Boston questions

This is it: bostonmarathon.orgQualifying.aspOpen ↗

In article said:

Also, after going back and looking at a discussion early this year about the "Last Chance" BQ
marathon (January, early Feb?), I still can't find the literal final date for completing a
certified BQ time or is it for submitting a certified time. Anyone? Is the deadline date set or
does it move from year to year?

I've got some followup questions to this: qwhat gives with these qualifying times ? For a male
18-34 to qualify, they need a 3:10 marathon, and a 3:10 for boston is good for being in the top
1250 males, yet there were 4264 men in 18-39 who started. So why didn't these guys all get 3:10
or better ?

Once you go as far down the pack as 4200, the 3:30 marathoners start coming in, and I doubt these
guys all ran a 3:10.

So what's happening ? Is there an entry path that they're not coming clean about, or does everyone
just cheat on their entry forms ?

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

Thanks for the link. Now that I see I *only* have to run each mile only 55 seconds faster than my
PB, instead of a full minute......yikes! chris

R. Rogers said:

This is it: bostonmarathon.orgQualifying.aspOpen ↗

I'm not quick enough to follow everything you are saying but the first thing that occurs to me is
that quite a few of the 4264 got into the race in other ways than time qualifying, including charity
groups and maybe B.A.A. membership (do they get an entry regardless of ability?). Plus, you've
actually included two age groups by saying 18-39--should be quite a few in the 35-39 group in that
4264 unless you mistyped, and they need 3:15 not 3:10.

Donovan Rebbechi said:

I've got some followup questions to this: qwhat gives with these qualifying times ? For a male
18-34 to qualify, they need a 3:10 marathon, and a 3:10 for boston is good for being in the top
1250 males, yet there were 4264 men in 18-39 who started. So why didn't these guys all get 3:10 or
better ?

Once you go as far down the pack as 4200, the 3:30 marathoners start coming in, and I doubt these
guys all ran a 3:10.

So what's happening ? Is there an entry path that they're not coming clean about, or does everyone
just cheat on their entry forms ?

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

Donovan Rebbechi said:

So what's happening ? Is there an entry path that they're not coming clean about, or does everyone
just cheat on their entry forms ?

Look at questions on r.r over the past couple years. How many people look for a flat, fast marathon
course so they can get a BQ? Then don't recognize that while Boston is a net downhill, there is
probably more uphill on the course than what they have trained for - late in the course after
they've creamed their quads on the downhill. More knowledgeable people may have other thoughts, but
I'm guessing besides the course being a little more difficult, people may not plan accordingly, burn
quads and carbs, and the hills seem like mountains.

Were the temperatures during their qualifying race as warm as they were on Monday - and one of the
first warm days of the year, as I understand
it. Seems to me this is how Chris Clark got to the Olympics and no other US women did - she could
handle the heat in Feb, but the others couldn't. (it was accidental, I'm sure, but races are all
about what conditions are on race day)

And there's charity runners, which may account for some of the larger differences in expectations
that you're seeing. Or people pulling up lame because of one of the other reasons above.

I think you have to provide evidence (not just you writing it) on entry forms, is my understanding.

Dot

--
"Success is different things to different people" -Bernd Heinrich in Racing the Antelope

There's a number of slots reserved for all the police departments and fire departments on the route,
charity slots, honorary slots, etc. Maybe some people didn't have a good day, maybe some qualified
with a fast time but just took this one a little slower. A few years ago I read about one guy that
just started walking at mile 22.....not because he was too tired, he just didn't want the day to
end. Doug Burke

Donovan Rebbechi said:

In article said:

Also, after going back and looking at a discussion early this year about the "Last Chance" BQ
marathon (January, early Feb?), I still can't find the literal final date for completing a
certified BQ time or is it for submitting a certified time. Anyone? Is the deadline date set or
does it move from year to year?

I've got some followup questions to this: qwhat gives with these qualifying times ? For a male
18-34 to qualify, they need a 3:10 marathon, and a 3:10 for boston is good for being in the top
1250 males, yet there were 4264 men in 18-39 who started. So why didn't these guys all get 3:10 or
better ?

Once you go as far down the pack as 4200, the 3:30 marathoners start coming in, and I doubt these
guys all ran a 3:10.

So what's happening ? Is there an entry path that they're not coming clean about, or does everyone
just cheat on their entry forms ?

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

Donovan Rebbechi said:

In article said:

Also, after going back and looking at a discussion early this year about the "Last Chance" BQ
marathon (January, early Feb?), I still can't find the literal final date for completing a
certified BQ time or is it for submitting a certified time. Anyone? Is the deadline date set or
does it move from year to year?

I've got some followup questions to this: qwhat gives with these qualifying times ? For a male
18-34 to qualify, they need a 3:10 marathon, and a 3:10 for boston is good for being in the top
1250 males, yet there were 4264 men in 18-39 who started. So why didn't these guys all get 3:10
or better ?

Once you go as far down the pack as 4200, the 3:30 marathoners start coming in, and I doubt these
guys all ran a 3:10.

So what's happening ? Is there an entry path that they're not coming clean about, or does everyone
just cheat on their entry forms ?

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

I know a few folks that qualified this year. Two of them did alot of training together and
worked there asses off to get their. However once they got their it was more about enjoying
the moment then it was about running a fast race. One qualified at around 3:15 and the other
around 3:20. They ran together the entire way both finishing around 3:45. I suspect this is
probably the case in many situations. Alot of peoples goal is not to run a "Fast" Boston but
to get to Boston.

~Matt

In article said:

I'm not quick enough to follow everything you are saying but the first thing that occurs to me is
that quite a few of the 4264 got into the race in other ways than time qualifying,

Right. I'm guessing this may be the case.

Quoted message said:

including charity groups

Though apparently the ones linked to the Boston Marathon website for the most part assert that they
only accept qualified runners.

Quoted message said:

and maybe B.A.A. membership (do they get an entry regardless of ability?). Plus, you've actually
included two age groups by saying 18-39--should be quite a few in the 35-39 group in that 4264
unless you mistyped, and they need 3:15 not
3:10.

Right, but there's still quite a gap between this and 3:30.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

From: "R. Rogers"

Thanks lil' brother.

Bill R.

=============> - -- - ( . ) Rogers ass pre-Bill, ( 0 ) and Rogers ass post-Bill

OO

Quoted message said:

From: Donovan Rebbechi [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

what gives with these qualifying times ? For a male 18-34 to qualify, they need a 3:10 marathon,
and a 3:10 for boston is good for being in the top 1250 males, yet there were 4264 men in 18-39 who
started. So why didn't these guys all get 3:10 or better ?

Once you go as far down the pack as 4200, the 3:30 marathoners start coming in, and I doubt these
guys all ran a 3:10.

I'll give you one anecdotal data point...when I ran Boston in 1999, I qualified with a 3:14 at
Napa...not lightning fast, but...

My travel to Boston included a Saturday night red-eye (work precluded my leaving earlier) from which
I never really recovered...on race day, my chip time was something like 3:31 with a hard stretch of
miles from 19-23.

As I opined in response to Roger's question "are we born stupid or does running make us that way", I
think that part of the issue with Boston is all of the hype, the fact that there are some logistical
issues which make a "normal" prerace routine quite out-of-the-ordinary (especially for the first
time runner) and the fact that "shoot, it's Boston, race plans be damned!!" all contributing to
slower race times when compared to qualifier times.

That, coupled with the window of time from potential qualifier to race day---meaning that fitness
could change quite substantially in the ensuing 12 or 13 months---sets up some interesting
results....

Mike C

Dot said:

Look at questions on r.r over the past couple years. How many people look for a flat, fast
marathon course so they can get a BQ?

Just about all of them to include me albeit some years back,

Quoted message said:

Then don't recognize that while Boston is a net downhill, there is probably more uphill on the
course than what they have trained for

Actually most focus on Heartbreak(Thge Newton Hills) and either pay no attention to the downhill or
assume the downs are a piece of cake

Quoted message said:

late in the course after they've creamed their quads on the downhill.

On the money, if my memory serves me you crest Newton at 21 and the 22nd mile is a delightful
downhill. If you trained for downhills the rest of the race can be fast and fun. If not, you're rode
hard and put away wet.

Quoted message said:

Were the temperatures during their qualifying race as warm as they were on Monday - and one of the
first warm days of the year, as I understand
it.

I'm not sure the qualifying race has much to do with it. The weather in Boston in April is always a
[censored] shoot but you are correct, the majority of people are not acclimated to to heat so a hot day is
the least desired.

Quoted message said:

And there's charity runners, which may account for some of the larger differences in expectations
that you're seeing. Or people pulling up lame because of one of the other reasons above.

Lots of reasons. Their qualifier may be a year old and they still run but are not in shape.

Quoted message said:

I think you have to provide evidence (not just you writing it) on entry forms, is my
understanding.

Unless they changed it in the last few years you had to provide race result proof attached to your
entry form unless it was the previous years Boston. I was lucky to requalify each year at Boston so
I only had to do one hard marathon and off to the trails for the rest of spring-fall.

--
Caveat Lector "the further you go outside, the further you go inside" - B. McKibben Doug Freese
[email hidden]

Donovan Rebbechi at said:

I've got some followup questions to this: qwhat gives with these qualifying times ? For a male
18-34 to qualify, they need a 3:10 marathon, and a 3:10 for boston is good for being in the top
1250 males, yet there were 4264 men in 18-39 who started. So why didn't these guys all get 3:10 or
better ?

Once you go as far down the pack as 4200, the 3:30 marathoners start coming in, and I doubt these
guys all ran a 3:10.

So what's happening ? Is there an entry path that they're not coming clean about, or does everyone
just cheat on their entry forms ?

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi pegasus.rutgers.edu~elflordOpen ↗

I was one of those guys. I qualified -- and even placed in my age group -- at the New Jersey Shore
Marathon a year prior in pouring rain and gusty wind and then Boston just kicked my ass and handed
me a 3:49 -- a half hour longer than I've ever run in my life. By Mile 23 I was just praying to get
to Mile 24, and I got exactly what I wished for; I had to mix in some inglorious walking after that
point. It was a humbling experience. I trained on hills, but apparently it wasn't enough. Of all
things, I think it was the heat that got me. Well, it was that and the fact that I couldn't even
hear myself think. I'm not complaining though. It's a great marathon, and I hope to return some day.
I hope to get out of this chair some time today too.

--
For information on children's books written and illustrated by Thomas F. Yezerski, visit
thomasfyezerski.comthomasfyezerski.comOpen ↗

In Donovan Rebbechi said:

I've got some followup questions to this: what gives with these qualifying times? For a male
18-34 to qualify, they need a 3:10 marathon, and a 3:10 for boston is good for being in the top
1250 males, yet there were 4264 men in 18-39 who started. So why didn't these guys all get 3:10
or better ?

Quoted message said:

Once you go as far down the pack as 4200, the 3:30 marathoners start coming in, and I doubt these
guys all ran a 3:10.

Quoted message said:

So what's happening ? Is there an entry path that they're not coming clean about, or does everyone
just cheat on their entry forms ?

I think most of the answer is simple statistics -- in technical parlance, "regression towards the
mean". It means that, on average, an exceptional result is followed by one closer to the mean.

To be concrete, a runner whose marathon times are in the range 3:15 +/- 0:10 (under ideal weather
conditions on a flat course) can use their exceptional time (less than 3:10) as a qualifier (and
remember they have basically a 2 year window to do this). However, on any given day, under ideal
conditions, the chances of them repeating this performance is only 30%. Now factor in that Boston is
a tough course, and add to that less than ideal weather conditions, the 30% chance for this runner
will drop even further.

Although you can quibble with the numbers in my example, I don't think they're far from the truth.
For most runners, a Boston qualifying time is at the limit of their abilities. That's why qualifying
is so tough. So having only 1250/4264 (27%) of the 18-39 age group finish under 3:10 does not come
as a real surprise.

Peter

Donovan Rebbechi said:

I've got some followup questions to this: qwhat gives with these =

qualifying=20

Quoted message said:

times ? For a male 18-34 to qualify, they need a 3:10 marathon, and a =

3:10=20

Quoted message said:

for boston is good for being in the top 1250 males, yet there were 4264 =

men

Quoted message said:

in 18-39 who started. So why didn't these guys all get 3:10 or better ?=20

A couple of points to add to the other ones. Boston has a start time of noon which is much different
than other marathon start times. So, it is a new experiment for those that have figured out what to
eat and not eat for those used to running an early start.

It is also much more congested for those running it than other marathons. This is especially true
for those that qualified close to the qualifying time. There are only a couple minutes difference in
qualifying times for a bib number difference of 1,000. The course never really clears out so that
you can run your own pace. I got tripped up twice during the race on Monday due to large crowd of
runners. --=20 E-mail: [email hidden]