Registration for the Boston Marathon opened this morning at 9:00 AM (EST). Last year it closed in record time, on November 13th. This year I figured it would close quicker, but I figured I'd be able to just do it when I got home from work. WRONG! Luckily someone let me know it was filling up and I was able to do it while I was at work. Registration closed at 5:03 PM, which means 19,000 people signed up in about 8 hours. That's ridiculous! I feel bad for the people that couldn't sign up because they don't have computer access at work or something! I was panicking for a minute there...Heck I almost didn't get registered myself! I was worried that my friend wouldn't be able to register and I didn't have her phone number or email so I was trying to find a way to contact her. My buddy at work reminded me I should probably sign up before it was too late, and I was like "oh yeah!" I finally did get a hold of my friend and she had found a way to register. Phew!
So what does this mean for the future of Boston? Well, I don't think we know yet... it could mean stricter qualifying times (for women and possibly also men)... it could mean fewer charity runner spots... it could mean changing the day/time that registration opens... I don't think they would increase the field size because I think only so many people can fit in Hopkinton... I vote for shaving 5 or 10 minutes of the female times. Maybe 5 off the male too if they want. That's from someone who made the current time by 3 seconds...
Officially registered for the 115th running of the Boston Marathon!!!
6 comments:
Are the women's Boston standards actually softer, that they should be dropped more than the men's? I hear it a lot, and there have been quite a few articles circling the internet lately, but it's almost always men who are saying it. Keep in mind that as times get faster, the gap between men and women gets smaller (this has more to do with hormones than women not taking it seriously), so you can't really do a straight comparison with the world record (plus Paula's time is a huge outlier).
My opinion is that either the times should be tougher across the board (base them on the previous year's times, such that they change depending on the strength of the field, a la the Trials), or have a different standards where faster people register early. Just my opinion though.
Based on the numbers I do have (wish I had more or different ones), which are the total finishers year by year...
- Female finishers have just about doubled since 2001, while male finishers has only gone up about 50%. Women have gained more by number as well (4659 to 4486).
- Women made up 36% of the finishers in 2001 and 42% in 2010.
Maybe they're trying to even it out?
Anyway, the numbers don't really tell the full story because how many of those people actually qualified versus running for charity? What were the age group splits? What about people that qualified but didn't run? Lots of variables.
One of the things that one of the Boston dudes mentioned is that the field for women has gotten so much more popular and competitive over the past, well, like 25 years. Their times are getting better and they're closing in on men I think in general.
Maybe we should focus on the older groups?
That all being said, I'd say knock them all down 5 minutes. Both women and men. I should be able to knock of 5 minutes and re-qualify right? :)
Maybe we should make it like Kona. The best so many marathoners qualify...haha.
There are a few ways to address the registration issue they had this year. Just have to decide I guess...
That was like an entry in itself!
Also - interesting FAQ on the Boston Marathon website:
Will the B.A.A. make any adjustments to the Boston Marathon qualifying procedure?
The B.A.A. annually addresses the qualifying procedure by which runners gain entry into the Boston Marathon. With such popularity for the event, qualifying standards for future Boston Marathons are under review.
We'll see...
You can definitely take 5 minutes off your time! I thought you're going for sub-3, anyway??
It won't change before 2012 because the qualification period has already begun. At least according to something I read somewhere...ooh, good source there. Probably LetsRun, hahaha.
Women's marathoning in general has gotten more popular. Sure Kathrine Switzer ran Boston back in 1967, but it wasn't even on the map for most people until Joanie won Olympic gold in 1984. On the other hand, men have been competing in the marathon since 1896, and the running boom of the 70s hit mainly men. Women's marathoning (and running in general) has been increasing in recent years, so it's only expected that proportionally, more women are effected by the latest "running boom" than men. Today, in your average big city half marathon, there are usually more female finishers than men. Obviously that was not the case a few years back. I don't do enough marathons to pay attention to the finisher ratio for that, but even if you account for jolly jogger men vs jolly jogger women, I still feel like women should be closing the participation gap.
As for the gender time gap closing...maybe, maybe not, but most signs point to not. Here's an interesting article: http://www.sportsci.org/news/news9705/gengap.html
Sometimes a standard being softer is obvious (i.e. women's B standard at 2:46, men's B standard used to be 2:22 and is gone now...for comparison, women's A is 2:39 and men's A is 2:19). That's most likely to promote women's sub-elite running, where there's more of a disparity than in the middle ranks. But I just don't think whether or not Boston's women's standard is softer is nearly that clear.
That article seems to focus more on elites (and maybe sub-elites). I think that more and more women are becoming relatively competitive or generally faster at the amateur/sub-sub-elite (?) level. I'd be curious to see all the trends by age and gender. Who knows. Maybe if I'm bored someday...haha. Me and my statistics...
And yes - 3:00 is the goal for next year if things go well :) Flat course should help too...
Post a Comment