Ironman 101 has moved to a new domain. Now Bigger, Better, Faster, Stronger!

Please click here to continue reading - Power Multisport.

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

115th Boston Marathon - Registration CLOSED

The Boston Marathon registration closed in 8 hours

From baa.org:
BOSTON, Mass. – Registration for the 115th Boston Marathon began at 9:00 a.m. (EST) today, and closed at 5:03 p.m. (EST) The Boston Marathon -- the world's oldest and most prestigious annual marathon -- will take place on Monday, April 18, 2011, Patriots' Day in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In 115 years, this is the fastest period of time in which the field size limit has been reached.

The number of entrants for next year’s race remains as it has been in recent years. In 2010, the race had 26,790 entrants and 22,721 finishers. For the 2010 Boston Marathon, registration filled in just over two months.
Qualifying times are based upon your age on the date of the Boston Marathon - April 18, 2011.




This begs the question - do the qualifying times need to be changed?

18 comments:

  1. I still in the 18-34 age group and personally would both love and hate for the qualifying times to change. I have done 8 marathons now and have worked my way down to a 3:26 PR. 3:10 seems right around the corner and I would hate to get there and have it be 3:05 or even 3:00. But, at the same time, I think they should at least revisit the qualifying times if so many people are qualifying. I can't imagine how much it would suck to qualifying but then not be able to run because it was full.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If you asked me a year ago when I was just under 3:40 I would have said NO WAY, now that I'm faster, it wouldn't bother me as much. How horribly selfish is that?! I think this is a great question and registration is only going to get worse every year. I would rather have them change qualification standards than switch to a lottery. I would be curious to see what the logistics would be to increase the field size a little. 25,000 especially in two waves is not that overwhelming of a crowd.

    ReplyDelete
  3. When will it fill up next year, 2 hours? What are the options... a lottery (hate it), register ASAP and hope for the best (better than a lottery), etc? My initial opinion is that IF you qualify for Boston you should stand a reasonable chance to get in. Filling up in two months didn't bother me, but 8 hours - ridiculous. I think they should look at the qualifying standards and adjust accordingly. Having to train hard to qualify is what Boston is all about. Qualifying then not being able to get in isn't.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Registration size is already at around 25,000 with around 23,000 finishers. Remember this is a point to point race... you have to bus the runners to the beginning (quite a challenge). They can't change the course to a loop to ease logistics (I say can't because of the history of the course). I can't wait to see what the race organizers do.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't think the qualifying times will be reduced until the number of women registrants out numbers the number of men. Last year it was 42% women, 58% men. If the qualifying times were reduced it could mean a field of say 65% men and 35% women. The standards are set as they are to keep the field as close to 50/50 as possible. Organizers want to keep the ratio fair, sponsors want to see an even field and in 2010, equality is a safe way to go.
    If the standards were made lower for women, women would have to run faster. That's the bottome line. I am defintely biased, and like Emily, i too have a safe cushion so if 5-10 minutes were cut off, I still could qualify.

    Another thing to consider is the 18 month time period that qualifying times are good for. They could reduce it to 12 months, requiring athletes to have to qualify every year.

    Last year registration opened in September, this year it opened in October. With fall marathons being popular for BQ's there were significantly more qualified athletes this time around than last year.

    26,000 runners is a lot but not that many when compared to other majoy cities. Busing people to the start is definitely an issue and so is accomodating that many runners in a small city with a crappy subway system and limited hotels. (i live in boston, i can diss on the subway).

    SOme poeple say they should reduce the number of charity runners...i don't support that, those cahrity runners raised millions of dollars for much needed non-profit organiztions and i'd really hate to see that go.

    the BAA did warn that the race was going to sell out fast. WIth that being said, i took precautions and signed up at 9am. Maybe i was over cautious, but better safe than sorry. Many of my frieds (inc 3 men who all ran sub 3 hours) didn't take the BAA's warning seriously and didn't sign up thinking they had plenty of time. I would imagine that some international people slept right thru the 8 hours that registration was open for!

    If BAA cuts downt he qualifying times they will have to do some serious research first and look at statistics on finish times etc. I do think that with work, just about any woman runner could qualify if they really wanted to. I don't think that is true at all for the men. (my first marathon was 4:54 and my second was 4:58, it took my 8 tries to BQ, so i don't say that last sentence lightly.) Again, i don't think its a gender issue, i think it's an equality issue. What is fair for one person or group of people may be unfair for another. Each gender/age group is setting the bar.

    I'm intersted to see stats on this year's race, how many men to women and what percentage of runners are what age.

    man, this may be my longest comment ever. Hope it goes thru when i hit "post comment," lol.

    It;s an interesting debate, i'm curious to see what others think. thanks

    ReplyDelete
  6. Just amazing!!!

    Cheers from Hong Kong!

    "XTB"Xavi.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @ Bethan+Ryan. Do you know that for a fact or is it opinion (BAA wants a 50/50 male/female participation rate)? According to Marathonguide.com, marathon participation is approximately 60% male and 40% female. Even if they are going for a 50/50 mix, wouldn't an across the board reduction impact males and females about equally? On the elite level women are only 15 minutes behind the men, not 30 minutes, so if you made the standards harder by 5-10 minutes you SHOULD be okay without impacting the male/female ratio. Of course I don't know how elite performance extrapolates into the performance of us normal people.

    ReplyDelete
  8. according to articles, talk and news reports (yes this has made the news) in Boston, running experts and Boston marathon historians etc are saying its NOT a gender thing but an equality thing, trying to keep it as even as possible. I'd love to see what happens if they times are cut! i totally agree with your theory and think it would be somewhat even still not sure. I feel for the men more than the women, 3:10 has got to be SOOO hard to do! i'd feel so sad if they cut it back to 3:00 :'-( MOST talk up here is STRCTLY relating to the women's time and NOT the men's time, that's why i said the 50/50. if they cut times for both then it's a different story i think.

    This seems ot be a popular topic EVERYWHERE but especailly here in Boston! people are going insane and strangers are askin my opinion on the T if i have my Boston jacket on. haha

    the article from last week in the new york times i think? said that the average diff b/w men and women's marathon times is 20 minutes, not 30.

    ReplyDelete
  9. That's one of the things I love about the Boston Marathon - the people of Boston sure get into it and generally know what they are talking about. I don't think anyone in Boston has ever asked me how far the marathon is... THEY KNOW. Can't say that about anywhere else I've run a marathon.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 8 hours wow? now runners know what it is like to try and register for and Ironman online!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Wow, that is a fast sellout. I like that you need a qualifying time to get to do the race, even though I haven't done it yet. What ever the BQ time is when I choose to go for it is what it is, so I guess if they change it, that just means I have to work harder.

    This makes me wonder how many charity spots, etc they give out - not saying those things do not have value, but it is tough when someone works hard, BQ's and then can't register, but if I really want to run Boston I just have to call my buddy on the Boston PD, or join a charity team - both of which are viable options for me. Personally, I choose not to do it that way, if I run that race, I am going to qualify for it (dang it)! But I just wonder how many BQ spots are available in that way that could be given to folks who BQ'd.

    ReplyDelete
  12. i'm fine with a harder standard. it definitely seems like it's already-qualified vs. not-yet-qualified on that view though... personally i think everyone should always want to do their best, not just stop 'cause they ran a "bq". setting the standard higher would make it more meaningful.

    i don't like the people who are saying the charity runners should be eliminated... a) there's only like 1300 of them and b) they raise a TON of funds for many non-profits.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yes, they need to tighten it up. I can only speak of my own age group and the fact that I have a full 30 minute cushion from my time last year. And I'm not a speedster. Women have it too easy for Boston, bottom line.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Too easy....speak for yourself. It took me 15 marathons, and 4 years of increasingly harder training. Do I regret the work, NOT a minute of it. I think it made Boston so much more meaningful than others who have natural talent, and easily qualify. My heart breaks for runners like me, who truly worked for it, and will not be able to go. What a shame!

    I think the charities should go. They can offer a Fall Boston marathon that is open for charities and non qualifiers. But Boston in April is special. To me (as someone who has run for TNT 4 times), it is wrong for a charity runner to take the place of a BQ runner.

    I do think they should eliminate the ability to go to Boston 2 years based on one BQ time. Although I could have registered this wk, I personally do not need to go back unless I BQ again.

    ReplyDelete
  15. but is the problem that too many athletes have qualified?? Where is the research showing how many people BQ'd this year in relation to past year??? Is the problem that too many women registered?? Where are the stats for 2011 stating what percentage is male/female?? Is the problem that ALL qualified people signed up at the same time?? The BAA did say it would sell out fast...

    there will always be natural talent regardless of what the qualifying times are. Some ppl will BQ on their first attempt and others will struggle for years.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I am with Bethany + Ryan. They need to release some data on the qualifying times of the participants.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I was shocked at how fast it filled up. I thought someone was joking around when they told me registration was closed. In the 4 years that I have done it, i've waited a few months before registering. I'd be very curious to see what played into this happening. More runners running marathons? More women qualifying? I do think that the qualifying times for women need to be tightened up by about 10-15 minutes.

    ReplyDelete
  18. My husband and I had both qualified and were both planning on running. He started trying to register us at 9am, and then most of the day. He 'got in' once and registered me, and then was never able to get back in again.

    I am not sure how to clean this whole process up, but I am not looking forward to being in Athletes Village without him.

    ReplyDelete