Forums >Racing>BQ Standards for 2024 Posted. ETA: BQ - 5:29
I'm not sure how to interpret Surly Bill's statement, does he think the current standard is too easy or is he saying there used to be just a single qualify time? Well, 3:30 was the BQ standard for all runners from 1971 to 1976. For Surly Bill's age group (60-64) the fastest BQ time was in 1980 at 3:10, for all those over 40, but currently it's 3:55, a slower 8:58 mm pace. I'm sure many runners his age are much faster, and maybe he considers a 3:55 not a challenge, but I think most runners in that AG would think that as being a "difficult" pace. https://www.baa.org/races/boston-marathon/qualify/history-qualifying-times
I'm not sure how to interpret Surly Bill's statement, does he think the current standard is too easy or is he saying there used to be just a single qualify time? Well, 3:30 was the BQ standard for all runners from 1971 to 1976. For Surly Bill's age group (60-64) the fastest BQ time was in 1980 at 3:10, for all those over 40, but currently it's 3:55, a slower 8:58 mm pace. I'm sure many runners his age are much faster, and maybe he considers a 3:55 not a challenge, but I think most runners in that AG would think that as being a "difficult" pace.
https://www.baa.org/races/boston-marathon/qualify/history-qualifying-times
What I meant:
For years people go on and on about a BQ, so I assumed it had to be something difficult requiring focus and dedication, like above an 80% AG score.
For my age, it's 65%. 67% for someone 64.
Yes, for many people a BQ is hard, but for most people who've been running a couple years, the current BQ times don't seem hard. I'm not even a distance runner, and I could run 3:50 after a few months of 30-40 mile weeks (assuming I don't injure myself in the process). 3:30? Not so much, a 71% score, that would require some effort and sacrifice for me to get in that kind of shape. 3:00? Nope. That's 83%. 80% is where the wheat separates from the chaff. And that's what I thought a BQ would be.
http://www.howardgrubb.co.uk/athletics/wmalookup15.html
60-64 age group - University of Oregon alumni - Irreverent and Annoying
Runs in the rain
Surly Bill - For me attaining a BQ is hard, and I'm worried I might not be capable of that goal. Today, June 18, is my birthday and a 4:20 time would be a BQ for my AG. Online I found an Age Graded Calculator and it gave about 64% for the 4:20. I assume that indicates a time faster than 64% of marathon runners in my age group. Now I have run only 6 marathons and never trained much for speed, just to finish, but my best was a 4:10:44 back in 1998, age 46. My best more recent time was 4:29:29 in 2017, but I have not run a marathon in the past 5 years. In marathon training I have increased my weekly Millage up to a 70 mile week, but that was with a rapid build up and I think I need to have a wider, long term base followed by some speed work to ever attain a BQ. So, my point is that for some runners getting that BQ is a real challenge.
Long distance runner, what you standin' there for?Get up, get out, get out of the door!
Are we there, yet?
Surly Bill - For me attaining a BQ is hard, and I'm worried I might not be capable of that goal. Today, June 18, is my birthday and a 4:20 time would be a BQ for my AG. Online I found an Age Graded Calculator and it gave about 64% for the 4:20. I assume that indicates a time faster than 64% of marathon runners in my age group.
No, it says nothing about what percentage of runners are faster or slower than you. It's calculated relative to the world best time for your age or an approximation of that. An age-graded rating of 50% means your time is twice what the standard is, e.g. if the standard is 2:30, then a 5:00 would be 50%.
2024 Races:
03/09 - Livingston Oval Ultra 6-Hour, 22.88 miles
05/11 - D3 50K, 9:11:09 05/25 - What the Duck 12-Hour
06/17 - 6 Days in the Dome 12-Hour.
I think the "running for a few years" is way harder than it seems - especially if you haven't been consistently doing anything athletic. And we are not a representative sample of people, seeing that we're on a forum dedicated to running.
And I know people who have been running for years, including through high school and they are nowhere near a BQ. Ultimately, a BQ is dang impressive - running anything is impressive! Running is really hard.
What I meant: For years people go on and on about a BQ, so I assumed it had to be something difficult requiring focus and dedication, like above an 80% AG score. For my age, it's 65%. 67% for someone 64. Yes, for many people a BQ is hard, but for most people who've been running a couple years, the current BQ times don't seem hard. I'm not even a distance runner, and I could run 3:50 after a few months of 30-40 mile weeks (assuming I don't injure myself in the process). 3:30? Not so much, a 71% score, that would require some effort and sacrifice for me to get in that kind of shape. 3:00? Nope. That's 83%. 80% is where the wheat separates from the chaff. And that's what I thought a BQ would be. http://www.howardgrubb.co.uk/athletics/wmalookup15.html
When I ran my first marathon, I thought much that same way. After all I had been the slowest runner on my HS track and cross country teams by a large margin, even to the point that one teammate said I should give up running because I'd never be any good. I ran 2:59 in my first marathon...at Boston. It wasn't until many years later when I began running regularly with a local club that I realized and admitted to myself that I was far more talented than my HS running indicated, a late bloomer so to speak, and what came easily for me was not the norm. We had a fair percentage of club runners qualify for Boston, maybe 12-15 of 100 or so club members, but they had also been training for more than a couple years and more than 30-40 mpw.
I'm guilty of the mistake of using myself as the yardstick to measure everything else (banana for scale 🍌).
People have differing results to training stresses, as well as different inherent abilities and motivations. Not to mention different starting points for training. Sorry for saying it "seems easy".
What I glean from the BQ chart is that a 65% AG score is the standard. To achieve a 65%, a few people who are already in shape from other activities could just jog a couple times a week for a month or two, and others may need to train for years without interruption (extreme examples). The AG scores differ for people over distances, too. My age PR score averages peak at 800m-Mile and start dropping at distances over 3k, continuing to drop exponentially the longer the race.
Regardless, a 65% score isn't "easy" for the majority of runners, especially noobs.
not bad for mile 25
Anyone want to take a stab at the percentage of all <pick your AG> Americans are capable of a BQ, after, say, a year of training? I might be semi-joking.
I think the percentage of marathon finishers who have run a BQ is about 5%. Adding in those who run marathons but don't bother training enough to BQ and those who restrict themselves to shorter distances who could BQ if they trained for a marathon, I would hesitantly guess that would bring it up to about 12-15%. Note that an age-graded 65% is generally consider middle of local class level competitor with 70% regional class, 80% national class, and 90% world class. I would consider that anyone who can occasionally place in their age group in mid-size races or larger at a local level should be capable of a BQ.
I'm with you Altair5. I've never even broken 2 hours for a half. In terms of talent I'm on the opposite end of the scale from endurance performance (with things lasting no more than 2-3 seconds being my forte). On the plus side it seems like I have maintained my pace ok over time so anticipate that the BQ may come to me eventually. Well, I should say I have mostly maintained my pace. I'm still much slower than my usual slow after having had covid back in feb but hope that is not permanent.
I found this pie chart online that gives the percentage of BQ times in the average marathon as about 10%, but about 5% of the finishes qualify and don't register for the race. The data is from 2014, but I think it's still valid, maybe changed somewhat with the faster qualifying times.
Surly Bill - From the comments here I think we realize that some have a natural running talent, while others have to struggle, for years maybe, to get a BQ time.
Marylander - Some people are best at sprinting rather than long distance racing. Maybe they have more fast twitch muscle fibers, or more hemoglobin? If a BQ is one of your goals I hope you reach it someday! I don't think of myself as a fast runner, but I've broken two hours in the half with a 1:44:36 in 1995 and a 1:56:06 in 1999. I think I'd now need to be able to do a two hour half as a predictor for a sub 4:20 marathon. It does take a lot more effort to achieve goals like that as I get older.
Altair; thanks for the chart!
Over the years the popularity of road race distances changes. For a long time most runners had a marathon as their main goal or distance. Then we had the rise of the 5k (accessible to almost anyone), and for a while the half was the popular new kid. And more recently ultras have come out of the shadows. Heck, the 100 miler is now passé, you need to do a 200+ miler to call yourself an ultra runner. The number/percentage of BQs per year probably follows the ebbs and flows of the marathon distance popularity.
I guess you could also break this down into categories of motivation:
People running for fitness (this made me get in shape)
People running for performance (I took three tenths of a second off my marathon PR!)
People running for mental health/affirmation/confidence (I did it!)
People racking up influencer goals/bragging rights (I ran a BQ, look at this pic of my duck lips as I cross the finish line!)
All are valid routes to the same end result.
With qualifying times 5:00 faster now, and the chart is for finishers, which could include multiple BQ performances by the same runner, I don't think the 10% figure would be accurate today. With roughly 35% of Boston running BQ times, that would certainly reduce the percentage when looking at the number of individuals rather than number of finishers.
Altair, thank you for finding that chart. I've been lurking on this thread and also knew a while back I had heard a top 10% number. Whew, wasn't making that up.
Even with faster times, I can sort of see that. I looked at my AG for the full at a recent HM I did.There were 10 finishers in 45-49 and 1 BQ (I did not look at ages to try to figure out who may be 50 for 2024). There were no BQs for women 50-59. On a good day, this would have been a good course for a BQ (flat). Anyway, what I've noticed at the smaller races with less than 1000, there may be only 1 BQ time for a givevn AG.
I did look at the 2022 Wineglass Marathon results, there were 1371 finishers that year. I tabulated the number of qualifiers for all the males and the 50-59 AGs for females. It does seem like the percentage of BQs is a lot greater than 10%, but this is a fast course that many use to try and BQ. There was only a 70+ AG, but only had one male runner over 74 years who came in 4th in AG, but he did not BQ. I list the AG and then number of qualifiers / number in AG.
m70+ 3/8m65-69 4/20 m60-64 7/33 m55-59 21/54m50-54 11/74m45-49 16/80m40-44 20/102m35-39 19/111m30-34 11/87m25-29 19/88m01-24 6/28
f50-54 14/50f55-59 12/36
Findmymarathon has a chart of marathon finishers and BQ#s. It's a lot to lookk at. A number of races are wewll below 10% of qualifiers. I wonder how they came up with the course description. The HM I did in Salsibury MD is not rolling hills (at lesast to me).