 3 times as large as any of the other age groups.
Quote Reply
Re: New BQ Qualifying Times [zoom] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
True, but just because there is a different split of M/W at Boston vs. the national average, it does not necessarily follow that it is easier for one or the other.

There have been articles that analyze the ratio of total marathon finishes to Boston Qualifiers. You could then use that info to say something like:
"On average X% of women marathon finishers hit their BQ standard while Y% of men hit theirs, therefore, it is Z% more difficult to qualify as a man/woman." Again, there are issues here, but it would be a fine start.

Spoiler...they usually conclude women have it a little easier. Considering the race's rather misogynistic history and still male heavy participation, I'm absolutely fine with it.
Quote Reply
Re: New BQ Qualifying Times [zoom] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I found this one

https://running.competitor.com/...participation_165419

"Running USA has released their annual marathon and half marathon reports for 2016, offering statistics and finisher insights for each distance. For the second year in a row, participation has declined in both events, down from a record high in 2014.
Last year, 507,600 people completed 26.2 miles in the United States. Among those participants, women made up 44 percent of marathon finishers in 2016, showing no change from the 2015 report. "
Quote Reply
Re: New BQ Qualifying Times [lightheir] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Boston: = 13392 female runners / 29979 total runners = 44%

It looks like BAA striked a pretty good balance with their BQ standard. Hard to complain that one gender is harder than the other when the numbers look pretty balanced




lightheir wrote:
I found this one

https://running.competitor.com/...participation_165419

"Running USA has released their annual marathon and half marathon reports for 2016, offering statistics and finisher insights for each distance. For the second year in a row, participation has declined in both events, down from a record high in 2014.
Last year, 507,600 people completed 26.2 miles in the United States. Among those participants, women made up 44 percent of marathon finishers in 2016, showing no change from the 2015 report. "


__________________________________________________________________________
My marathon PR is "under three, high twos. I had a two hour and fifty-something."
Quote Reply
Re: New BQ Qualifying Times [zoom] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
zoom wrote:
Boston: = 13392 female runners / 29979 total runners = 44%

It looks like BAA striked a pretty good balance with their BQ standard. Hard to complain that one gender is harder than the other when the numbers look pretty balanced


That's not really the right way to look at it.

In terms of "harder" to qualify - it is way harder for males. A few years ago there was a study in one of the running magazines that showed as a <35 yr old it was almost 15x harder to qualify as a male than a female. The reason is that there are way more males who run than females. As male, you have to run a sub 3hr marathon - you basically have to be a borderline elite athlete. Running a sub 3 puts you in the <1% of male runners who run marathons. Of women who run marathons, approx 15% of them can run a sub 3:30. So comparatively speaking, it is almost 15x harder as a male than female to qualify (in the youngest age bracket).

It's pretty obvious, even anecdotally, in my opinion. I've been running for over a decade, and pretty much all of my female friends who take their training even mildly seriously qualify for BQ with ease.

Over time, as more of the overall female population runs, the gap will even itself out - but I'm guessing that won't be for at least a few decades (assuming BAA's long term goal is to have an even 50/50 split).
Last edited by: blayze: Oct 5, 18 15:10
Quote Reply
Re: New BQ Qualifying Times [zoom] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
So what super extreme downhill hill marathons will we see pop up this year thanks to this new standard? Top of pikes peak down the road for -10k foot drop?


http://www.coupleofathletes.com
Quote Reply
Re: New BQ Qualifying Times [FuzzyRunner] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think if you are over 40 it’s pretty easy to get in.
Quote Reply
Re: New BQ Qualifying Times [Sbernardi] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Sbernardi wrote:
I think if you are over 40 it’s pretty easy to get in.

I still think it's tough.

3:10 for M40-44 is no joke.

I thought I'd have a legit chance at it BEFORE they made the standards faster, but I don't think I can run a 3:10 in M40-44.

Furthermore, factors I knew to be real, but not my reality until recently, come into play once you're over 40, and def over 50. I am seriously doubtful I will ever run another marathon, let another half marathon - because of ankle arthritis that I didn't even realize was so limiting until this past year. My desire, the cardio, and the short-term race results showing BQ potential are all there, but my ankle won't last the 50+mpw training required to reach the goal.

Add in more senior diseases like cancer, heart disease, neurological stuff, metabolic stuff, and you're cutting out a lot of potential BQers that would otherwise be in the mix for a slot.
Quote Reply
Re: New BQ Qualifying Times [Pun_Times] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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

SecondWindTiming.com
Triathlon and Running Race Timing
Athletic Event Management
Quote Reply
Re: New BQ Qualifying Times [lightheir] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think the cut-off, if there is one, will be somewhere around a minute. As time goes on, maybe it will creep up towards 5, but no way will it happen in one year.

When they changed the standards and implemented the registration procedure the last time, the RD was quoted in an article around the time of the race. He said that if you're in the -5 group and worried about whether or not you'll get in, "Relax! You'll be fine."

It took more than 5 years to close the gap. There wasn't a cut-off in the first year under the new standards (for 2013). Not saying there won't be next time around, but I don't see it moving up over a minute.

IMO, even with the recent change, the standards are still not all that tough, but you have to be able to handle the volume (@lightheir). Sub-3 for males is NOT borderline elite (@letsrun).

<Insert something about "a club that would have me as a member isn't worth joining" />

I'd say somewhere in the 2:30-2:40 range is borderline elite - and even that might be a stretch since it's still a good 10-20 minutes away from sniffing the trials.

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 [themuse1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I would say that Boston has he most qualifiers because 75%, or however many people, have to run the standard to get into the race so it would make sense that it would have such a high qualifying rate.
Quote Reply
Re: New BQ Qualifying Times [mstange22] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mstange22 wrote:
I think the cut-off, if there is one, will be somewhere around a minute. As time goes on, maybe it will creep up towards 5, but no way will it happen in one year.

When they changed the standards and implemented the registration procedure the last time, the RD was quoted in an article around the time of the race. He said that if you're in the -5 group and worried about whether or not you'll get in, "Relax! You'll be fine."

It took more than 5 years to close the gap. There wasn't a cut-off in the first year under the new standards (for 2013). Not saying there won't be next time around, but I don't see it moving up over a minute.

IMO, even with the recent change, the standards are still not all that tough, but you have to be able to handle the volume (@lightheir). Sub-3 for males is NOT borderline elite (@letsrun).

<Insert something about "a club that would have me as a member isn't worth joining" />

I'd say somewhere in the 2:30-2:40 range is borderline elite - and even that might be a stretch since it's still a good 10-20 minutes away from sniffing the trials.

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.

It's all relative. If you consider being better than over 99% of runners "doable" then yes it's doable.
Quote Reply
Re: New BQ Qualifying Times [themuse1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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)

Matt
Quote Reply
Re: New BQ Qualifying Times [Pun_Times] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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)

Eric Reid
AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Chapel Hill, NC
Aerodynamic Optimized Bike Fitting, Retul Pre-Purchase Bike Fitting, USAT Level 1 Triathlon Coaching, Nutrition
Ask me: Scody Optimized Speed Suits | CeramicSpeed Oversized Pulley Systems | HUUB Skinsuits and Wetsuits | Ventum Bicycles and Frames
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)

Friends ran the Revel Kulia today. 5500+ feet of elevation drop. Should never count as a BQ. Frankly, I’m sort of embarrassed for anyone who “qualified” there.

https://brookseeevents.s3.amazonaws.com/...levation_profile.png
Quote Reply
Re: New BQ Qualifying Times [craigj532] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
craigj532 wrote:
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)


Friends ran the Revel Kulia today. 5500+ feet of elevation drop. Should never count as a BQ. Frankly, I’m sort of embarrassed for anyone who “qualified” there.

https://brookseeevents.s3.amazonaws.com/...levation_profile.png

Boston has sold out to the #snowflake era. They wont ban these courses. They should follow IAAF rules.

They allow people born as male to declare themselves as female with 2 years of hormone treatment (fyi, 2 years of drinking beer or over training will also give similar test/estrogen levels - so why cant that count?).


http://www.coupleofathletes.com
Quote Reply

Prev Next