BQ Standards for 2024 Posted. ETA: BQ - 5:29 (Read 267 times)

 

A BQ should mean what it says (Boston Qualification).  Running a BQ and then being told that actually it wasn’t quite fast enough to be allowed to run the race makes it a complete farce imo.

How many runners meet the Olympic marathon qualifying standard, but aren't allowed to run?

wcrunner2 - I understand that -5:29 is a higher percentage of the time for the younger runners, but as CanadianMeg says they have a faster recovery time, and I can tell you it takes more training to see the same degree of improvement as you get older. I really don't know which AG the increased cut off effects the most, but it is something to consider.

 

DavePNW- Researching how they calculate age graded percentage I found it is based on the best all-time record for the given age group. In the older groups there may be just one person who for some reason is able to run much faster for their age than all the others. All the other older runners might find it difficult to come near that record time. So the age graded percentage is questionable in regard to how it predicts the difficulty of qualifying for a given AG. I found an article and I quote:

 

"Any method based on single-age all-time best performance will be significantly impacted by outlier performers. Often, great Masters athletes will go on a multi-year tear, setting single-age records for every age they pass through.

 

This is crazy:

 

In compiling the data for an updated age-grading table in 2006, Alan Jones writes that he was forced to toss out all of the performances of Olga Kotelko, who set dozens of single-age world records for several track events in her 80s and 90s, because they were so far superior to anything else.

 

If he had included them, it would have skewed the entire prediction curve for women’s performances!

A better method would probably be to use a predetermined “depth marker” as a standard, like the 20th-best or 100th-best all-time performance, but this would massively complicate the data collection process. - John Davis"

They've had 17 years since 2006 to refine the tables. The last revision that I'm aware of was 2015, but I think there's another in the works now. Also the age standard is a computed number, not the single age record. For example the age 70 standard is 2:46:02, but I believe the world M70 record is 2:54:19.

I don't think my experience is all that unique, but I had a lot harder time taking a few seconds or a few minutes off my times in my 20s than I did in my 60s.

 

I don’t know and don’t care. I’m just giving my opinion on a race that is specifically targeted for fast hobby joggers.

Same principle, more qualified runners than space, so some kind of selection criteria has to be applied.  And Boston being a race for fast hobby joggers is unintended fallout from Boston's decision way back in 1971 to use time to filter out runners and jokesters who were cluttering the course and not prepared to run a marathon. It wasn't designed to select only fast amateurs. The initial BQ was roughly the average time for a male marathon runner at that time.

Part of getting all the permits and everything from all the cities it goes through it is charity fundraising gets political support along with the sponsors like it. Also the BAA is nonprofit.

 

Boston should allow every person who qualified to run the race and then they decide how many charity runners are included.

 

Charity runners shouldn’t take preference over folk who have trained hard for a BQ.

 

If you feel passionate about a charity then donate out of your own pocket. 🤷‍♂️