quite a bit faster

---

----------------------------------------------------
Striving to have sex more than 66 times per year

I believe the it was sub 3:00 for men under 40 and 3:10 or 3:15 for master's men and then sonme form of graded scale for older men. Not sure on that last bit. For women, I am not sure what the standards are.

I know that I will get hammered for this, but why doesn't Boston go back to that? It would really set themselves apart from all of the other majors.

Fleck

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

2:50 for men and 3:10 for women.

no exact dates, but a good summary can be read here: http://www.halhigdon.com/...yentry/easyentry.htm

cheers,
colin

I agree, I think Boston has lost its luster with the "pure" running crowd. Now it has become a race where the person who does a few marathons can improve enough to qualify. I have the opinion that any properly trained athlete who works hard enough can meet the qualifying standard. You do not need to have great ability to get there, just great work ethic.

---

----------------------------------------------------
Striving to have sex more than 66 times per year

I also agree--having run Boston but never qualifying with the old standard time. In fact, I was so slow in my qualifier that I started just in front on TNT runners. My guess is that the race needs the entry fees. And bringing 1800 + runners to Boston in mid April does wonders for city economy on a Holiday weekend (they have Patriots day). Anyway, suppose in IM we were given even higher standard to qualify for hawaii--you bet people would train harder. Higher the bar, higher the jump. What if it was based on course--lets say, IMCDA or IMLP--sub 11:00 for women and 10:00 for men. We'd all have our sites on that.

---

leslie myers
http://www.foodsensenow.com

Why doesn't Boston toughen up the qualifying standards, asks Fleck? That's quite a good question.

Over the past 15 years, Boston Marathon has diluted the quality of the race in many different ways, the most evident of which is the qualifying standards. Many other dilutions have occurred which means a much smaller percentage of the field are truly elite age group runners. The rest of the field obtained their race numbers by any of the following methods:

1. Want a race number? Raise $$$$$ for some charity and get a number. (Team in Training, Jimmy Fund, etc)

2. Don't want to raise $$$$$ for charity? Join any Boston area running club or triathlon team. BAA hands out numbers to the local running clubs and tri teams to use as they please.

3. Can't manage either of the above? Hmmm. Are you related by blood or marriage to anyone on the staff at the BAA? Or are you divorced from anyone who works at the BAA? That's good enough to get a number.

These are only a few of the non-qualifying methods to obtain a Boston Marathon race number. The result is that when you look at the entry field today, a much smaller percentage are runners who qualified, and a much larger percentage are runners who could never qualify but obtained numbers by numerous other methods.

It's similar, in a way, to the WTC. They have their qualifiers for Hawaii, their previous year age group winners and pro winners, their lottery. Then they have the CEO challenge, the online auction, and their seldom publicized but very well established "celebrity" numbers. You know, the ex-(fill in the professional US sport) player, the former (fill in extremely fat or extremely skinny) woman, the family with the child dying from (fill in the most awful disease you can imagine) and so on. WTC awards a certain number of race numbers to whomever they please. BAA does the same.

They do it because it provides them with more publicity and more exposure, and makes for more interesting television coverage. The intention has less to do with the quality of the field than the various other PR related considerations.

My opinion, of course.
BrokenSpoke

Great post.

Again, my feeling is that it could make Boston really different if they did this - just like it used to be. Now with all due respect, the standards are not that tough really, and Boston is just like any other marathon - New York, Chicago, London, Los Angeles, San Diego etc . . They still have the standards, but they are really not that hard to get.

Fleck

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

What's even sadder is the decline in Olympic Trials Qualifing, especially since the USATF (Bill Roe & the gang) set out to ruin the sport.

1972-2:26

1976-2:23

1980- 2:21

1984- 2:24

1988- 2:25

1992-present ...just show up

---

-------------------------------------------------
Latest Duct tape QR Superfull fashion model

Are you serious? You mean anyone can just show up for Olympic trials?

---

----------------------------------------------------
Striving to have sex more than 66 times per year

I tend to agree with the dilution of the Boston qualifiers taking its luster away a bit. Of course that's easy for me to say, as I run around 2:50 or under so I could still get in. I'm sure I would feel differently if I was a 3:08 marathoner and couldn't get in. So who the hell am I to think I should get in and the 3:08 dude shouldn't? I'm sure there are 2:30 runners out there who think it's BS that us slowass 2:50 folks get in. They have just as good a point as we do. I've run it quite a few times and I think it's by far the coolest thing I've ever done in 25 years of endurance sports, including having done several IM's, so it's kind of selfish of me to think I should be able to and others shouldn't.

On another note - gotahemi - you are incorrect about anybody getting into the Olympic trials. You have to break 2:22 to qualify for the US Men's trials.

Don't know where you've been but the standard is 2:22 (pay your own way) or 2:20 (expenses paid). These have been the times for at least the last 6 or 7 years.

---

*********************
"When I first had the opportunity to compete in triathlon, it was the chicks and their skimpy race clothing that drew me in. Everyone was so welcoming and the lifestyle so obviously narcissistic. I fed off of that vain energy. To me it is what the sport is all about."

But how many people actually bother? I think the Boston standards are set so that anyone who really wants to, and puts the time in, can qualify. It really bugs me when someone indicates I had a relatively easy time qualifying, and then find out they train 40 miles per week. If you want to go (and if you have modest ability), put in the miles and you will.

IM Kona seems to be a lot more selective. You also have to rely on the field placings rather than your own ability to qualify.

Boston is also a mass market event (up to 20.000 runners these days) compared to the rather elite gathering in Hawaii.

---

http://www.actionshots.ca

I'm pretty sure Boston qualifying for open men was 2:50 for the 1987 race because I ran it without a number (not proud but not ducking the facts either), and I had run 3:12:15 in my debut the previous fall. Then I ran in 1988 with a number. I seem to recall that qualifying went to 3:00 for 1988 and I had run 3:01:05 fall 1987 but they let me in because I was so close. I think 1989 was still 3:00 because I went 2:58:03 fall 1988 and remember being hugely relieved to finally qualify. Maybe 1990 or 1991 at the latest they went to 3:10 (since my last sub 3:00 was spring 1989 but I did a number of Boston's after that).

I don't understand what the big deal is.

How does it impact you if there are slower guys out there. If you are there to run your own race, shouldn't really matter if the qualifying time is 2:50 or 3:10. It shouldn't affect your race.

> IM Kona seems to be a lot more selective.
Not for everybody. Different sizes and shapes...

A male competitor with a strong swim/bike combo but slogging through a 4:00 IM marathon still can get a ticket for Kona. Likely, it'd be difficult for this same person to run a 3:10 standalone marathon (not mentioning 2:50).

By the same token, for somebody relying on the run leg to qualify for Kona, qualifying for Boston is probably trivial - might even be able to do it in an IM marathon. ;)

For women, I'd say Boston is easier because, one, the standard is slightly relaxed: the equivalent of a 3:10 for a male runner is a 3:28 for a female runner (based on age and gender graded tables) - as opposed to the official 3:40. AND, two, the slots for Kona are allocated based on the number of people in your age group: which means that women in most age groups have to be top 3 or sometimes better to get a chance to compete in Kona.

Cheers,
Alex

---

---
First with the head, then with the heart. -- HG

i'mm glad so many people think 'anyone' can run a 3:10 marathon.

---

_______________________________________________________________

"the trouble with normal is - it always gets worse"

- Cockburn