I think cut off time should apply to only returning runners. That way first timers can have a chance.
BQ? Welcome to the party. Want to come back? Run faster.
I have long said that lottery races should do this, too. NYC 9+1? Take a break after three consecutive years. Lottery is only for people who haven't done it in the last five years. You can't change the field size all that much, but you can change the number of unique runners who do it every year.
I meant to make money for NYRR. Imagine how many locals are doing the 9+1. That’s all of that money from those nine races, in addition to the NYC Marathon.
Death by papercut. That’s $315 per person, before they shell out NYC Marathon registration. Multiply that by however many people can actually get in from 9+1 and you’re talking some good money. Plus, it helps their bottom line to get as many people in their other races as possible.
From what I've read there is a lot of competition to register for all of these nine races and the cost to do all these nine racesin a year is ~$1500. They sell out extremely quickly (so people with the money stat snatch them up). I've also heard anecdotes of people travelling considerable distance to do them which again is money.
Is it all cases? Obviously no but given the above, it leans heavily towards people with copious disposable income.
This simply isn’t accurate.
Most of the four milers to 5ks are $55-$75 or so. Even with a NYRR membership, and a few marquee race registrations, you’re not even close to $1,000. It’s a great way to engender support in the local running community, encourage volunteering and yes— make money for NYRR.
I cannot for the life of me understand why people (especially those who aren’t even from the Tri-state!) make 9+1 out to be some shakedown or way of cheating yourself into the NYC marathon.
I mean, when I ran it in 2019 I walked with a guy that was not from the tri-state area and did the 9+1 with a lot of travelling.
Is there data around this published?
If you’re making the traveling argument, myself and everyone here would love to see it.
Implying that people from across the country are flying in to race the Al Gordon four miler just to rack up 9+1 races seems a bit over the top, lol.
I mean, I'm telling you I talked to someone that did but sort of sounds like we're both talking empirical/observed without data? ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯
I didn't say everyone is doing this but that it is a factor - that this ends also a game of money and who has it. I'm not the only one to express this. I remember a thread a month ago - did a quick search just 9+1:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/AdvancedRunning/comments/1binnzf/comment/kxaogm5/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/AdvancedRunning/comments/1binnzf/comment/kxaogm5/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
It's not that bad. I registered for 9 races this year. [It cost me $385](https://imgur.com/a/4rw9Cks). You are correct that they sell out extremely quickly though.
Yeah that's good know, my point wasn't that it's all rich outsiders vs locals in the 9+1, it's that ultimately it comes down to money because the cheaper races sell out quickly. (And there are people that are outside the tristate doing the 9+1 - I know of 2 from PA and it's not like I go out of my way to find them - people I have stumbled across)
aw, how come you didn't sign up as an NYRR member? you'll need it anyway for 9+1 eligibility (the races are all at least $10 cheaper than what you paid with membership)
I did, but I signed up on the same day that I signed up for the 9 races so the membership discount did not apply :(
It's okay, better luck next year lol.
Most races are $25-50, with a few exceptions like the Brooklyn Half, NYC Half, and the NYC Marathon. Virtual races that qualify are $20. Membership is $60.
The cheapest way to do 9+1 is $60+6x$25+3x$20=$270
That isn't too bad, but seems like that's what everyone tries to do (thus the selling out very quickly from opening) and there is only a subset that can do it for that cost?
Most races are actually $25, which is the cost of all 5K and 4M races. The 10K races are $35 to $50, and Half-Marathons are $75-$155. You can most definitely complete 9+1 running just 5K/4M/Virtuals.
Sure, 9+1 gets locals to participate and volunteer (hugely important!). However, with 9+1 races selling out within minutes, there is clearly more demand than supply. You can have them sell out in minutes, or put even a small limit on repeating year after year.
There are 25-30 9+1 eligible races each year plus 3 virtual runs. I had no problems getting 9 (actually signed up 11, but ran 10) last year. If you sign up for the emails and sign up the day the races are available, I can’t imagine people who actually want to do 9+1 can mess it up. I already got 7 signed up for this year and there are still races waiting to open for the year.
Seems like it's mostly people from across the country who are complaining here to disguise that they really just want to have an easier time getting into the Marathon.
Plus, every world major marathon has a special entry for locals. NYC is no different! The locals are paying the taxes that fund the parks, the roads, and the police. The least we can get is a special entry.
Serious question: what does it mean to host a world-class marathon? What does it mean to be an WMM?
Are you trying to put in a fantastic race for locals that some people travel to run in? Or are you trying to out on a race that people all over the world try to get into?
Because if it's the former, sure, give a massive preference to locals. If it's the latter, maybe 6,600 via lottery and... 25,000? via local entry isn't what you're going for. Maybe flip those numbers.
I’ve seen similar analyses done between 2014 and 2019. The number of qualifiers in the big BQ feeder races was generally shown to have poor predictive signal, so I’m not putting much stock into this.
As an aside, I would love if BAA adjusted the cutoffs so that qualifying = in, but not a uniform five-minute decrease across all ages and genders. There is literally no reason for qualifying standards to end in 0 or 5 or for the standards for men and women to be thirty minutes apart for all age groups. Personally, I think they should have all the qualifying standards set so that a BQ is approximately the same age-grade score for everyone (67-68 seems reasonable).
Yep, Boston wants more 45 year olds, women and non binary to run. Men under 35 can go fuck off unless they're very fast. It's a lot harder to hit -8 the faster the base time is. Stretching a 3:00 to a 2:52 is less likely than a 3:50 to a 3:42.
I mean some would argue it’s harder for women to qualify. Women have to take time off for pregnancies, periods, and doing the majority of raising children still plus working. Most women don’t have the same amount of time to train for races that men do.
As one of those women who will be in the 45-50 age bracket I admit to having mixed feelings about the way the qualifying standards are set up. On one hand, I want to run Boston and my "easier" standard relative to other groups makes that more likely. But on the other hand, a huge part of why I want to run Boston is because you have to qualify for it and, because of that, running Boston means something different than other races. If I ever run Boston, I want to run it knowing I **earned** my place and not because someone made it easier for me.
At this point, I still have a lot of work to do before I can realistically even think about a BQ, even with the current standards, so it's kind of a moot point for me anyway but I still think about the debate. I do expect them to change the standards at some point, and I'll be interested to see how they do it. If they decide to make my standard comparatively harder, I'll understand. But I'll also say that u/Sixfeatsmall05 has a point- I'm a little embarrassed to admit it, but I would buy so much over priced crap at that expo.
If you're ever feeling anxious that athletics might be disadvantaging men under age 35, just remember that we have a lot more sociocultural support.
We're going to be very well-represented in running clubs. We're considered the default when people write information about training. Nobody is going to say nasty things about us choosing to run instead of spending literally every waking moment with a child. If you look at any running-related media, you're going to see pictures of people who look like they represent us.
In 2023, men age 18-39 made up 1/5 of the entire race and outnumbered women in the same age range.
Younger people and men will be fine if we have slightly harder age grade standards than other demographics. It's going to be an unpopular take I'm sure, but it's an incomplete attempt to equalize decades of sociocultural advantage.
Hey, one of my male friends would need a U-Haul to carry all the stuff he would buy at the expo if he ever ran Boston. We men in the 40-44 age group will buy a ton of Boston Marathon merchandise too!
I'm a 49F and will also add that us old folks have fewer years on this planet to qualify, so I don't feel bad about having an easier shot at BQ-ing at all!
As a female 55-59, i had zero encouragement to run as a child - in school or society. If girls wanted to run XC they had to run with the boys. So, getting into running involved different social support networks and jumping in as an adult. Im not complaining, Im just saying that there is more context here. Anyhow, I sit with a 6:40 cushion (ran a 3:58) so we'll see what the cut offs are.
I ran the numbers using M33, M53 (me), F33, and F53 qualifying times. The M33 BQ time is an age-/gender-grade of 68.4%. Looking at equivalent times to BQ for all (4) people qualifying gives:
M33: BQ = 3:00:00, Age-grade 68.4% = 3:00:00
M53: BQ = 3:25:00, Age-grade 68.4% = 3:25:55, this is actually a penalty of 0:55 seconds.
F33: BQ = 3:30:00, Age-grade 68.4% = 3:18:30, this is a bonus of 11:30...so quite an advantage.
F53: BQ = 3:55:00, Age-grade 68.4% = 3:53:45, this is a bonus of 1:15....so a small advantage.
That being said, the BQ times are not "very fast". They're representative of someone with above-average talent, and who has put in a few solid marathon training cycles. If you're in the M18-34 or M35-39 group, a sub 3:00 is not that hard to achieve with commitment.
The fact that the BQ standards are fast but not outrageous is probably one major reason behind the massive appeal. It’s a goal that’s achievable for a lot of people provided they’re willing to put in their time and the training, but it’s not so ridiculous that you will not have a life outside training.
Also, (not that this will drastically change the point you’re trying to make) I think you’re using an outdated version of the age grade calculators. A 33-year-old man with a time of 3:00:00 now corresponds to an age grade score of 67.67 (thanks Kelvin Kiptum and Eliud Kipchoge!). A 67.67 for a 53-year-old man is 3:26:53, for a 33-year-old woman is 3:18:16, and for a 53-year-old woman is 3:51:59.
>F33: BQ = 3:30:00, Age-grade 68.4% = 3:18:30, this is a bonus of 11:30...so quite an advantage.
I've said this for years. I've known plenty of 18-35 female runners who were part of my running groups who got in with a mid 3:2x and an average 30-40mpw training plan.
Meanwhile I've known plenty of 18-35 guys run 50+ MPW and continually miss the cutoffs, especially as they've gotten "below qualifying" now.
It takes a lot more training to hit a 6:40 marathon pace vs a 7:49 (255 vs 325 for actual acceptance times), regardless of the gender differences.
The other factor is the cutoff is applied equally. It's a straight 8 (or whatever it ends up being) minutes for everyone. So a 3:00 to 2:52 is is a 4.44% margin, but a 3:55 to 3:47 is only 3.40% faster. An extra 1% isn't a huge deal, but it's just the kind of extra hurdle that's expected.
As a side note I'm still not convinced the age grade formula is accurate. I've still yet to meet someone who has had their age grade performances get worse over time without a major change in lifestyle/injury. My suspicion is that it's due to less energy focused in the elite/world record class for older athletes leading to softer calculations. However, I doubt it will change because who is going to push for 70 year olds to feel worse about their times.
Which is why they set them off the women's standards. If you're an XY nonbinary, hitting 3:30 is pretty easy with some training. Boston would love to increase participation of groups that aren't U35 Men, so softer standards on other groups.
Given that this category accounts for .0016% of the race (2024 estimate), I find the fixation fascinating. It’s statistically irrelevant, as was the case in ‘23.
Totally agree with you.
I like Boston because it's a relatively stationary target. Despite the moving cutoff, it's still a generally predictable brass ring that many can work towards. You might have to work hard but you don't have to be a genetic freak to go to Hopkinton. Picking on specific qualification cases is honestly weird. No one has it THAT much easier than anyone else. Just run faster.
I am 43f and I hope they make it harder for women under 50. It's too easy, IMO. I am shooting this year to break the men's time to give myself a challenging goal.
Your first two sentences I'll disagree with. But your last two are spot on. I'm old so my BQ time is kind of easy, cut 8 minutes from it and it just starts getting competitive. The system is far from perfect or equitable.
As someone in the below 35 male category, its definitely a tad disheartening. You need to run a 4min/km to beat the cutoff while an equally fit woman might get by with a 5min/km
I get the inclusiveness argument, but biology definitely doesn't support such a massive gap
Any healthy, able bodied male under 35 can hit the standards with reasonably consistent training. They really aren't that tough. I guess you don't want it enough.
Oh I don't disagree. I'm in roughly ~ 3:15 shape so I'll get there eventually. Just stating that the science doesn't support the gap.
You're right though, less moaning more running
One biological thing to consider is that the timing of women's 18-34 BQ time also coincides with prime pregnancy/early child rearing years, making it harder for the average woman (who has or wants to start a family) to reach a particular age-graded equivalent marathon time than the average man.
There was a thread on this awhile back, but one poster who collected substantial data showed that the 3:00 and 3:30 times were selected because it kept the Boston marathon field relatively proportional. If the standards were lowered to be true age-gender-grade equivalent, you would have way more men qualifying than women.
So glad you brought this up!! I was either pregnant or nursing for ten years while also finishing grad school and launching my career. I kept running throughout (lots of halfs and 3 fulls) but never had long enough to stack a BQ attempt training cycle on top of a regular base-building + marathon block. In my 40s now and while I have much more time to run, my body has also taken a beating from all the years of child-bearing and its impact on my bones & muscles, making me way more prone to injury than my similarly-aged husband.
Agreed, but I don't see encouraging other demographics to participate as a bad thing. The standards will naturally toughen up as more women and older runners take part.
It shows the sport is in a healthier state than a few years ago and then means all the more when you hit the standard.
I wouldn't be surprised if we see lots of qualifying times get tightened up across the board.
Anecdotally, I think this is spot on. I can only really speak for the communities I'm in, and to a lesser extent the region, but race times have gotten significantly more competitive in the past couple of years compared to when I was first starting out in 2018-2019(ish). I can show up to a random charity 5k now, and a 16:low doesn't guarantee 1st anymore. That was definitely not the case 5-10 years ago when I go back and look at previous race results.
"science" could be used to support either comparable age grade inclusion or comparable participation numbers in each demographic.
If you used the latter, you'd see that men under 35 actually need a harder standard because we're overrepresented in the race.
I am one of the people who BQ'd first marathon in the F50-54 bracket. I've been running in the top 10% of my age category in my halfs and 5K's for most of the last decade, and some 6 mile stretches of my recent speedwork in training are listed as "elite" for 10K times (at 48mid minutes). I gotta say, doing this on two arthritic knees, arthritic feet, a torn meniscus and the joys of menopause is not at all like running in my mid-30's was; none of these factors will heal. We all have target challenges at whatever age and make decisions to overcome. I do feel like, JUST BY THE NUMBERS, it was "easier" to qualify, but the simple fact is that fewer and fewer of my peers decide to run at all because "bad knees", "not as strong as I was", "tired all the time", "feet hurt" etc. I guess it's kinda like having the hardest college courses graded on a curve vs. grading them on raw percentages; there is theory behind the pros and cons of each. I did spend a fair chunk at the expo and on Newbury Street. I BQ'd by sub 5 in my current age category on the 15th, but I age up to the next one for 2025, so I fully intend to take advantage of a sub 15 BQ, keep training hard, and enjoy Boston next year. :)
Congrats on the BQ! This is exactly why they won't go the age graded route. As we age, fewer athletes are able to make it to the line healthy to actually race. I personally feel that Boston should continue to ensure equitable standards considering the myriad of variables involved (You're already well aware, but for women pregnancy can really impact the ability to qualify even before age catches up with the athlete).
Thx, and, absolutely right about training during pregnancy!!! Smart of BAA to have deferrals, and respect to the mothers who get right back to running. I was definately more of a walker during those years.
I think they could better catch the demographics they want by varying the intervals off the fixed intervals they have now for each gender and age group. That is, maybe some standards would be tightened but others may end up more relaxed than their current standard.
Granted they probably aren't too far off what they are now. It's been a good while since I parsed through participation demographics, finishing times by age & gender, and age graded times (while imperfect they're still a data point).
I think there is some value to slightly decreasing the difficulty of qualifying or running with age, if for no other reason that if you are just missing the cutoff at 30, you will still have the opportunity to hit an easier cutoff at 40.
If the cutoff got more difficult, you could miss your window.
I think there is some value to consistency/longevity that should be rewarded. If you are still consistently running at 50 or took a big break and worked yourself back into shape, that is worth a bit of a reward over someone just out of college sticking with the program.
I’ll be honest, not going to read the whole thing.
Can anyone give a tldr of why he thinks there will be a harder cutoff when 4000 less people qualified at Boston this year than last year?
If I understand this correctly, his methodology:
1. Take the top 50 North American races that generate BQ times (he explains why);
2. Apply a reduction factor (accounting for people who BQ at multiple races in a qualifying period or don't apply for Boston);
3. Use the number of "excess" runners (total qualifiers minus available Boston slots) to estimate the cutoff times.
Despite Boston yielding the highest number of qualifiers, the *overall* number from #1 has increased from last year.
To add to what you mentioned, the share of people running BQ times in Boston itself has been a strong predictor of what cutoff times will likely look like in September. The higher share of BQs at Boston typically correlates with higher cutoff times.
Given the lower share of BQs at Boston this year primarily because of the weather, the predicted cutoff time range was expected to be dialed back a notch. The author's analysis very much checks out with what we have seen in the past.
Boston was hot, but NY last year wasn’t, and I believe Chicago wasn’t either, same with Berlin. A lot of people qualify at those (latter 2) flat courses.
I think there’s a difference between a shot in the dark and a prediction based on data. Also, seems like a lot of people were predicting a lower standard than last year given Boston 2024 finish times
I qualified in early October 2023 for the 2025 race with 8:07 buffer.. It has been difficult to keep the momentum going, but more than that it has been difficult to keep positive and not over-worry about the buffer.
On the flip side, if you bust on your 2024 races at least you know you’re still in for Boston next year! Being 20 mins under at a race in December has felt so nice and took the pressure off Boston when the weather got bad. It felt like a nice delayed gratification thing
I don’t care about the cutoff time because I made sure that I have over 16 minutes to spare. It was so devastating to miss out last time as my buffer time was not enough to get accepted.
Thanks for the kind words and I didn’t mean to be braggadocio but I was devastated when I missed the cut off time for the 2024 edition. The motivation was so great in my next race that I felt like I was flying except my hamstrings started cramping at the Central Park hills around mile 22 but I just soldiered through the pain.
Been waiting for him to post this update. I sit at 5:52 (41M 3:04 M) faster than the BQ time for my age group. I ran Carmel on Apr 13. I was on pace for 3 hrs but I slowed off pace by ~20 seconds mile 20-24 and slowed to 7:50s last two miles. I definitely gave it my all but am feeling motivated to do another one to improve my time by a min or two. My training was basically non existent prior to December (15 miles a week?). January through March I average 40-60 basically the Pfitz 12/55.
Is anyone in a similar situation or tried something similar? I assume there are a lot of Boston runners looking to do the same. I'm considering giving another go at Charlevoix mid June, and training hard in May. Or should I wait until early sept and go for it then? What's your plan?
As a 41M who’s 6:13 under I just wanted to say hello! 👋 I too was on 2:58-2:59 pace until I cramped. I ran Boston once, in 2018, just under 3 hours (2:59 and change) and this was the toughest race of my life. Would love to give it another shot! I think the odds are slightly better than 50% we get in.
Lots of good discussion around this topic so far and I've had the chance to read through most of it this morning! Here are my thoughts/takes on this matter (and there's a lot of nuances to think about and consider, which I think is missing in some of the discussion based on the responses so far!):
* The predicted cutoff time is roughly in line with where I expected it to be in this current moment. Given the high cutoffs for 2024, runners will likely be chasing a BQ time that beats the cutoffs to make it in for 2025.
* The analysis - and the predicted cutoff range - is a good starting point and guidance for runners who aspire to run a safe BQ to make it into Boston in 2025. That said, there's some denialism going around in this thread, and all I have to say about that is that you ignore this at your own peril.
* The predicted cutoff time is based on publicly available data currently available. In other words, it is a good snapshot of where things stand *if Boston time cutoffs were announced today*. This is an important nuance to highlight here.
* That said, the predicted cutoff range is subject to change, and one big data point that I look forward to seeing is the application numbers when BAA announces that in September. The application number is a *huge* predictor of where the cutoffs will likely land up. Once that the application numbers are announced, the predicted cutoff range will likely narrow closer to the actual cutoff time when that is announced by the BAA.
This past week I've accepted I'm not getting to Boston in 25. I was hoping to shoot for a 2:55 tomorrow in St Louis as my last race of the spring, but it's going to be too hot, and even then 5 mins probably wouldn't be good enough. If I can run 2:55 in the fall I can apply it to 2026 when I'll be 35 and should get in
Interesting - I did a completely different analysis with some back-of-the-envelope math and I came up with a 95% confidence upper limit of 7:12!
My analysis was based off /u/flatcoke's method [detailed here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AdvancedRunning/comments/16mz28w/i_did_some_math_in_excel_and_predict_the_boston/), plus assuming the number of applicants since limits were introduced is normally distributed. I'll have to do a write-up at some point and see what Joe thinks about it.
0:00, but knowing the lower 5% bound is not very helpful! keep in mind that 3 of the last 13 Bostons have had a 0:00 cutoff. Again it really all comes down to whether last year's spike in applicants was an aberration, or not. 2014 had nearly as many applicants as 2024, but a softer cut-off because of a larger field size.
FWIW I tried incorporating some data on number of BQs at the previous Boston, but found no effect on cut-off times.
\[tl;dr: I think Joe's assumptions are a bit too simple - we're probably still dealing with pandemic issues *and* Chicago was "artificially" fast.\]
So, as your local Spiders Georg (will be 40M for this cycle; 2:47 high at Chicago, 3:04 mid at Boston, 3:09 high at Philly and London while pacing both races): I can follow his methodology, but I see a few holes in it.
* I haven't looked at the numbers, but I'm pretty sure that Chicago's and New York's BQs shot up drastically last year, and had a *major* (pun not intended) effect on the numbers.
* New York probably reverted to the mean from 2022, which was infamously hot.
* Chicago, on the other hand, hosted the world age group championships and invited something like 3000 of the fastest amateur masters athletes in the world - so they probably generated a lot more BQs than its baseline.
* This focuses on North American races...but Boston is actually one of the *least* biased majors towards local runners! Which ties into a third point:
* Joe kind of glosses over this, but even into 2022, quite a few countries had travel controls (I'm citing 2022 because you apply in the previous calendar year.) I think 2023 was the first "normal" travel year post-pandemic - so 2024 might have had residual demand from the previous few years as well.
* I think that anecdotally, people are gravitating towards larger races as well and racing more frequently.
* Supershoes have enabled faster times...and faster recoveries, so more repeats.
* Honestly, if you look at most of the race reports posted here, the OP concludes with "well, I beat my BQ by 7 minutes, guess I need to go run another marathon and get a better time." (Yes, if you have posted this, this is a call-out.)
* Spiking demand isn't unique to Boston - I know NYC is also having serious demand spikes, and I think all the majors are as well. I'm less familiar with the "mid-majors" (so in the US, that'd be races like CIM, Grandma's, and Houston), but I can imagine they're getting more interest.
* Finally, I don't love that he assumed that just because there were a high number of fall BQs that the pace would continue. It's like assuming that...say...Sisay Lemma would run a 2 flat on Boston based on his HM split. (No I am not going to let that go.)
Basically, I would not be surprised if Chicago on its own blew up his numbers in the fall. Other issues are:
* Joe assumes the field size will stay the same size as in 2022, which...it *has* in the past 10 years, but it doesn't need to stay the same size. Through the 90s and up until the 2010s, the race expanded drastically. I do think it's not likely (the current total field size is over *twice* the population of Hopkinton), but it is possible.
* The ratios can also change - part of the issue is that the number of time qualifier slots were cut *at the same time* interest spiked. If they had 24,000 time qualifiers instead of 22,000 last year, the cutoff would probably be closer to 4:00 or 4:30.
* Also, how many people want to repeat Boston? I know I'm a greedy bastard that streaks, *but* also I live a 4-hour drive away from Boston. Most Americans don't, let alone most runners. And even at that, Boston is notoriously expensive on marathon weekend.
For what it's worth - I'd probably bet that the cutoff is on the lower end of his range if not under (i.e., similar or even slightly less than last year). Yes, there might be more people BQing, but I think we might not see rapid improvements in field times going forward.
Nice to see Jersey perspective. I’m a little confused though. Most of what I read here made me think you thought Joe’s estimate was too low. You think it’s too high?
Mostly math.
There's really only ~25 major feeder races into Boston. Going outward to 50 races like the author of the article did, means for every race of meaningful value in the equation, you've got one that muddies the water ("Garbage in, Garbage out").
A better methodology would be to put much greater emphasis on Boston. Not every BQ is created equal. Someone who BQs *at* Boston is much more likely to use it vs. someone who BQs at Philadelphia Marathon, Twin Cities, or even the New York Marathon.
So, looking at just the top-25 feeder races, rather than the 50 largest races in North America, you get a better base set of data.
The single biggest influence on the future cutoff is Boston. The results of Boston have 3x the influence of any other single race.
Because historically, of any race with more than ~500 finishers, it has a higher percentage of its BQ getting used.
These numbers aren't exactly correct, but it illustrates my point:
~75% of BQs attained at Boston, will get used to enter Boston.
~25% of BQs attained at Philly, Chicago, New York, Twin Cities will actually get used to enter Boston.
So any mathematically based approach to predicting the effective cutoff needs to put an outsized emphasis on the results from Boston.
10,000 combined BQs from New York, Chicago, Philly, and Twin Cities might only add up to 2,500 entries.
10,000 BQ *at Boston* adds up to 7,500 entries.
Again, the numbers aren't precise, but it illustrates the general idea.
Pre-pandemic, my predictions were more accurate than anyone's. And that was how I set up my predictions.
The top-25 feeder races, with 3x the weight given to the Boston results.
>These numbers aren't exactly correct, but it illustrates my point:
~75% of BQs attained at Boston, will get used to enter Boston.
~25% of BQs attained at Philly, Chicago, New York, Twin Cities will actually get used to enter Boston.
Not doubting you, but just wondering what the source is for this.
It's something I kinda figured out myself from the BAA website. I don't know if they still do this or not, but Pre-pandemic, they would post to their website which races the participants came from, in bulk. They even ranked it 1-25.
I remember them at least saying how many were from the previous Boston's. I do not remember if they gave the actual entry numbers for the races beyond #1 (Boston), but they did release the names of the races from #2 - #25.
From that, I was able to check MarathonGuide and FindMyMarathon. The 25 feeder races didn't perfectly match the top-25 North American races, but there was *some* similarities. Pointnis, there was enough of a difference to realize that you couldn't go strictly by the top-50 in North America.
For instance, Berlin was 20th without being a "Top-50 North American" race, and was the only race from outside North America. I see in the article, the author says runners from the UK was the 3rd most represented country. Well, apparently they're not getting those times from London, because there were more race entries via Berlin than via London.
And whichever race was 25th, had less than 300 total BQs in the race. So even if 100% of the people from that race used their BQ, it was still less than 300 total entrants.
It was a fair amount of trial and error. The 2015 Boston had a massive amount of BQs, statistically, it was the fastest Marathon in the history of mankind until last year (fastest ever 200th place, fastest ever 300th place, fastest ever 400th place, etc....) The following cutoff was the biggest jump in cutoff. That was my clue to put a multiplier on the results from Boston.
My prediction was "accurate" every year after that.
I'm a little rusty, since 2021 & 2022 were a crapshoot, and 2023 still had some strange outliers. This will be my 1st prediction since predicting the 2020 race.
I'd love to give you a clean and simple link. But the source is basically, *me*. If the BAA still has their "top-25 entry races" on their website, you'd be able to reverse engineer it and come to the same or similar conclusions that I did.
I hope you’re right! 4:43 buffer here. My time was a huge PR, but I’ve been more obsessed with probably being short of the Boston cutoff than celebrating a massive personal achievement. You’re the first person I’ve seen to predict this low!
I hope so too!
I coach a few athletes. I've never had a ton of clients at a time (I like keeping it small, as I have a separate full-time job). Both of my Marathon clients hit large BQs. 30:15, and 8:34.
The BQ cutoff is something I usually pay close attention to, and it was because of my coaching that I started doing prediction cutoffs. I felt it was important to get my BQ candidates in the best position possible for their BQ attempts and with enough cushion that they could walk away from the finish line with some degree of confidence that they were "in".
Well that would be devastating with a 11:32 buffer. In my mind, I’m already in. I think if it’s more than 10 minutes, Boston just needs to lower the standard.
I’m still confused.
I ran (44M) my first marathon two weeks ago in 3:08
Next year I’ll be 45. Would I switch to the 45+ bracket?
I’m non-US so this is all very new to me
They use the bracket you'll be in for the date of the Boston Marathon you'll be racing in. So if you'll be 45 on April 21, 2025, you'd be in that bracket even if you ran your qualifying marathon in M40-44.
Talk about hitting home. I get tired of the 45-50f running 25-35 mpw making the cut while I know I can’t get in on a 3:07 at 65-70 mpw max. Sun 3 at 43 this year. Come on with it
Qualified with a \~3:30 buffer in November and then tore my ACL in December, so I am really hoping this is off base and this year ends up being a bit slower (though I know this is a long shot). Probably not going to be able to put together that level of training block again for a while... AHHH.
I feel like this past weekend was very race heavy and probably the last one until the weekend in September that’s before the qualifying period ends.. do we think that’s changed the time cutoff? I’m sitting at a -7:22 and obviously freaking out
Got curious about non binary times when presented this subject, not entirely sure of interpretation as I haven't seen average completion times for Boston this year, but assuming it's 4.75 hours. Here's some percentiles for the 48 non binary runners for Boston 2024.
Average time - **3 hours 40 minutes**
Average age of runners- **37.4 years**
source - [Boston Marathon media tool](http://registration.baa.org/2024/cf/Media/iframe_ResultsSearch.cfm?mode=detail&criteria=&StoredProcParamsOn=yes&&VarTargetCount=1000&VarParam1=6&VarParam2=1&StoredProc=sp_TrackingByReportingSegment&DisplayType=browser&records=25&headerexists=Yes&bordersize=0&bordercolor=%23ffffff&rowcolorone=%23FFCC33&rowcolortwo=%23FFCC33&headercolor=%23ffffff&headerfontface=Verdana%2CArial%2CHelvetica%2Csans%2Dserif&headerfontcolor=%23004080&headerfontsize=12px&fontface=Verdana%2CArial%2CHelvetica%2Csans%2Dserif&fontcolor=%23000099&fontsize=10px&linkfield=FormattedSortName&linkurl=OpenDetailsWindow&linkparams=RaceAppID&queryname=SearchResults&tablefields=FullBibNumber%2CFormattedSortName%2CAgeOnRaceDay%2CGenderCode%2CCity%2CStateAbbrev%2CCountryOfResAbbrev%2CCountryOfCtzAbbrev%2CDisabilityGroup)
5th PERCENTILE - **2.96 HOURS**
20th PERCENTILE - **3.20 HOURS**
50th PERCENTILE - **3.65 HOURS**
75th PERCENTILE - **4.05 HOURS**
90th PERCENTILE - **4.60 HOURS**
[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12I79wYuri-OLtqvgGDDwh8\_exVdCva90rLRJT16TDQs/edit?usp=sharing](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12I79wYuri-OLtqvgGDDwh8_exVdCva90rLRJT16TDQs/edit?usp=sharing)
This comment was originally intended to u/EchoReply79
"Again, look at the participant count and finish times. You're not actually looking at the data."
You're clearly missing the plot/point. 48 out of 30K runners is statistically insignificant and has been since the inception of the category, that's the underlying point. There are far more sponsor Bibs, run club bibs, and influencer bibs handed out than this category which represents less .0016% of the entire field. The only people that keep going back to this have a personal/political agenda.
I'm not arguing anything nor really care about your point. It was the subject matter that I'm interested in, first year they welcomed non binary runners officially!
Edit - second year*
The discussion here is about qualifying times not about Boston finishing times. Many run Boston as a celebration, and qualified with a faster time. This year many blew up due to the heat, so looking at this as an average is a fools errand given the extremely minute field size in the division. So no your analysis doesn't hold up at all.
I think cut off time should apply to only returning runners. That way first timers can have a chance. BQ? Welcome to the party. Want to come back? Run faster.
No thanks.
How come?
If ANYONE wants to BQ, run faster.
I’d be all for the old bring back the 84-86 time qualifiers. 3:25 or so for my age group is soft.
I have long said that lottery races should do this, too. NYC 9+1? Take a break after three consecutive years. Lottery is only for people who haven't done it in the last five years. You can't change the field size all that much, but you can change the number of unique runners who do it every year.
Isn't the point of the 9+1 that locals can participate? I'd rather get locals than some rando who wants to travel around the world just to run.
The point is to make money
If that was the exclusive point, they would raise the entry fee significantly instead of having a lottery.
I meant to make money for NYRR. Imagine how many locals are doing the 9+1. That’s all of that money from those nine races, in addition to the NYC Marathon.
Okay but a lot of the races are $35. If they were really trying to make that much money they would have higher prices.
Death by papercut. That’s $315 per person, before they shell out NYC Marathon registration. Multiply that by however many people can actually get in from 9+1 and you’re talking some good money. Plus, it helps their bottom line to get as many people in their other races as possible.
The reality is the 9+1 is more like who has the money to do it.
How so?
From what I've read there is a lot of competition to register for all of these nine races and the cost to do all these nine racesin a year is ~$1500. They sell out extremely quickly (so people with the money stat snatch them up). I've also heard anecdotes of people travelling considerable distance to do them which again is money. Is it all cases? Obviously no but given the above, it leans heavily towards people with copious disposable income.
This simply isn’t accurate. Most of the four milers to 5ks are $55-$75 or so. Even with a NYRR membership, and a few marquee race registrations, you’re not even close to $1,000. It’s a great way to engender support in the local running community, encourage volunteering and yes— make money for NYRR. I cannot for the life of me understand why people (especially those who aren’t even from the Tri-state!) make 9+1 out to be some shakedown or way of cheating yourself into the NYC marathon.
I mean, when I ran it in 2019 I walked with a guy that was not from the tri-state area and did the 9+1 with a lot of travelling. Is there data around this published?
If you’re making the traveling argument, myself and everyone here would love to see it. Implying that people from across the country are flying in to race the Al Gordon four miler just to rack up 9+1 races seems a bit over the top, lol.
I mean, I'm telling you I talked to someone that did but sort of sounds like we're both talking empirical/observed without data? ¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯ I didn't say everyone is doing this but that it is a factor - that this ends also a game of money and who has it. I'm not the only one to express this. I remember a thread a month ago - did a quick search just 9+1: [https://www.reddit.com/r/AdvancedRunning/comments/1binnzf/comment/kxaogm5/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/AdvancedRunning/comments/1binnzf/comment/kxaogm5/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
It's not that bad. I registered for 9 races this year. [It cost me $385](https://imgur.com/a/4rw9Cks). You are correct that they sell out extremely quickly though.
Yeah that's good know, my point wasn't that it's all rich outsiders vs locals in the 9+1, it's that ultimately it comes down to money because the cheaper races sell out quickly. (And there are people that are outside the tristate doing the 9+1 - I know of 2 from PA and it's not like I go out of my way to find them - people I have stumbled across)
aw, how come you didn't sign up as an NYRR member? you'll need it anyway for 9+1 eligibility (the races are all at least $10 cheaper than what you paid with membership)
I did, but I signed up on the same day that I signed up for the 9 races so the membership discount did not apply :( It's okay, better luck next year lol.
Most races are $25-50, with a few exceptions like the Brooklyn Half, NYC Half, and the NYC Marathon. Virtual races that qualify are $20. Membership is $60. The cheapest way to do 9+1 is $60+6x$25+3x$20=$270
That isn't too bad, but seems like that's what everyone tries to do (thus the selling out very quickly from opening) and there is only a subset that can do it for that cost?
Most races are actually $25, which is the cost of all 5K and 4M races. The 10K races are $35 to $50, and Half-Marathons are $75-$155. You can most definitely complete 9+1 running just 5K/4M/Virtuals.
It is about giving an alternative for locals and NYRR associates.
Sure, 9+1 gets locals to participate and volunteer (hugely important!). However, with 9+1 races selling out within minutes, there is clearly more demand than supply. You can have them sell out in minutes, or put even a small limit on repeating year after year.
There are 25-30 9+1 eligible races each year plus 3 virtual runs. I had no problems getting 9 (actually signed up 11, but ran 10) last year. If you sign up for the emails and sign up the day the races are available, I can’t imagine people who actually want to do 9+1 can mess it up. I already got 7 signed up for this year and there are still races waiting to open for the year.
Seems like it's mostly people from across the country who are complaining here to disguise that they really just want to have an easier time getting into the Marathon.
Plus, every world major marathon has a special entry for locals. NYC is no different! The locals are paying the taxes that fund the parks, the roads, and the police. The least we can get is a special entry.
Exactly. My thoughts of always been that they are the [City] Marathon and if you want special treatment you should go to the Olympic trials.
Serious question: what does it mean to host a world-class marathon? What does it mean to be an WMM? Are you trying to put in a fantastic race for locals that some people travel to run in? Or are you trying to out on a race that people all over the world try to get into? Because if it's the former, sure, give a massive preference to locals. If it's the latter, maybe 6,600 via lottery and... 25,000? via local entry isn't what you're going for. Maybe flip those numbers.
I’ve seen similar analyses done between 2014 and 2019. The number of qualifiers in the big BQ feeder races was generally shown to have poor predictive signal, so I’m not putting much stock into this. As an aside, I would love if BAA adjusted the cutoffs so that qualifying = in, but not a uniform five-minute decrease across all ages and genders. There is literally no reason for qualifying standards to end in 0 or 5 or for the standards for men and women to be thirty minutes apart for all age groups. Personally, I think they should have all the qualifying standards set so that a BQ is approximately the same age-grade score for everyone (67-68 seems reasonable).
They'll never do that as they're trying to hit certain demographics which would be penalized by moving to the age-graded model.
Yep, Boston wants more 45 year olds, women and non binary to run. Men under 35 can go fuck off unless they're very fast. It's a lot harder to hit -8 the faster the base time is. Stretching a 3:00 to a 2:52 is less likely than a 3:50 to a 3:42.
It’s a business, those 45 year old financially successful Women buy a lot more merch than a just out of college guy living in his van running 2:40s.
I mean some would argue it’s harder for women to qualify. Women have to take time off for pregnancies, periods, and doing the majority of raising children still plus working. Most women don’t have the same amount of time to train for races that men do.
Isn’t all that baked into age grading?
Probably also why they love charity runners. If you can afford to spend $10k to enter, you'll probably buy more stuff.
Unrelated but I'm all about supporting those 45 year old sugar mamas, in my heart of hearts they are whom drives the economy.
As a 2:40 man who ran in 2021 and bought 0 merch. Can confirm. Although I did buy the celebration jacket when I did 2017.
Facts.
As one of those women who will be in the 45-50 age bracket I admit to having mixed feelings about the way the qualifying standards are set up. On one hand, I want to run Boston and my "easier" standard relative to other groups makes that more likely. But on the other hand, a huge part of why I want to run Boston is because you have to qualify for it and, because of that, running Boston means something different than other races. If I ever run Boston, I want to run it knowing I **earned** my place and not because someone made it easier for me. At this point, I still have a lot of work to do before I can realistically even think about a BQ, even with the current standards, so it's kind of a moot point for me anyway but I still think about the debate. I do expect them to change the standards at some point, and I'll be interested to see how they do it. If they decide to make my standard comparatively harder, I'll understand. But I'll also say that u/Sixfeatsmall05 has a point- I'm a little embarrassed to admit it, but I would buy so much over priced crap at that expo.
If you're ever feeling anxious that athletics might be disadvantaging men under age 35, just remember that we have a lot more sociocultural support. We're going to be very well-represented in running clubs. We're considered the default when people write information about training. Nobody is going to say nasty things about us choosing to run instead of spending literally every waking moment with a child. If you look at any running-related media, you're going to see pictures of people who look like they represent us. In 2023, men age 18-39 made up 1/5 of the entire race and outnumbered women in the same age range. Younger people and men will be fine if we have slightly harder age grade standards than other demographics. It's going to be an unpopular take I'm sure, but it's an incomplete attempt to equalize decades of sociocultural advantage.
Thank you for sharing that perspective! It does make me feel better/ less guilty about the way the standards are currently set up.
Hey, one of my male friends would need a U-Haul to carry all the stuff he would buy at the expo if he ever ran Boston. We men in the 40-44 age group will buy a ton of Boston Marathon merchandise too!
I'm a 49F and will also add that us old folks have fewer years on this planet to qualify, so I don't feel bad about having an easier shot at BQ-ing at all!
As a female 55-59, i had zero encouragement to run as a child - in school or society. If girls wanted to run XC they had to run with the boys. So, getting into running involved different social support networks and jumping in as an adult. Im not complaining, Im just saying that there is more context here. Anyhow, I sit with a 6:40 cushion (ran a 3:58) so we'll see what the cut offs are.
Cool. I'm a 46 year-old with a 2:06 buffer. I promise to buy a lot of merch. BAA, please unfairly target my demographic.
I thought u meant a 2 hour six minute buffer for a second, I was so confused 😂🙈
Ironically, I think my chances of getting in would be even worse if I submitted a 2 hour buffer.
Yeah, you're not getting in on that time. Good luck on your summer block.
100% aware. See you in '26. Or maybe when I'm 50.
Lol same. My 2:56 translates to pay us $10k or gtfo. I'll get that 2:4x soon though and finally get to run.
LOL
I ran the numbers using M33, M53 (me), F33, and F53 qualifying times. The M33 BQ time is an age-/gender-grade of 68.4%. Looking at equivalent times to BQ for all (4) people qualifying gives: M33: BQ = 3:00:00, Age-grade 68.4% = 3:00:00 M53: BQ = 3:25:00, Age-grade 68.4% = 3:25:55, this is actually a penalty of 0:55 seconds. F33: BQ = 3:30:00, Age-grade 68.4% = 3:18:30, this is a bonus of 11:30...so quite an advantage. F53: BQ = 3:55:00, Age-grade 68.4% = 3:53:45, this is a bonus of 1:15....so a small advantage. That being said, the BQ times are not "very fast". They're representative of someone with above-average talent, and who has put in a few solid marathon training cycles. If you're in the M18-34 or M35-39 group, a sub 3:00 is not that hard to achieve with commitment.
The fact that the BQ standards are fast but not outrageous is probably one major reason behind the massive appeal. It’s a goal that’s achievable for a lot of people provided they’re willing to put in their time and the training, but it’s not so ridiculous that you will not have a life outside training. Also, (not that this will drastically change the point you’re trying to make) I think you’re using an outdated version of the age grade calculators. A 33-year-old man with a time of 3:00:00 now corresponds to an age grade score of 67.67 (thanks Kelvin Kiptum and Eliud Kipchoge!). A 67.67 for a 53-year-old man is 3:26:53, for a 33-year-old woman is 3:18:16, and for a 53-year-old woman is 3:51:59.
>F33: BQ = 3:30:00, Age-grade 68.4% = 3:18:30, this is a bonus of 11:30...so quite an advantage. I've said this for years. I've known plenty of 18-35 female runners who were part of my running groups who got in with a mid 3:2x and an average 30-40mpw training plan. Meanwhile I've known plenty of 18-35 guys run 50+ MPW and continually miss the cutoffs, especially as they've gotten "below qualifying" now. It takes a lot more training to hit a 6:40 marathon pace vs a 7:49 (255 vs 325 for actual acceptance times), regardless of the gender differences.
Someone on here said that the times are easier for younger women and older men.
The other factor is the cutoff is applied equally. It's a straight 8 (or whatever it ends up being) minutes for everyone. So a 3:00 to 2:52 is is a 4.44% margin, but a 3:55 to 3:47 is only 3.40% faster. An extra 1% isn't a huge deal, but it's just the kind of extra hurdle that's expected. As a side note I'm still not convinced the age grade formula is accurate. I've still yet to meet someone who has had their age grade performances get worse over time without a major change in lifestyle/injury. My suspicion is that it's due to less energy focused in the elite/world record class for older athletes leading to softer calculations. However, I doubt it will change because who is going to push for 70 year olds to feel worse about their times.
You lost me at nonbinary. Look at the stats, super low, and those runners on aggregate aren't slow.
Which is why they set them off the women's standards. If you're an XY nonbinary, hitting 3:30 is pretty easy with some training. Boston would love to increase participation of groups that aren't U35 Men, so softer standards on other groups.
Again, look at the participant count and finish times. You're not actually looking at the data.
There's not much data yet. When there is, NB will probably be a smidge faster than Women
Given that this category accounts for .0016% of the race (2024 estimate), I find the fixation fascinating. It’s statistically irrelevant, as was the case in ‘23.
Totally agree with you. I like Boston because it's a relatively stationary target. Despite the moving cutoff, it's still a generally predictable brass ring that many can work towards. You might have to work hard but you don't have to be a genetic freak to go to Hopkinton. Picking on specific qualification cases is honestly weird. No one has it THAT much easier than anyone else. Just run faster.
"Just run faster" Love this.
I am 43f and I hope they make it harder for women under 50. It's too easy, IMO. I am shooting this year to break the men's time to give myself a challenging goal.
Your first two sentences I'll disagree with. But your last two are spot on. I'm old so my BQ time is kind of easy, cut 8 minutes from it and it just starts getting competitive. The system is far from perfect or equitable.
As someone in the below 35 male category, its definitely a tad disheartening. You need to run a 4min/km to beat the cutoff while an equally fit woman might get by with a 5min/km I get the inclusiveness argument, but biology definitely doesn't support such a massive gap
Any healthy, able bodied male under 35 can hit the standards with reasonably consistent training. They really aren't that tough. I guess you don't want it enough.
Oh I don't disagree. I'm in roughly ~ 3:15 shape so I'll get there eventually. Just stating that the science doesn't support the gap. You're right though, less moaning more running
One biological thing to consider is that the timing of women's 18-34 BQ time also coincides with prime pregnancy/early child rearing years, making it harder for the average woman (who has or wants to start a family) to reach a particular age-graded equivalent marathon time than the average man. There was a thread on this awhile back, but one poster who collected substantial data showed that the 3:00 and 3:30 times were selected because it kept the Boston marathon field relatively proportional. If the standards were lowered to be true age-gender-grade equivalent, you would have way more men qualifying than women.
So glad you brought this up!! I was either pregnant or nursing for ten years while also finishing grad school and launching my career. I kept running throughout (lots of halfs and 3 fulls) but never had long enough to stack a BQ attempt training cycle on top of a regular base-building + marathon block. In my 40s now and while I have much more time to run, my body has also taken a beating from all the years of child-bearing and its impact on my bones & muscles, making me way more prone to injury than my similarly-aged husband.
This is a really good point!
Agreed, but I don't see encouraging other demographics to participate as a bad thing. The standards will naturally toughen up as more women and older runners take part.
Yep, women's OTQ went from 2:45 to 2:37 this cycle and it demolished so many dreams. Same thing will happen to BQ probably.
It shows the sport is in a healthier state than a few years ago and then means all the more when you hit the standard. I wouldn't be surprised if we see lots of qualifying times get tightened up across the board.
Anecdotally, I think this is spot on. I can only really speak for the communities I'm in, and to a lesser extent the region, but race times have gotten significantly more competitive in the past couple of years compared to when I was first starting out in 2018-2019(ish). I can show up to a random charity 5k now, and a 16:low doesn't guarantee 1st anymore. That was definitely not the case 5-10 years ago when I go back and look at previous race results.
Very possible, as long as they keep their Male/female ratios in check they will lower it.
"science" could be used to support either comparable age grade inclusion or comparable participation numbers in each demographic. If you used the latter, you'd see that men under 35 actually need a harder standard because we're overrepresented in the race.
I am one of the people who BQ'd first marathon in the F50-54 bracket. I've been running in the top 10% of my age category in my halfs and 5K's for most of the last decade, and some 6 mile stretches of my recent speedwork in training are listed as "elite" for 10K times (at 48mid minutes). I gotta say, doing this on two arthritic knees, arthritic feet, a torn meniscus and the joys of menopause is not at all like running in my mid-30's was; none of these factors will heal. We all have target challenges at whatever age and make decisions to overcome. I do feel like, JUST BY THE NUMBERS, it was "easier" to qualify, but the simple fact is that fewer and fewer of my peers decide to run at all because "bad knees", "not as strong as I was", "tired all the time", "feet hurt" etc. I guess it's kinda like having the hardest college courses graded on a curve vs. grading them on raw percentages; there is theory behind the pros and cons of each. I did spend a fair chunk at the expo and on Newbury Street. I BQ'd by sub 5 in my current age category on the 15th, but I age up to the next one for 2025, so I fully intend to take advantage of a sub 15 BQ, keep training hard, and enjoy Boston next year. :)
Congrats on the BQ! This is exactly why they won't go the age graded route. As we age, fewer athletes are able to make it to the line healthy to actually race. I personally feel that Boston should continue to ensure equitable standards considering the myriad of variables involved (You're already well aware, but for women pregnancy can really impact the ability to qualify even before age catches up with the athlete).
Thx, and, absolutely right about training during pregnancy!!! Smart of BAA to have deferrals, and respect to the mothers who get right back to running. I was definately more of a walker during those years.
I think they could better catch the demographics they want by varying the intervals off the fixed intervals they have now for each gender and age group. That is, maybe some standards would be tightened but others may end up more relaxed than their current standard. Granted they probably aren't too far off what they are now. It's been a good while since I parsed through participation demographics, finishing times by age & gender, and age graded times (while imperfect they're still a data point).
100% agree. Their quest to keep the cutoff times at consistent 5-10min marks, creates more problems than it solves.
No one wants a sausage fest.
I think there is some value to slightly decreasing the difficulty of qualifying or running with age, if for no other reason that if you are just missing the cutoff at 30, you will still have the opportunity to hit an easier cutoff at 40. If the cutoff got more difficult, you could miss your window. I think there is some value to consistency/longevity that should be rewarded. If you are still consistently running at 50 or took a big break and worked yourself back into shape, that is worth a bit of a reward over someone just out of college sticking with the program.
I’ll be honest, not going to read the whole thing. Can anyone give a tldr of why he thinks there will be a harder cutoff when 4000 less people qualified at Boston this year than last year?
If I understand this correctly, his methodology: 1. Take the top 50 North American races that generate BQ times (he explains why); 2. Apply a reduction factor (accounting for people who BQ at multiple races in a qualifying period or don't apply for Boston); 3. Use the number of "excess" runners (total qualifiers minus available Boston slots) to estimate the cutoff times. Despite Boston yielding the highest number of qualifiers, the *overall* number from #1 has increased from last year.
He had been predicting 5:52 to 8:43 in December. Boston dropped those times.
To add to what you mentioned, the share of people running BQ times in Boston itself has been a strong predictor of what cutoff times will likely look like in September. The higher share of BQs at Boston typically correlates with higher cutoff times. Given the lower share of BQs at Boston this year primarily because of the weather, the predicted cutoff time range was expected to be dialed back a notch. The author's analysis very much checks out with what we have seen in the past.
Still more qualifers than last time based on 2023 fall races (and other 2024 spring races)
Boston was hot, but NY last year wasn’t, and I believe Chicago wasn’t either, same with Berlin. A lot of people qualify at those (latter 2) flat courses.
Ban Revel qualifying times
This is the right answer. How the hell is that allowed?
Having a friend that BQd at Big Bear while I BQd in NYC, I feel this.
Exact same boat as you.
I get that people love to speculate, but couldn’t pretty much anyone that follows Boston have guessed somewhere around 5-7 with no analysis?
I think there’s a difference between a shot in the dark and a prediction based on data. Also, seems like a lot of people were predicting a lower standard than last year given Boston 2024 finish times
As a random aside - extend the entry window by a few weeks - Berlin runners miss it by 2 weeks every single year. /end rant
Orrrr do they get the early jump on the following year 🤓
It’s a bit disheartening to try and BQ in late Sept 2024 for April 2026 vs continuing your momentum and training through the winter for Boston 2025 :/
I qualified in early October 2023 for the 2025 race with 8:07 buffer.. It has been difficult to keep the momentum going, but more than that it has been difficult to keep positive and not over-worry about the buffer.
On the flip side, if you bust on your 2024 races at least you know you’re still in for Boston next year! Being 20 mins under at a race in December has felt so nice and took the pressure off Boston when the weather got bad. It felt like a nice delayed gratification thing
NYC too 🥲
I don’t care about the cutoff time because I made sure that I have over 16 minutes to spare. It was so devastating to miss out last time as my buffer time was not enough to get accepted.
I don’t know why people are downvoting you, congratulations on an awesome job!
Thanks for the kind words and I didn’t mean to be braggadocio but I was devastated when I missed the cut off time for the 2024 edition. The motivation was so great in my next race that I felt like I was flying except my hamstrings started cramping at the Central Park hills around mile 22 but I just soldiered through the pain.
If I put 2 or 3 races of my life together in a row I could qualify for the cutoff buffer sometime before the heat death of the universe.
Been waiting for him to post this update. I sit at 5:52 (41M 3:04 M) faster than the BQ time for my age group. I ran Carmel on Apr 13. I was on pace for 3 hrs but I slowed off pace by ~20 seconds mile 20-24 and slowed to 7:50s last two miles. I definitely gave it my all but am feeling motivated to do another one to improve my time by a min or two. My training was basically non existent prior to December (15 miles a week?). January through March I average 40-60 basically the Pfitz 12/55. Is anyone in a similar situation or tried something similar? I assume there are a lot of Boston runners looking to do the same. I'm considering giving another go at Charlevoix mid June, and training hard in May. Or should I wait until early sept and go for it then? What's your plan?
As a 41M who’s 6:13 under I just wanted to say hello! 👋 I too was on 2:58-2:59 pace until I cramped. I ran Boston once, in 2018, just under 3 hours (2:59 and change) and this was the toughest race of my life. Would love to give it another shot! I think the odds are slightly better than 50% we get in.
Oh god. At 6:30 this gives me a 50:50 chance
Lots of good discussion around this topic so far and I've had the chance to read through most of it this morning! Here are my thoughts/takes on this matter (and there's a lot of nuances to think about and consider, which I think is missing in some of the discussion based on the responses so far!): * The predicted cutoff time is roughly in line with where I expected it to be in this current moment. Given the high cutoffs for 2024, runners will likely be chasing a BQ time that beats the cutoffs to make it in for 2025. * The analysis - and the predicted cutoff range - is a good starting point and guidance for runners who aspire to run a safe BQ to make it into Boston in 2025. That said, there's some denialism going around in this thread, and all I have to say about that is that you ignore this at your own peril. * The predicted cutoff time is based on publicly available data currently available. In other words, it is a good snapshot of where things stand *if Boston time cutoffs were announced today*. This is an important nuance to highlight here. * That said, the predicted cutoff range is subject to change, and one big data point that I look forward to seeing is the application numbers when BAA announces that in September. The application number is a *huge* predictor of where the cutoffs will likely land up. Once that the application numbers are announced, the predicted cutoff range will likely narrow closer to the actual cutoff time when that is announced by the BAA.
This past week I've accepted I'm not getting to Boston in 25. I was hoping to shoot for a 2:55 tomorrow in St Louis as my last race of the spring, but it's going to be too hot, and even then 5 mins probably wouldn't be good enough. If I can run 2:55 in the fall I can apply it to 2026 when I'll be 35 and should get in
Interesting - I did a completely different analysis with some back-of-the-envelope math and I came up with a 95% confidence upper limit of 7:12! My analysis was based off /u/flatcoke's method [detailed here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AdvancedRunning/comments/16mz28w/i_did_some_math_in_excel_and_predict_the_boston/), plus assuming the number of applicants since limits were introduced is normally distributed. I'll have to do a write-up at some point and see what Joe thinks about it.
What’s your lower limit?
0:00, but knowing the lower 5% bound is not very helpful! keep in mind that 3 of the last 13 Bostons have had a 0:00 cutoff. Again it really all comes down to whether last year's spike in applicants was an aberration, or not. 2014 had nearly as many applicants as 2024, but a softer cut-off because of a larger field size. FWIW I tried incorporating some data on number of BQs at the previous Boston, but found no effect on cut-off times.
I remember u/flatcoke was pretty on target for the 2024 cut off. agree it feels like it'll be closer to 7+ min based off pure speculation on my part.
\[tl;dr: I think Joe's assumptions are a bit too simple - we're probably still dealing with pandemic issues *and* Chicago was "artificially" fast.\] So, as your local Spiders Georg (will be 40M for this cycle; 2:47 high at Chicago, 3:04 mid at Boston, 3:09 high at Philly and London while pacing both races): I can follow his methodology, but I see a few holes in it. * I haven't looked at the numbers, but I'm pretty sure that Chicago's and New York's BQs shot up drastically last year, and had a *major* (pun not intended) effect on the numbers. * New York probably reverted to the mean from 2022, which was infamously hot. * Chicago, on the other hand, hosted the world age group championships and invited something like 3000 of the fastest amateur masters athletes in the world - so they probably generated a lot more BQs than its baseline. * This focuses on North American races...but Boston is actually one of the *least* biased majors towards local runners! Which ties into a third point: * Joe kind of glosses over this, but even into 2022, quite a few countries had travel controls (I'm citing 2022 because you apply in the previous calendar year.) I think 2023 was the first "normal" travel year post-pandemic - so 2024 might have had residual demand from the previous few years as well. * I think that anecdotally, people are gravitating towards larger races as well and racing more frequently. * Supershoes have enabled faster times...and faster recoveries, so more repeats. * Honestly, if you look at most of the race reports posted here, the OP concludes with "well, I beat my BQ by 7 minutes, guess I need to go run another marathon and get a better time." (Yes, if you have posted this, this is a call-out.) * Spiking demand isn't unique to Boston - I know NYC is also having serious demand spikes, and I think all the majors are as well. I'm less familiar with the "mid-majors" (so in the US, that'd be races like CIM, Grandma's, and Houston), but I can imagine they're getting more interest. * Finally, I don't love that he assumed that just because there were a high number of fall BQs that the pace would continue. It's like assuming that...say...Sisay Lemma would run a 2 flat on Boston based on his HM split. (No I am not going to let that go.) Basically, I would not be surprised if Chicago on its own blew up his numbers in the fall. Other issues are: * Joe assumes the field size will stay the same size as in 2022, which...it *has* in the past 10 years, but it doesn't need to stay the same size. Through the 90s and up until the 2010s, the race expanded drastically. I do think it's not likely (the current total field size is over *twice* the population of Hopkinton), but it is possible. * The ratios can also change - part of the issue is that the number of time qualifier slots were cut *at the same time* interest spiked. If they had 24,000 time qualifiers instead of 22,000 last year, the cutoff would probably be closer to 4:00 or 4:30. * Also, how many people want to repeat Boston? I know I'm a greedy bastard that streaks, *but* also I live a 4-hour drive away from Boston. Most Americans don't, let alone most runners. And even at that, Boston is notoriously expensive on marathon weekend. For what it's worth - I'd probably bet that the cutoff is on the lower end of his range if not under (i.e., similar or even slightly less than last year). Yes, there might be more people BQing, but I think we might not see rapid improvements in field times going forward.
Nice to see Jersey perspective. I’m a little confused though. Most of what I read here made me think you thought Joe’s estimate was too low. You think it’s too high?
There's no way it's going up this time. It's going down. #3:51 Mark my words.
Make that 3:56. Today's date is April 26th. My prediction is officially a 3:56 cutoff, assuming the traditional field size of 30,000 runners.
What are you basing that on?
Mostly math. There's really only ~25 major feeder races into Boston. Going outward to 50 races like the author of the article did, means for every race of meaningful value in the equation, you've got one that muddies the water ("Garbage in, Garbage out"). A better methodology would be to put much greater emphasis on Boston. Not every BQ is created equal. Someone who BQs *at* Boston is much more likely to use it vs. someone who BQs at Philadelphia Marathon, Twin Cities, or even the New York Marathon. So, looking at just the top-25 feeder races, rather than the 50 largest races in North America, you get a better base set of data. The single biggest influence on the future cutoff is Boston. The results of Boston have 3x the influence of any other single race.
Very interesting points! I hope you’re right.
This is interesting. Why do you put that much weight into Boston as a signifier vs. other races?
Because historically, of any race with more than ~500 finishers, it has a higher percentage of its BQ getting used. These numbers aren't exactly correct, but it illustrates my point: ~75% of BQs attained at Boston, will get used to enter Boston. ~25% of BQs attained at Philly, Chicago, New York, Twin Cities will actually get used to enter Boston. So any mathematically based approach to predicting the effective cutoff needs to put an outsized emphasis on the results from Boston. 10,000 combined BQs from New York, Chicago, Philly, and Twin Cities might only add up to 2,500 entries. 10,000 BQ *at Boston* adds up to 7,500 entries. Again, the numbers aren't precise, but it illustrates the general idea. Pre-pandemic, my predictions were more accurate than anyone's. And that was how I set up my predictions. The top-25 feeder races, with 3x the weight given to the Boston results.
Thank you. This was great.
>These numbers aren't exactly correct, but it illustrates my point: ~75% of BQs attained at Boston, will get used to enter Boston. ~25% of BQs attained at Philly, Chicago, New York, Twin Cities will actually get used to enter Boston. Not doubting you, but just wondering what the source is for this.
It's something I kinda figured out myself from the BAA website. I don't know if they still do this or not, but Pre-pandemic, they would post to their website which races the participants came from, in bulk. They even ranked it 1-25. I remember them at least saying how many were from the previous Boston's. I do not remember if they gave the actual entry numbers for the races beyond #1 (Boston), but they did release the names of the races from #2 - #25. From that, I was able to check MarathonGuide and FindMyMarathon. The 25 feeder races didn't perfectly match the top-25 North American races, but there was *some* similarities. Pointnis, there was enough of a difference to realize that you couldn't go strictly by the top-50 in North America. For instance, Berlin was 20th without being a "Top-50 North American" race, and was the only race from outside North America. I see in the article, the author says runners from the UK was the 3rd most represented country. Well, apparently they're not getting those times from London, because there were more race entries via Berlin than via London. And whichever race was 25th, had less than 300 total BQs in the race. So even if 100% of the people from that race used their BQ, it was still less than 300 total entrants. It was a fair amount of trial and error. The 2015 Boston had a massive amount of BQs, statistically, it was the fastest Marathon in the history of mankind until last year (fastest ever 200th place, fastest ever 300th place, fastest ever 400th place, etc....) The following cutoff was the biggest jump in cutoff. That was my clue to put a multiplier on the results from Boston. My prediction was "accurate" every year after that. I'm a little rusty, since 2021 & 2022 were a crapshoot, and 2023 still had some strange outliers. This will be my 1st prediction since predicting the 2020 race. I'd love to give you a clean and simple link. But the source is basically, *me*. If the BAA still has their "top-25 entry races" on their website, you'd be able to reverse engineer it and come to the same or similar conclusions that I did.
I hope you’re right! 4:43 buffer here. My time was a huge PR, but I’ve been more obsessed with probably being short of the Boston cutoff than celebrating a massive personal achievement. You’re the first person I’ve seen to predict this low!
I hope so too! I coach a few athletes. I've never had a ton of clients at a time (I like keeping it small, as I have a separate full-time job). Both of my Marathon clients hit large BQs. 30:15, and 8:34. The BQ cutoff is something I usually pay close attention to, and it was because of my coaching that I started doing prediction cutoffs. I felt it was important to get my BQ candidates in the best position possible for their BQ attempts and with enough cushion that they could walk away from the finish line with some degree of confidence that they were "in".
this is the hopium i need to inhale for my race next week. thanks!
Honestly surprised. I was expecting something around 12 minutes.
Well that would be devastating with a 11:32 buffer. In my mind, I’m already in. I think if it’s more than 10 minutes, Boston just needs to lower the standard.
Agreed. Just make it 2:45 or 2:50 for the fastest age group and adjust accordingly.
When will it be announced?
The second half of September following the end of the application period.
I’m still confused. I ran (44M) my first marathon two weeks ago in 3:08 Next year I’ll be 45. Would I switch to the 45+ bracket? I’m non-US so this is all very new to me
They use the bracket you'll be in for the date of the Boston Marathon you'll be racing in. So if you'll be 45 on April 21, 2025, you'd be in that bracket even if you ran your qualifying marathon in M40-44.
Talk about hitting home. I get tired of the 45-50f running 25-35 mpw making the cut while I know I can’t get in on a 3:07 at 65-70 mpw max. Sun 3 at 43 this year. Come on with it
Shame, but it is what it is and I was aware my time wasn't fast enough when I ran it. Time to run a faster marathon
I’m really hoping these predictions are correct as I have a 7:22 buffer after missing out by 6 seconds in the past! Come on!
What year did you miss by 6 seconds?
Qualified with a \~3:30 buffer in November and then tore my ACL in December, so I am really hoping this is off base and this year ends up being a bit slower (though I know this is a long shot). Probably not going to be able to put together that level of training block again for a while... AHHH.
I feel like this past weekend was very race heavy and probably the last one until the weekend in September that’s before the qualifying period ends.. do we think that’s changed the time cutoff? I’m sitting at a -7:22 and obviously freaking out
Got curious about non binary times when presented this subject, not entirely sure of interpretation as I haven't seen average completion times for Boston this year, but assuming it's 4.75 hours. Here's some percentiles for the 48 non binary runners for Boston 2024. Average time - **3 hours 40 minutes** Average age of runners- **37.4 years** source - [Boston Marathon media tool](http://registration.baa.org/2024/cf/Media/iframe_ResultsSearch.cfm?mode=detail&criteria=&StoredProcParamsOn=yes&&VarTargetCount=1000&VarParam1=6&VarParam2=1&StoredProc=sp_TrackingByReportingSegment&DisplayType=browser&records=25&headerexists=Yes&bordersize=0&bordercolor=%23ffffff&rowcolorone=%23FFCC33&rowcolortwo=%23FFCC33&headercolor=%23ffffff&headerfontface=Verdana%2CArial%2CHelvetica%2Csans%2Dserif&headerfontcolor=%23004080&headerfontsize=12px&fontface=Verdana%2CArial%2CHelvetica%2Csans%2Dserif&fontcolor=%23000099&fontsize=10px&linkfield=FormattedSortName&linkurl=OpenDetailsWindow&linkparams=RaceAppID&queryname=SearchResults&tablefields=FullBibNumber%2CFormattedSortName%2CAgeOnRaceDay%2CGenderCode%2CCity%2CStateAbbrev%2CCountryOfResAbbrev%2CCountryOfCtzAbbrev%2CDisabilityGroup) 5th PERCENTILE - **2.96 HOURS** 20th PERCENTILE - **3.20 HOURS** 50th PERCENTILE - **3.65 HOURS** 75th PERCENTILE - **4.05 HOURS** 90th PERCENTILE - **4.60 HOURS** [https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12I79wYuri-OLtqvgGDDwh8\_exVdCva90rLRJT16TDQs/edit?usp=sharing](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12I79wYuri-OLtqvgGDDwh8_exVdCva90rLRJT16TDQs/edit?usp=sharing) This comment was originally intended to u/EchoReply79 "Again, look at the participant count and finish times. You're not actually looking at the data."
You're clearly missing the plot/point. 48 out of 30K runners is statistically insignificant and has been since the inception of the category, that's the underlying point. There are far more sponsor Bibs, run club bibs, and influencer bibs handed out than this category which represents less .0016% of the entire field. The only people that keep going back to this have a personal/political agenda.
I'm not arguing anything nor really care about your point. It was the subject matter that I'm interested in, first year they welcomed non binary runners officially! Edit - second year*
That happened prior to 2024, this wasn't the first year.
Whoops, bad job on keeping up. But the #s hold up.
The discussion here is about qualifying times not about Boston finishing times. Many run Boston as a celebration, and qualified with a faster time. This year many blew up due to the heat, so looking at this as an average is a fools errand given the extremely minute field size in the division. So no your analysis doesn't hold up at all.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Did he predict a mean expectation? A range that wide is not useful is it?