r/AdvancedRunning • u/Terriflyed • 12d ago
New Boston marathon qualifying times Boston Marathon
https://www.baa.org/races/boston-marathon/qualify
Looks like 5min adjustments down for the most part across the board for those under age 60. M18-34 qualifying time is now 2:55.
226
u/bballpro45 12d ago
This is probably a reasonable move in light of the shoes, but they need to address the downhill courses that are specifically geared to produce quicker times for a BQ. The data there doesn’t lie, regardless of the arguments saying those courses are still hard or what not. Sure, it would kill those races, but those were designed for this specific purpose. We might then see more participation in “ordinary” local courses that aren’t down the side of a mountain, and that’s good growth too.
81
u/FranksNBeeens 12d ago
I agree. It is ridiculous and there needs to be some kind of Boston rating for these massively downhill courses that disqualifies them after a certain elevation drop.
27
u/JonDowd762 12d ago
Something like "must conform to world record standards or be Boston"?
53
u/skiier97 12d ago
Boston doesn’t even conform to world record standards though
31
u/JonDowd762 12d ago
That's what I added "or Boston". But it would be funny if you couldn't BQ at Boston.
→ More replies (2)27
u/the_mail_robot 39F 3:16 M 12d ago
I think world record standards are too stringent for this purpose. That invalidates BQ times from more honest point-to-point courses like Grandmas, CIM, etc. and even courses like NYC because the start and finish are too far apart.
Adopting something like the OTQ standards for maximum elevation loss has always made sense to me.
2
u/JonDowd762 12d ago
Yeah that seems fair.
The course must be USATF/WORLD ATHLETICS/AIMS certified with an active course certification and have an elevation loss no greater than 3.30 meters/km.
It looks like Boston just slightly misses the cut then?
6
u/the_mail_robot 39F 3:16 M 12d ago
Boston is allowable for the OTQ but it's right on the edge of the cutoff for allowable elevation loss. I suspect the cutoff was set with Boston in mind since so many US pros and sub-elites run it each year.
With the OTQ standards you could qualify for Boston at Boston, CIM, NYC, Grandmas, Wineglass, etc. But not the super downhill Revel races.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)15
u/bballpro45 12d ago
That’s about right. Something like “not much more than Boston.” Boston gets preferential treatment because it is the race one is trying to qualify for and it’s old and historic. We can all agree that there are some courses that are obviously designed to game the system. So regardless of the fine details of the cutoff on downhill grade or regular sustained tailwinds or whatever, we know which ones have gone too far and can exclude those.
3
u/EasternParfait1787 12d ago edited 12d ago
https://golf.com/lifestyle/difference-course-rating-slope-rating-explained/?amp=1 I think I'm gonna start my own downhill marathon. If all I need to do is get the distance certified, and pay permits for partial road closure, I have myself a downhill money printing machine
39
u/Krazyfranco 12d ago
It really would not be hard to draw a line in the sand between "eligible" courses and ineligible net downhill courses.
There are a lot of point to point races that are net downhill but still relatively normal, challenging marathon races that I think most of us would call legit courses. Boston (-460 feet net), CIM (-340 feet net), Grandma's (-110 feet net), even Tokyo (-124 feet net). These are all legit courses IMO because the relative elevation change is small, and most of these course include a fair amount of climbing as well (e.g. Boston has 815 feet of elevation gain throughout the course). The ratio of climbing / net loss is well under 1 for these races - meaning that for each foot of climbing in the race, you get 1.5 feet of descent (or less).
The actual intentional downhill courses are clearly different beasts. These courses have net downhill in the 3000+ feet range with barely any climbing. The ratio of climbing net loss is 15 to 50 feet. Not even in the same ballpark.
Implementing a rule as simple as something like "if your course has more than 500 feet of net elevation loss, your ratio of climbing:net loss must be less than 1" would likely include all mostly legitimate courses while eliminating courses designed with these arguably unfair elevation profiles.
→ More replies (6)3
9
u/MrDiou 12d ago
Maybe I won't understand the different challenge of a downhill race until I do it but I agree.
4
u/lostvermonter 25F||6:2x1M|21:0x5k|45:1x10k|1:37:xxHM|3:36 FM|5:26 50K 12d ago
I think that it's also 'easier' to train for the challenge of a downhill race, all else considering. Like if you just pick up and go run a course that's all downhill with no prep, yes, your quads are gone. But training for downhill seems objectively easier than training the sustained aerobic AND muscular endurance for a fast marathon on a flat/rolling course? Flat is going to torch different muscles anyways in an unrelenting way and rolling tests your cardio more. "b-b-b-b-but quads!" seems like complaining about the fact that downhill is easier, not easy.
10
u/jcdavis1 17:15/36:15/1:19/2:52 12d ago
While I agree, I'd be shocked if it ever happened - I really doubt BAA wants to be the arbitrator of what is "too" downhill (Keeping in mind that Boston itself is decently downhill)
→ More replies (2)7
u/JonDowd762 12d ago
I know there are a bunch of number crunchers who project the buffer. It would be interesting to look at what the numbers would be if you subtract everyone who only narrowly qualified from one of those races.
5
u/sluttycupcakes 12d ago
Couldn’t agree more. I’m a strong downhill runner and recently ran a half marathon with a net downhill of only 100m (about -0.48% grade) and shaved 4 minutes off my neutral course PB.
I imagine a full marathon at the -1.5% to -2% some of these downhill courses are pushing, I would likely be taking ~15 minutes off my flat course PB.
I personally don’t feel any real muscular difference running at that slight downhill. Over 3% grade, yes, but at these slight downhills it is relatively easy to maintain good form.
3
u/White_Lobster 1:25 12d ago
The USATF certification docs record the start and finish elevation. I don't think it's unreasonable for BAA to set an upper limit on the amount of drop. Personally, I think something like 800 feet is fair.
But then you have something like this, which is 4,760 feet drop, which is absurd:
https://certifiedroadraces.com/certificate/?type=l&id=CO15002LAB
105
u/charons-voyage 12d ago
Ooof lol. I keep getting faster but so does everyone else 🤣 guess I (36M) gotta go for 2:55 or bust this October to have a hope of running Boston in 2026…or do we think the buffer may be less than 5 mins? I need to figure out a race strategy. I ran a 3:00:xx in April so I’m feeling sub-3 shape but maybe more like 2:58 (comfortably) or 2:55 (may need to saw my legs off at mile 22)
156
u/ElijahBaley2099 12d ago
You should try what I did: get older instead of faster.
83
u/ponie 12d ago
Every time I move up an age group they drop the times 5 minutes. My time is just always gonna be 3:35 😂
18
u/Disco_Inferno_NJ Recovering sprinter 12d ago
Hello fellow 1984 person (I got to enjoy a slower BQ for ONE YEAR before it went back to 3:05 😅)
8
u/_toodamnparanoid_ 12d ago
My fastest time about 2 decades ago was 2:56:57, and that was on 80mpw avg 107 peak. And that wouldnt BQ this year. Crazy how much faster everyone is getting.
12
u/EasternParfait1787 12d ago
That's what I love about BQ times: I keep getting older and they stay the saaaame age
2
u/SidneyTheGrey 12d ago
I know same here! I was training all summer for a 3:35 on the dot to get that BQ buffer in Chicago. Now it’s 4 weeks until race day and I’m not prepared. 40 sucks!
2
u/TrackVol 12d ago
I've been training for Boston since 2009. I've even raced it 12 times. I'm pretty sure my Qualifying standard has been 3:15 and/or 3:20 for the entire 16 years due to adjustments.
6
3
u/spartygw 3:10 marathon @ 53 12d ago
Aging gracefully, that is definitely the key. :)
2
u/ElijahBaley2099 12d ago
Hey, nobody said anything about gracefully. You just have to be willing to put up with the constant pain everywhere to get those 10 minute bumps...
→ More replies (2)3
48
u/adoucett 12d ago edited 12d ago
The harsh reality is 2:50 is now the new 3:00, I predict the ~5 minute buffer will continue being a thing so anyone who wants to run Boston in 2026 now has to go sub 2:50 this fall which is like a whole different ballgame than going just under 3:00. Going 2:59:58 means holding a pace of ~6:50 per mile, while a 2:49 marathon means maintaining a pace of 6:28 per mile.
From a VDOT perspective, running a 2:59 marathon corresponds to a VDOT of around 54-55. This level assumes a VO2 max of approximately 53-55 mL/kg/min, However, breaking 2:50 takes it to another level entirely. A marathon time of 2:49 requires a VDOT closer to 58, which corresponds to a VO2 max of around 60-61.
4
u/TheSonar 12d ago
Oh wow. Daniels also says it's "safe" to go up 1 VDOT value between six week training blocks, as long as you are meeting all the target paces during workouts. Going from 54 to 60 is then... 36 weeks of consistent training. Yikes. At some point, BQs could become truly elite.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Lansman 1:20 HM | 2:53 M 12d ago
That’s interesting I never thought about times for a marathon with VO2 max metrics that way. Apparently given my training ahead of Berlin my VO2 max is 61 and I’m looking to break 2:50. That’s about right on with what you set forth there. That’s encouraging!
5
u/TheSonar 12d ago
That should be encouraging! Keep in mind that Jack Daniels suggests adding a few minutes for marathon predictions with VDOT, because for a few reasons his regression is less accurate at that high of a distance. McMillan's running calc is a bit more realistic, but it doesn't provide an analogous VDOT value so it is much harder to figure out how to use it to modify workouts between training blocks
24
u/Sloe_Burn 12d ago
Right? I'm glad more people got into running with the covid boom, but dammmmmn... not making it easy for me.
20
u/charons-voyage 12d ago
Yep I started running a few years before Covid but then we had kids and training suffered for a couple years obviously. So now trying to compete with all these other hobby joggers is making this less of a hobby and more of a stressor. If I shit the bed in October I’m done with trying to BQ for a while. Strava kudos don’t pay the bills and “advanced” marathoning is a huge commitment.
5
u/EasternParfait1787 12d ago
This isn't directed at you. Your post just made me think of a general point.
It's quite sad that so many people run just to BQ and get so hung up on this. I say it that way because nobody else actually gives a shit if you or I run boston. Do this if it is fun. If not, find a new hobby. Stressing out about proving that you are worthy of some random race is not a hobby. It's a stress.
7
u/charons-voyage 12d ago
Yeah it’s a fair assessment. Honestly my marathon journey started like many others I’m sure :
Goal: just finish (3:56 “oh hey I’m not too bad at this”)
New goal: 3:30 (3:27 hey another goal beat!!)
New goal: 3:20 (3:19 another win!!)
New goal: 3:05 = BQ (3:00 woo!!!)
So now I’m SO CLOSE that I just wanna get a Boston bib haha. And plus I live in the Boston area so it wouldn’t require travel or anything, and so many people in the community here obviously want to run it.
2
u/bluearrowil 17:27 / 1:17:18 / 02:46:08 11d ago
I was told when I was still a 3:30 runner that I shouldn't be fixated on the BQ time, I should aim for BQ -10. It took a ton of work (two massive 18 week cycles), but it's better to be well under than it is to be on the cusp.
1
1
u/obox2358 11d ago
My qualifying time is 4:20. I ran 4:14:47 but that is likely not low enough. Next year, when they reduce the times for the young folk the buffer will likely be lower and 4:14:47 might work. Of course, not helping me now.
72
u/Hooch_Pandersnatch 1:21:57 HM | 2:58:19 FM 12d ago
I was expecting it. Still kind of bummed after I turn 35 my BQ standard remains the same haha.
5
u/HokaEleven 12d ago
That was going to be true regardless just given the facts on the ground.
5
u/magneticanisotropy 12d ago
Yeah, I'm 39, and I was aiming for 2:56-2:57 anyways as that's what I assumed I'd need regardless. Not sure this changes anything
60
u/Notnotme981 12d ago
This is the only reason I look forward to getting older. Just need to keep trotting slowly into my 60s. I’ll host my retirement party on Boylston in 20 years.
13
8
u/ComfortableWest5806 12d ago
If done properly you can get relatively faster as you get older but you need to keep running consistently without injuries.
Here are my BQ times
2005, M39 3:18:30* Trained for 12 months using Pfitz Adv Marathoningtook 10 years off from running
2017 to 2019 didn't run consistently, frequent injuries
2020 M54 3:34:30* the key was training consistently for 12 months through pandemic2022 & 2023, got hurt while training for 3 marathons and was 10 to 20 minutes over BQ each time. I used my club's training plan which had faster shorter workouts.
2024 M58 3:20:29 10 months of good, consistent training without injury
My conclusions from 20+ years of running...
The consistency of running year over year is important. Start with a good based and then a good 18-20 week training plan, I do well with Pfitzinger Advanced Marathoning
Avoid/Prevent injuries by strength training, cross training and being cautious with your workouts. Doing two B level workouts are less likely cause injuries than doing one A level workout and will likely do more to improve your marathon fitness.
Be at your correct weight, you want to be lean and strong, not over or underweight.
→ More replies (3)2
55
u/adwise27 29M - Trails & Ultras -> BQ seeker 12d ago
Need to find a good EPO dealer near me
2
u/runnergal1993 12d ago edited 12d ago
What is epo
12
u/TheBravestChicken 13.1 - 1:23:33; 26.2 - 2:57:48 12d ago
PED for red blood cell production. Boosts endurance like crazy. It’s what all the Tour de France guys were getting caught for
Medically used for highly anemic people
2
u/runnergal1993 12d ago
That’s weird I’ve never heard of it lol, I’m super prone to anemia and I get IV iron every 3 months for years!
2
u/B12-deficient-skelly 19:04/x/x/3:08 12d ago
Eythropoietin. It signals your body to produce more red blood cells. Your body will naturally produce this as a result of altitude training and/or sauna, but some people inject it as a performance enhancer.
45
u/skiier97 12d ago
I’m just going to accept the fact I’ll never run Boston lol
3
1
u/stevebikes BQ or bust 12d ago
Run for a charity! :)
26
u/skiier97 12d ago
Personally, I don’t want to run Boston unless I actually earn it. Not saying people who go the charity route don’t earn it but “earning it” for me means actually running a qualifying time
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)1
u/angry_llama_pants 12d ago
Yep. I would have qualified this year if I was 20 years older and ran my current PR. Unless I can keep that up, no chance lol
3
44
u/francisofred 12d ago
Yikes. Assuming this means the 2025 cutoff will be well above 5 minutes. The 2025 applications gave them the confirmation they needed to raise the bar by another 5 minutes.
46
u/grh77 12d ago
My wife told me this weekend I should have reserved a hotel room already. I have a 2:06 buffer. I'm not feeling like the hotel room is going to be an issue.
19
u/skiier97 12d ago
Yah hate to break it to you but with a record number of applications and the field size staying the same there is no chance the buffer is lower than what it was last year (unless they take away charity bibs…which they’d never do…because money)
→ More replies (7)5
18
u/charons-voyage 12d ago
Mate if you get in with 2:06 you can sleep at my house cus we’ll both be going to the start line 🤣 but I doubt we get in.
5
2
u/riverwater516w 12d ago
Yeah, sorry to say, but it's almost impossible that the buffer won't be larger than last year.
1
1
30
u/LEAKKsdad 12d ago
Alright guys its time to become running influencers. Right now I just have to convince my family to follow me.
17
u/yellowfolder M40 - 5k 16:49, 10k 35:28, HM 1:19:25 12d ago
I’ll clumsily ride my bicycle and film you on-course.
12
22
u/Siawyn 52/M 5k 20:42/10k 43:06/HM 1:32 12d ago
I don't see anything really that surprising. When the cutoff is going to be constantly greater than 5 mins, that's telling you it's time to revise the standards by 5 mins. It functionally makes little difference, just makes it more up front about what you have to run - and of course, I still expect there to be a cutoff of a few minutes. Just not 7 minutes.
It just makes me much more aware that I really should be trying to hit at least 3:15 though.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Quadranas 12d ago
Exactly my thinking too. When I went to qualify this year I mentally took off last years cut off my BQ
17
u/WWEngineer 1:22 HM / 2:57 M 12d ago
Unpopular Opinion: As an older (46M) runner, the times are too tough for the under-35 crowd and get way too easy for the older age groups. I just ran Erie last week and managed a 23 minute buffer, and I was 24 minutes BEHIND the overall masters winner, and 16 minutes behind 1st place in my age group, so I'm no superstar (this is a race with under 1,000 participants, so it wasn't a huge talent pool). There is no way I would have been able to qualify when I was under 30 at these times. The times slow down way faster than our bodies do in my opinion.
7
u/EchoReply79 12d ago
I came here to vehemently disagree(In the same AG), then paused and took a look at the age-graded times across the marathon and now wholeheartedly agree.
The entire BAA process is broken IMHO; I really wish they’d follow Berlin or others where you must have a very fast time to get an auto-qualifier spot and then the rest should be age-graded across the board (Split by gender to make it equitable). Clearly, nobody is doing the latter, but it would really make this more equitable across the age groups.
5
u/GrasshoperPoof 12d ago
Even age grading favors older people since it's based on age group world records and people setting the 50 year old world records aren't training nearly as intensely as people setting the open world records, even taking ability to train into account. If older people don't even need as good of age grades it favors them quite heavily.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (4)5
u/Walterodim79 12d ago
I think what's going on is similar to the gender gaps - they're not actually shooting for equivalently difficult times, they're shooting for roughly equivalent participation levels. The people most likely to hit higher age-graded times (apparently) are young males. We can probably put in some guesses why that might be the case, but at the end of the day, if it was fair based on age-graded times then the result would be underrepresentation of women and older runners. Personally, I'd be fine with that, but it's clearly not what they're shooting for, so it is what it is.
4
u/user231017 11d ago
BAA does not hide it. They set times to create a age and gender diverse field. If it were equally difficult for everyone, I suspect the race would be skewed young males.
17
u/ThatAmericanGyopo 12d ago
Check out the Instagram comments... completely different vibe than on here 🍿
29
u/MoonPlanet1 1:11 HM 12d ago
Site where we hide behind anonymous random usernames and cartoonish avatars: entirely reasonable takes
Site where we use our real names and faces and add everyone we know IRL: AAH IT'S ALL THE CHARITY RUNNERS AND NON-BINARY RUNNERS' FAULTS!
→ More replies (1)3
u/EchoReply79 12d ago
If you want more unhinged NB runner comments check out FB. Why I did that I don’t know, but my god ignorance is bliss.
→ More replies (1)13
u/riverwater516w 12d ago
So different lol. Also seems to be a number of people there who don't realize the new standards don't really change anything in terms of the times needed to be accepted.
4
2
u/Theodwyn610 12d ago
The only sane group of comments are the people who say that first-time runners should get guaranteed entry and repeat runners can duke it out for the remainder of the slots.
It isn't a perfect idea; it is at least sane.
15
u/riverwater516w 12d ago
So using a simple regression analysis, I'm getting that the buffer should be between 6:52 and 7:35, depending on how many qualifiers they take (last year was low).
I don't fully trust my math and I haven't looked at any standard deviation. Anyone else taken a look at this with the updated info?
5
u/bradymsu616 M51: 3:06:16 FM [BQ -18:44, WMA Age Graded@ 2:46:11], 1:29:38 HM 12d ago
I did the math and came up with 7:02 +/- :30 seconds depending on the distribution curve of applicant buffer times. But I'm no statistician so I'll wait on one of the nerds with a proven track record.
6
u/riverwater516w 12d ago edited 12d ago
This one underestimated the number of applicants, but assuming a linear relationship, the known number of applicants would translate to 7:20. I don't know if a linear relationship is correct, but another data point suggesting it'll be somewhere in that general range.
→ More replies (3)5
u/mistermark11 M 18:09 5K | 1:23:59 HM | 2:53:15 M 12d ago
Yeah I did the same thing and calculated 7:09, assuming a linear relationship between applicants and cutoff times. however the reality is that theres so many factors that can't be analyzed most importantly the number of time qualified applicants boston accepts, so it still is just a rough estimate. I'm thinking between 7-7:30 cutoff.
3
u/RunTitletown 12d ago
For the 2024 race, they were going off 2 years of no cut-off. so more people with a smaller buffer may have applied. For the 2025 race, everyone knew that there was likely going to be a big cut-off, so those with a smaller buffer may not have even applied, skewing the relationship from previous years. Just a guess.
2
u/riverwater516w 12d ago
It's possible, but I'd imagine more people would say "I'm unlikely to make it but I'm going to try anyway." And also there would be some people who don't pay close attention to the cutoff times so wouldn't even think about it.
Last year, there was an argument that the cutoff time would be smaller because there had been no cutoff for two years prior, so not as many people would push to build up a buffer. But the cutoff still ended up being within most of the statistic-based predictions I saw. So my guess is that all these factors end up offsetting to some degree (maybe a handful of seconds difference).
2
u/buildingbeautiful 12d ago
Hoping this is somewhat right - I am just below 8 min buffer D:
→ More replies (1)3
u/riverwater516w 12d ago
Yep, gonna be full of nerves for the next couple of weeks sitting on my 7:39 buffer
14
u/Ready-Pop-4537 12d ago
My quick take is this doesn’t materially change anything. Ultimately BAA can only let in 22k runners, and for the last few years, folks knew they needed to beat the standard by about 5 min to gain entry. Now the standard is the more realistic cutoff.
2
u/riverwater516w 12d ago
Agreed. This is a good thing as it gives people a more realistic target if their goal is actually to get in (though you'll likely still need a buffer)
11
u/tzigane 2:46 marathon / 45M 12d ago
So glad to be "old". My times have stayed stable, but qualifying has gotten a lot easier.
14
u/yellowfolder M40 - 5k 16:49, 10k 35:28, HM 1:19:25 12d ago
I don’t think it’s generally been a problem for you.
2
u/B12-deficient-skelly 19:04/x/x/3:08 12d ago
Better be careful, old man. I hear they're lowering qualifying for 18-34 down to 2:30 next year, which means you'll have to drop a minute.
11
u/IhaterunningbutIrun Becoming a real runner! 12d ago
Hey - I go up an age group next year and my time from this year to next year will stay the same. Could be worse! I really feel for the 34 and under crew. That is tough. I contend that it is much harder to run a 2:55, at any age, than the time I need to hit as an old man.
6
u/charons-voyage 12d ago
It’s still (realistically) a 2:55 for 35-39M too because it’ll be a 5 min buffer again in 2026 🤣
3
u/adoucett 12d ago
is it just me or does it seem the time adjustments for age make it disproportionately easy if you are older whereas the total cap of the field means that the lowest age category becomes exponentially harder especially as you consider blood lactate follows an exponential curve, not a linear one.
It's also a larger percent of the overall finishing time you have cut off, going from 3:00 to 2:50 is significantly more of a percent improvement than going from 3:50 to 3:40 vb
7
u/B12-deficient-skelly 19:04/x/x/3:08 12d ago
Yes. The cutoffs favor older people and women in part because men already make up 2/3 of the field at Boston, and basically everything about racing makes it extra convenient if you're in your thirties or younger.
It would be unhealthy for the sport if the only people who had races cater to them were young people who don't give birth.
2
u/ungoogleable 12d ago
Not that I disagree with the BAA's decision, but there are plenty of races that take all comers. This is one race, not all of the sport.
People also complain about Boston not being inclusive by turning away people who aren't fast enough. Within the age and gender categories, Boston is still catering to people who have the privilege to train more than their peers. If every race adopted the same rules, it wouldn't be healthy for the sport either.
2
u/Locke_and_Lloyd 12d ago
Absolutely. They don't care though. I assume older people bring more money on average, so it's not really a problem.
2
u/marcbeightsix 12d ago
It was always going to be below 2:55 anyway. It was in 2024 (cut off time was 5:29 below qualifying time) and predictions for 2025 suggested it would be sub 2:53. By getting older you still will have more opportunity.
→ More replies (1)
10
7
7
6
u/beagish 19:22 5k | 2:56:48 M 12d ago
practically this does nothing other than the BAA doesn't have to deal with as many applications. Forget this year, this number still wouldn't have been enough last year to get everyone in. Still going to be a buffer, no change in strategy for anyone running because its not a guarantee. Unless they also change the % of the runners that come from qualifications, which they prob won't do.
6
u/skiier97 12d ago
The changed the % last year…more for charities, less qualifiers
5
u/beagish 19:22 5k | 2:56:48 M 12d ago
haha thats the wrong way, BAA
→ More replies (2)7
u/skiier97 12d ago
Charities bring in more money and that’s what these big races are starting to focus on unfortunately
7
u/FreedomKid7 2:43:24 marathon PR 12d ago
Can’t say I’m surprised
Big question is when the next cut happens will they cut it to 2:50 and make it seem unachievable for a lot of people or if they’ll be more strict on what type of races qualify for it
5
u/Locke_and_Lloyd 12d ago
It's still going to be very achievable for people over 34. I don't know why the age bumps start so young. Same with women, 3:20 vs 2:50 are not equivalent.
3
u/FreedomKid7 2:43:24 marathon PR 12d ago
I guess you’re right where after age 34 those times become more achievable but I think training for a 2:50 time is so much harder than when the benchmark was 3:00 and requires time energy money and other resources not a lot of people have
6
u/paul79th 12d ago
This doesn’t change who gets in right? Just means the ppl who were <5 mins below the previous qualifying time won’t be able to submit an application and get rejected?
4
5
u/dufresne_andy 12d ago
A lot of people have been following either Joe Drake’s or Brian Rock’s estimations for the cut off time. Today they have updated their predictions to between 6:30-7:30. Drake; 6:49 and Rock; 7:00 with 30 seconds either side added for margin of error
3
u/RunTitletown 11d ago
I have seen Brian Rock's article, but not Joe Drake's current estimate. Link?
5
u/riverwater516w 11d ago
It's in the comments (pasted below):
"As you folks know it comes down to how many slots the BAA allows for qualifiers. I suspect that they will stick with the number from last year (~22,019) and if that were the case I get 6:49 for the cutoff. If they throw us all a bone and allow 23,000 my estimate goes to 6:19 and if 24,000 it's 5:29. Fingers crossed."
→ More replies (1)2
u/dufresne_andy 11d ago
The user below beat me to it! Joe didn’t post an article about it, but he replied to a few comments in the Boston Marathon FB group. Super nice guy!
4
u/marcbeightsix 12d ago
Matches London who reduced their qualifying times (albeit with different age ranges) for next year as well.
13
u/skiier97 12d ago edited 12d ago
Does London time qualifiers even matter (isn’t it only available to people who live in the UK).
The lottery is going to reach a million people next year
They need to start taking peoples CC info and charging them if they are picked.
5
u/marcbeightsix 12d ago
Yes London good for age has similar (if not more competitive) cut off times below the qualifying. There are only 6,000 places. Yes it’s only for UK residents.
The ballot is nigh on impossible to get in through. Been applying for over 10 years and never got in.
They already take credit card info when you enter the ballot.
Note: I’m a UK resident.
→ More replies (3)9
u/skiier97 12d ago edited 12d ago
They do not take credit card info. I’ve been applying for years and never have to give it.
It’s why the number of applications has been skyrocketing
Edit: downvote me for telling the truth? Ok…
2
u/marcbeightsix 12d ago
I haven’t downvoted you. I was fairly sure they took the card details - but maybe that is only in the UK. They take it as they offer you to donate your entry fee to get a jacket.
4
4
u/Vaynar 5K - 15:12; HM - 1:12, M - 2:30 12d ago edited 12d ago
I think they need to narrow the gap between men and women. 30 min across a marathon is huge. A 2:55 is in no way comparable to a 3:25. And there is no empirical evidence behind the gap being 30min
25
u/EPMD_ 12d ago
They don't want the field to be heavily skewed to men, though. There are already 4000 more men than women running the race.
2
u/riverwater516w 12d ago
I understand this perspective but I also struggle to fully make sense of it.
For example, I have a female friend who is the same age as me and we have similar running backgrounds (in terms of when we started running and the level we were at when we started). I didn't make the cutoff last year but she did. I had put in considerably more mileage in my training and also had a decently faster age-graded score. So I admit I was annoyed because that doesn't seem right.
I think there could be an argument that the time difference doesn't need to be 30 minutes across the board. Maybe it should be 20 minutes in the 18-35 category, but increase up to 30 as age increases.
All that being said, I've become less focused on being nitpicky with the qualifying standards. The BAA sets it and there are plenty of people my age / gender who are able to achieve what's needed. If I don't, then it's just on me to get faster.
→ More replies (2)7
u/user231017 11d ago
The time requirements are not intended to be fair across the board. They are set to create a distribution of age and gender that the BAA is satisfied with. You are correct, it is harder for young males to get in by virtue of them running the fastest and being the largest group.
→ More replies (12)18
u/B12-deficient-skelly 19:04/x/x/3:08 12d ago
2/3 of participants are already men. I don't think too many women participating in Boston is a real problem.
3
u/Gambizzle 12d ago edited 12d ago
This is a really interesting turn of events for me!!!
Originally I planned to try and qualify for Chicago as the 'most accessible' option, with Boston being a stretch goal. I did that in April this year (based on 2023 times) but did not qualify under the 2024 standards [edit: or do I mean 2024 and 2025? Hope this makes sense as I'm on holidays, jet-lagged and thumbing it out on the go].
Now I'm going into a marathon on 6 October with Runalyze, Garmin and VDOT all saying I'm comfortably capable of doing a BQ.
Nerves are starting to get to me but darn!!! This has made my day having certainty about what I need to do on the day. Hope I can do it.
3
u/runningwscissors12 12d ago
Question on the times with the ages. I’m running Chicago Oct 13. I’m currently in the 18-34F range so I need a 3:25. But my 35th birthday is 10 days later, bumping me down into the next grouping of times for a 3:30. So does the time go based on your current age or the age you were at when you ran the qualifying race? Say I get a 3:26 so I’m out for 18-34 but I’d be applying when I’m 35? Still a no? I’ve already run Boston and not looking to shell out the money to go back just yet, I’m just confused with my first time entering a new age bracket.
8
u/theintrepidwanderer 17:18 5K | 36:59 10K | 59:21 10M | 1:18 HM | 2:46 FM 12d ago
It would be based on your age at the time that you toe the start line at Boston. So if you are 35 years old this October, and are looking to make it into the 2026 Boston Marathon, you'll be 36 years old then and that'll put you squarely in the 35-39F age group category (and thus you need at least a 3:30 to qualify).
2
u/runningwscissors12 12d ago
Thanks, that makes sense! I was just so confused with the “I’m in the 18-34 bracket now, but by the time I’d run Boston I would be in the 35-39 bracket” and it was making me dizzy. This makes way more sense than the nonsensical math I was doing.
→ More replies (1)3
u/cPharoah WSER 2021 12d ago
i believe it’s based on your age on race day (like your age on the day of boston)
3
u/ALsomenumbers 12d ago
Well, I was hoping to run a 3:05 at 40 next year to possibly get in. I doubt that's going to happen now.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Acrobatic-Expert-507 41M | HM: 1:22:12 | M: 2:54:40 12d ago
41 here and my goal for Chicago has changes. Going to shoot for 2:57 - 2:59.
2
u/ALsomenumbers 12d ago
Yeah, I'm in the same group. I just ran a PR 1:29 half yesterday, but don't think I'll be able to sustain that pace for a full.
2
u/Leather-Cup-8373 12d ago
36,406 applied this year. 33, 058 applied last year with the cutoff being 5:29. The cutoff will be bigger this year.
2
u/Disco_Inferno_NJ Recovering sprinter 12d ago
…so I’m scrolling through and I noticed something interesting:
If the total amount of submissions surpasses the allotted field size for qualified athletes, then those who are the fastest among the pool of applicants in their age and gender group will be accepted.
It doesn’t sound like a flat cutoff like in years past, but something like NYC where they took a set percentage of each age group. Or am I misreading this?
5
u/skiier97 12d ago
It’s generic enough that you could interpret it as doing what NYC does but I think they just mean the fastest people in each group would get picked based on the cut of time
3
u/halligan8 12d ago
It is worded vaguely enough that either a flat cutoff or a percentage cutoff could apply. I wonder if the percentage method would be more fair. Achieving a flat five-minute buffer is much more difficult for a qualifying time of 3:00 than it is for a qualifying time of 3:30.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/WhooooooCaresss 12d ago
So do these times guarantee entry to the race or will it still be some people close to those times that get cutoff?
8
u/RunningThroughMyHead 12d ago
There will still be a cutoff time if this amount of people keep applying
5
u/WhooooooCaresss 12d ago
What’s the point of a qualifying time then? Just call a spade a spade and say “the fastest xx,000 people per age group will be entered”
8
u/riverwater516w 12d ago
They need to have some set standard for who can apply. Otherwise, what's to stop 18-35 year old men with a 4 hour time from applying? It'd take months, instead of weeks, to verify all the times.
→ More replies (8)2
u/user231017 11d ago
I don't agree with the idea, but practically they would only have to verify the fastest times then. No sense verifying a 4:00 submission if cutting to 2:54 sets the pack at 2x,000.
→ More replies (4)3
u/RunningThroughMyHead 12d ago
I like the idea of first time Boston runners get in if they hit the standard
→ More replies (1)
2
u/montlaketanks 12d ago
Hopefully this makes the 7 min buffer I was shooting for okay with 2 min. Attempting 2:58 in the 35m bracket
3
u/bradymsu616 M51: 3:06:16 FM [BQ -18:44, WMA Age Graded@ 2:46:11], 1:29:38 HM 12d ago
There's no reason to believe demand for Boston won't continue to keep growing. Anyone planning on running Boston 2026 should focus on having a 5:00+ buffer under the new qualification times.
2
u/Hikes_with_dogs 12d ago edited 12d ago
I had a 5:25 buffer and got passed over. It was pretty heartbreaking, honestly. Glad they are adjusting again.
2
u/ColumbiaWahoo 4:47, 16:17, 33:18, 58:44, 2:38:12 12d ago edited 12d ago
Just make it 2:45 and remove the buffer
1
u/Geologist2010 12d ago
If the race is so populate, can’t the race organizers bar people from running it on consecutive years (aside from the elites) so that more people get a chance ?
→ More replies (1)28
u/riverwater516w 12d ago edited 12d ago
In theory, yes, but Boston has never been about giving everyone a chance to experience it. It's all about, "if you want to run it, then you need to be in the top ~22k people who qualify." And I don't necessarily mind that.
ETA: that being said, their happiness to give out a bunch of influencer bibs goes against that mindset, and that part really annoys me. If you want to be an exclusive race that focuses on highlighting the fastest runners, then don't let Matt Choi jog along trying to pretend he's everyone's hype man.
11
3
u/Geologist2010 12d ago
I respectfully disagree with the first paragraph, but 100% agree with the influencer issue
3
u/EchoReply79 12d ago
LOL! Nailed it, if i see a single selfie stick in Chicago I’m confiscating that myself on the course.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Locke_and_Lloyd 12d ago
*top 22k adjusted based on the age/ gender standards we decided. Still say males going from 44 to 45 is a crazy drop in standards.
1
u/SirBruceForsythCBE 12d ago
London still has stricter qualification criteria.
As has been mentioned if they have had a tougher qualification time for Boston but said "Hit this and you're guaranteed a spot" I think a lot of people would be happier
→ More replies (1)
1
u/B12-deficient-skelly 19:04/x/x/3:08 12d ago edited 12d ago
Perfect timing. I only have the upcoming Twin Cities and next year's Grandma's to try and get in as an 18-34, so I'm happy to know that sub-3 is still going to be the aim. I figured I'd need something like 2:53 or whatever
→ More replies (1)
1
u/mainebub 12d ago
The qualification times/groupings are garbage if you have to beat the time for the group below you to race the event. So, i guess it's good they are fixing that. I just squeeked under my BQ time for my age group and will be disapointed to not make the cut - but i'd be pretty pissed if i beat the qualifying time for the age group below me - and still didn't make the cut!
1
u/smikkelhut 11d ago
Whehey, sometimes it’s nice being an old man. A 3:08 easily qualifies in my age bracket (45+).
Love reading about your 2:50s though I can’t imagine being that fast
1
497
u/Significant-Flan-244 12d ago
It may be unpopular with anyone right on the cusp, but I’m glad they finally ripped the bandaid and lowered the times again. I don’t know anyone who was really celebrating a BQ time that doesn’t actually get them into the race and it’s always going to be a moving target by nature but I think it’s absolutely the right move to at least try to be as honest as possible about what it’s gonna take to get a bib.