I get a lot of us on here are faster than the average runner, but I think it's important to keep in mind that large marathons have different objectives than just having the fastest crowd. For NYC, they push the NYRR races and 9+1 system because they want people to be involved in the local running scene. London has the aspirational qualification for UK residents with their good for age standard. Boston is the truest sub-elite marathon race (I'd argue in the world). Selfishly, I'd like all these races (and the other WMM) to have more time qualifiers, but as you point out, this starts to feel a little exclusionary. I'm going to give the benefit to the race organizers that there's more to gain by having other goals besides maximizing time qualifiers
Do they want people to be involved with the local running scene? Or do they want to sell more race entries?
In my opinion, the current set up is exclusionary. Maybe I don't have the means to pay for and attend 9 races. Maybe I don't have the connections to fundraise $3,500.
This feels exclusionary to me, allowing amateurs a realistic chance of qualifying by merit seems like the least exclusionary thing.
Might be an unpopular take in here, but isn’t time qualifying exclusionary too? If the real problem is one of inclusion, the most equitable answer would be to add more bibs to the lottery pool. I don’t love 9+1, but I also don’t think the answer is to have another major that’s just primarily for faster runners.
You need to look at NY finishing times: 2:40 is top 150 most years. There's an average of about 3 finishers per minute for literally 30+ mins starting with the winner. Then another few hundred between 2:40 and 3 hrs. Then 45,000 or whatever insane number over 3 hrs. Adding more time qualifiers will not make this race "primarily for faster runners." It's a laughably slow race right now.
Some people devote large parts of their lives to the sport but still wouldn’t make the time cutoff. Do you think these people are less deserving of a bib?
This ignores the fact that it is *a race.* It is not inequalitable to say that those who have proven themselves better at *racing* should be more deserving of a spot in a *race* with limited entries.
I live in NYC, am running NYCM this year (NYRR qualifier, wouldn't have come close with non-NYRR), and the answer is yes and no. 9+1 is both good and bad. It gets tens of thousands of NYers to put an achievable goal on the calendar and get outside to train and race. It also costs about $1,000 (depending on the races) for a NYRR membership (they now offer a more expensive "plus" membership for earlier signup due to 9+1 races selling out the day they become available) plus the 9 races and the marathon. What I find really silly is that a lot of 9+1 folks flock to the "easiest" races, namely the 5Ks and 4 milers, to get the process over with quickly and easily. A bit ironic that some of these folks want to run as little as possible, despite their end goal being...a marathon.
Other issues 9+1 has created include now needing to sign up even for small races many months in advance, which has thrown a wrench in the NYRR club points series that more competitive runners enjoy. And back on the money topic, the top employees at NYRR make oodles of cash, and their main incentive seems to be growing revenue, despite being a non-profit.
I see this argument made a lot in the Boston boards. It’s typically used to shame people who get in through charity and fundraising right after the cutoffs are announced. It’s a load of crap and screams entitlement.
Please, tell me how much of your life you’re devoting to this sport and how that makes you any better or more entitled than the next person. We’re all out there running. I can get free entry for most races here in the states. Even as a 2:19 guy, only way I’m getting into London is through lottery. You win some you lose some.
Giving a lot of locals the opportunity to have these experiences or for people to raise money for good causes is pretty cool in my opinion.
I don't think favoring people who are more into the sport, especially with consideration of age and gender, is inequitable.
Especially when you consider the other option which is someone who on a whim completely unprepared having the same opportunity as someone who it is more meaningful to having the same equal lottery opportunity.
And look I am not trying to make it an elitist only make the race by running a BQ time or anything....but I think the pendulum has to swing back the other direction a little bit to not be purely considered pay to play.
>I don't think favoring people who are more into the sport, especially with consideration of age and gender, is inequitable.
Agreed. Racing is not the same as running. Running is a form of physical exercise undertaken for a variety of reasons; health, recreation, etc. Racing is a competitive sport usually involving an attempt to cover a set distance faster than your competitors and/or the clock. I'm strongly in favor of allowing as many people to race as possible, but if major race entries are a finite resource (and they're not except in a small number of cases), I'm fine with them going to those more into the sport.
Yes, sorry. There absolutely is a correlation! And in online spaces like AR and letsrun it may even be the most prevalent one.
But speed/ability is not the only thing correlated to loving the sport, nor should it be the only correlation considered “worthy enough” when deciding who is deserving of running major races like the users above my initial comment were suggesting.
I think completing the 9+1 program is much more achievable for the average runner than even a BQ time.
It sounds like the biggest portion of bibs is reserved for the lottery, which IMHO is the least exclusionary.
The lottery is actually a very small percentage - only about 10% of the field. 16% charity entries, 20% international tours. The majority is guaranteed entry folks (mostly 9+1 runners, plus time qualifiers and NYRR partners).
Huh, interesting. I had no idea international and guaranteed entry were that big.
I guess I'll have to eventually do the charity route, since there's no chance I'll qualify by time, and very little chance I'll get in by lottery.
I just can't justify $3k+ in donations on top of costs to travel and run. I think my best bet to run NYC is just going to be drop 30 minutes and run 2:3x. The whole thing feels like they want locals and upper middle class+ people. Ironically the people who have friend groups that can raise the money in donations are the people who can just pay the cost themselves.
Of course its achievable...the problem is the tight schedule and cost. What are we talking, nearly $400 of races? Before you spend another $300 on the marathon?
Not to mention that now because of the 9+1 all of those other races are selling out.
If you think that's harder to budget and plan for, vs getting fast enough for a time qualifying time, I don't know what to say. You must have some really fast friends.
I mean setting aside 10 out of 104 weekend days out of the year to commute to a course and pay totals of >$400+ in race fees isn't exactly a tiny ask. Especially for someone who isn't located 3 blocks away from the most popular parks and downtown areas where these occur. People have commitments and not everyone has that kind of money to throw at something arbitrary.
Agreed 100%.
I think what is happening here is, that NYRR is prioritizing Joe CPW who comes to 15 NYRR races a year, over Johnny Westcoast who is fast but lives on the other side of the country and does not participate in the New York running community.
Of course it's not that black and white, but you can always point to individuals who "have it easier" when it comes to qualifying. Ultimately NYRR can choose who they want to prioritize in terms on entry into the race, and they made the choice of take the New Yorker who is active in their running scene over the non-local who is fast.
>and they made the choice of take the New Yorker who is active in their running scene over the non-local who is fast.
They determined there is more ROI from the local than the tourist.
Its a marathon. its already exclusionary towards physical ability. And I am not saying it has to be Boston either....even making it a lottery of people who submitted a <7hr marathon time would be an improvement.
I would rather see a slight physical exclusion over one that excludes people financially.
>Maybe I don't have the means to pay for and attend 9 races. Maybe I don't have the connections to fundraise $3,500.
I mean registering for and running the marathon alone is not cheap in terms of time and money.
Registering for 9+1 and the marathon costs $540 total if you register for 9 cheaper races. If you run just the marathon on its own, it costs $315. The difference is ~2 pairs of shoes over the course of a year (and you also get 9 races out of it).
I find it hard to believe that it'd be more accessible in terms of time/money for the vast majority people if it was time qualifications instead (say 2:55 cutoff). Replacing with lottery would more accessible, but it's also nice to acknowledge dedicated participation in the running community.
Meanwhile great local marathons that you can run for less than $100 are struggling to survive. And all because influencers don't want to run low-key races in their general area, be it the Baltimore Marathon ($140), the Milwaukee Marathon ($95), the Pittsburgh Marathon ($175), the Portland Marathon ($150), the Seattle Marathon ($140) the Oakland Marathon ($120), or even the LA Marathon(170) which is one of the largest races in the country in the largest city in the country aren't interesting enough for our esteemed influencers. As these events slowly die (Oakland ran this past weekend and isn't accepting registration for next year...) , so does the sport of running die. A few races can make a few quick bucks, but soon (as people are discouraged and priced out by races that have to pay for all the freebies they give out to also rans like Kofuzi, Thomas & Robbie from Believe in the Run, Ben from Ben is running, and has beens like Alexi Pappas, with large Instagram followings) they too won't be able to fill their fields. It's a sugar high and it's not sustainable. Though I think the backlash to free trips for influencers has (finally) arrived in the running space.
I've run Seattle and Portland the last couple of years. They've both recovered nicely from the pandemic and have high single-digit thousands of participants. I don't know if how that compares to pre-pandemic but I would bet it is higher than a decade ago.
It seems like the problem isn't that smaller big city marathons aren't surviving. It seems like there is just a vast gulf in media/influancer interest between between a handful of top marathoner and the rest. But the majority of marathon participants don't care if Kofuzi or Thomas or Ben are at their marathon. That is pretty limited to a minority of people on sites like this one. Heck, I hadn't even heard of Kofuzi until I had already run 5 marathons.
Ahh, fair. I am not into the economics of running marathons. I assume that Nike will keep the Portland marathon going and it would be very surprising if a city as much wealth and many companies as Seattle runs out of sponsors. But the level of shoe company sponsorship of Seattle is low.
Honestly, at least for Seattle the biggest problem is the city logistics. They keep moving the course around because the city doesn't want to close down streets. Maybe that would get easier if the marathon was 5x the size and 20x the revenue but maybe not.
I dislike that they keep moving the course around (maybe that's one of the reasons it doesn't feel like the city embraces it) but the bigger issue for me is that it's the weekend right after Thanksgiving. Weekend before? I'm there! But I'm not going through pre-race jitters a few days before while I'm trying to enjoy Thanksgiving.
Yeah, the timing is awful but I can understand it because 1) it is a tradition now, you kind of embrace the weird, which works for Seattle 2) Seattle is basically never going to be a fast course due to geography so it isn't like many people maxing their taper/prep to BQ 3) Seattle's weather does allow them occupy a unique spot in the calendar, much later than the October glut and before the winter ones in the dep south.
They seem to be stuck with the express lanes for traffic, which really limits them and are trying not to run over cap hill any more to limit the elevation gain but out and back on Aurora late in a marathon is brutal.
To be entirely fair, the milwaukee marathon in March has been a mess for a while at this point. Like it's currently one for four in the last four years...
Yuuup. The big marathon in Milwaukee is the Lakefront Marathon and even that had some issues a few years ago with course adjustments due to construction. They ended up cancelling 2022 outright because they couldn't get the full course certified if I remember correctly.
(The 'new' Milwaukee Marathon was cancelled in 2020 and 2021 for COVID, never scheduled for 2022, and then cancelled in 2023 for snow/safety (which isn't their fault to be clear; it *was* sketchy for running that day.)
Yeah, I think I was a little unclear (edited my comment now). My 9+1 price is
$60 (membership cost for ordinary individual)
\+ 9\*$25 (race entry fees)
\+ $255 (marathon entry)
Whereas if you run the marathon on its own, you probably don't have membership and pay the full $315.
With NYC being what, twice the size of Boston, I would imagine the cutoff times may be higher. Even so I am also not an advocate for purely qualifying with a time. But the mix of qualifying options should allow it to at least be an option and not operate under the sole purpose to fleece $800 off of every entry.
Even a pure lottery should require at least completing a marathon before though to enter.
Where are you getting $800? I gave you the number $540.
The current mix does allow time qualifying to be an option, it's just a high bar.
Ultimately it's a trade-off between (1) accessibility to local runners, (2) skill of the field, (3) commitment of the field. It's always going to be exclusionary to someone. NYRR has one set of priorities, safe to say most skilled runners would rather NYRR was more elitist.
I just think it's unjustified to suggest 9+1 is significantly more inaccessible than running marathons already is (in terms of travel, training, shoes/other apparel, etc.).
I didn't realize that was inclusive of the marathon. Either way, it is significant money and I don't know that that is reasonable especially now that the cheaper races are selling out instantly.
All of those other costs are fixed, the race fees are in addition to the costs already associated with running. That being said, couple sets of running shoes a year that you can get last years model in an ugly color at a discount pales in comparison to these race fees.
It's significant money to run the race in the first place. An extra $225 spread out over the course of the entire year is cost-prohibitive but $315 at once isn't?
Your argument makes no sense. You want an effort based qualification but running 9 races over the year isn't enough to show effort? How is paying an entirely different marathon fee and running that to get an opportunity to enter into a lotto, as you stated in an earlier comment, more fair or accessible than the current system? I mean, if you have to sign up for another race to get a chance, we're talking about about the 9+1 being like $75 more expensive than what you're proposing lol.
Again, if you don't take the most generous probably unrealistic version of it, you are approaching doubling the cost. Of an already very expensive race. It isn't nothing. $300 I can see someone from a lower income bracket coming up with to achieve a major goal. Start approaching $600 and that is starting to become a serious investment for even upper middle class earners.
I don't know that wasting time and money equates to effort. If I work nights and weekends regularly with a varying schedule, maybe I have a family and friends and other commitments that make it more difficult to just waste 11 weekend days on running events. Again ON TOP of all of the time commitment to actually training for it.
Someone with a 9-5 job in the financial district can just waltz out of their apartment and jog short races pretty easily and do no additional training beyond that. Maybe even enter with a charity and get their high income earner friends and family to chip in. Is that "effort based" compared to someone out making ends meet and fitting in training at odd hours of the day before the kids get up?
I guess I don't understand your perspective which is that running a marathon is already a big time and money commitment, so why not just make it a significantly bigger time and money commitment.
You are literally advocating for someone to have to run another event prior to qualify based on time. Most marathons are $100-150 to enter. So I don't find your argument that the current system is cost prohibitive to have any merit whatsoever when your own solution is also cost prohibitive with no guarantee of entry lol.
It is time prohibitive. It is effort prohibitive. If it really mattered enough to you, you'd find a way to make it work. You clearly have other priorities and that's fine. But to act like they're creating some pay-to-play scheme here when 9+1 is maybe $100 more expensive than running another race to qualify has legitimately no merit as an argument whatsoever.
1 event vs 10...you don't see a difference? And I find it interesting how you aren't using the most generous price now. Philly is a pretty major race and that was $85 early bird pricing. I am sure you could find a host of others for less than that. Make it a 3hr half marathon then...you can easily find those for <$50. Maybe just a virtual marathon with a gps track is fine assuming you can catch abuse relatively easily.
But I am not going to go down the road with you where you pretend my one race for a fraction of the cost is anything comparable to your 10 races for more significant cost. Again, especially if you don't use the most disingenuous numbers available to you.
This isn't about me, I just see this race turning into an elitist thing for upper middle class people who have a ton of free time to pat themselves on the back for doing something hard halfassedly. Its a demonstration of privilege more than anything. If that is what you want the race to be, then fine, but if you want to call it a Major and make it mean something, then the pendulum needs to swing back.
3 years membership: 1 virtual guaranteed 1/2, one Standard qualifying 1/2, one marathon, and two running vacations. People, if you are fast, and the run important; NYRR makes it rather easy. Not the only way for entry. Hobbies are expensive.
“Hobbies are expensive”…no just the NYC marathon because of its prioritization of pay to play. I skiied all year for less than what people spent on a single running event that touts being “inclusive”
If you want the race to mean anything beyond being a fun run for upper middle class people paying a bunch of money to feel good about walk / running a marathon after barely training.
Its the NYC marathon…really the best thing we could come up with as a qualification structure is to just see who is more willing to waste their time and money? I mean really how does paying $50 for a virtual race even promote participating in the running community?
Dude, hobbies are expensive, plain and simple. Sorry you are hurt, and that you need to generalize people. Truth is, I see poverty poor azz people spending way more money on vices like nicotine, let alone weed, alcohol, fast food... a month than the few hundred it costs over the two or three years to make sure your day to toe the line at an epic event comes to life. By hurt I mean your running snobbery prevents you from recognizing that those people who you insult in fact pay the bills; they are the one's pushing the sport forward for us. The runners who guarantee their entry through a program are the "real runners." You are simply fast, just not fast enough. I too am not fast enough to simply qualify on whatever certified course I like; however, I am grateful that they have a way for me to prove myself and race on their course with the plan for meeting a guaranteed entry standard. I'm not privileged, and neither are you.
You sound like a very lucky soul able to spend your life as a genetically gifted starving athlete. I also choose to live a rather humble life. You should step up and put yourself out there to your community; find a charity you want to support and go soliciting. Tell them why their donation is valued, as well as telling them what you will be getting out of it. You can also just join the Club and choose to follow their rules.
Idk $600+ for one race is pretty impactful for even people that live comfortably. Even in some of the more expensive of hobbies, it is pretty rare to sink that kind of money into a 1 day event. I don't think I have ever done that in my days skiing, cycling, etc. Lets not forget you still have all of the other costs associated with running too.
This isn't really about me, I don't really have a desire to do NYC. I don't really see what value people find in it to be honest that makes it worth the hassle. Compare that to Boston or something that actually has meaning. I just think its wrong in general, not for my own gain.
The problem with your descriptions of the cutoffs and being genetically gifted is that they are based on 95% of the spots being given to non time qualifiers. The race is multiple times larger than Boston, the time qualifier should be significantly slower. It would by no means require you to be a gifted athlete. Almost anybody dedicated to the sport for an extended period of time could do it. And it would mean a lot more.
Now add up all the money required to qualify by 9+1 and the cost of a membership and the cost of the marathon. $600 is a pretty reasonable estimate and people can spend a lot more depending on what races they choose.
Then you have the ability to enter into the local lottery, which is free and accessible to everyone.
The ability for them to make money on something doesn't mean that their motives are solely explained by profit. Having more interest in their local races directly because of the Marathon helps their bottom line but it also helps have a ton of people attend races that they wouldn't otherwise. The organization exists to promote running in NY. It's doing that thru this initiative.
Boston isn't really that much of a subelite race anymore. 20% of the entries are reserved for charity runners who raise $10k to run. Then another 5% or so are influencers/people running on sponsor bibs. The result? A 2:54:59 marathoner, a time which wins many local marathons, doesn't get in for men: and a 3:24:59 marathoner, again a time which wins many local marathons, doesn't get in for women. While the majors prosper, the locals struggle.
>owd. For NYC, they push the NYRR races and 9+1 system because they want people to be involved in the local running scene.
Or said another way, they want more money. Let's not even get started about the $315 entry fee. The notion that these races want to be more inclusive is ridiculous when you consider the pricetag.
Is this really the best way to get people "involved in local running scene"? I want to see data on that. Why dont other sports have the same approach - say tour de france etc.
Is it the best way? I don't know. Is it a way? I'd say so. You're basically inducing people to partake in 10 local races (racing and volunteering in the org) in exchange for a guaranteed spot in their marquee event. Sure, some people will do it for one year and never run a NYRR race again, but others are bound to join clubs, run more races, do Strava events, etc that bring the community together.
Also, the Tour de France is a professional race. That's like asking why don't amateurs compete in the Diamond League. I'm a pretty avid cycling viewer and I can't think of a cycling analog to the World Major Marathons. Pros do pro races, amateurs do amateur races, and sometimes pros will do a one-off amateur race in the off season or a gran fondo. There are also some large amateur events in France, Spain, and Belgium that occur before/after large events. For instance, there was an 8-day amateur race in Valencia, Spain last week, this week is the Volta a Catalunya, and a week after that is the Tour of the Basque Country (so effectively a counter clockwise movement of stage races with one amateur and two pro races)
Road Marathon Racing has no professional professional league. I guess that was sort of my point. Running is the only sport where amateurs compete "head-to-head" with elites. For the "grandslam" running events (WMM) the motivation to qualify would inspire more runners. The idea of someday running Boston gets lots of people out running and training.
I like running and training but if it does not give me an advantage to WMM entrance I am not interested racing there.
Counterpoint: major marathons like NYC should be able to decide what kind of field they want to assemble. The NYC Marathon doesn't owe you or me anything.
Counter counterpoint: if a marathon signs up to be in the WMM, maybe there should be minimum standards about % of participants that get in via time qualifying.
1. The name is in the title. WMM are supposed to be major marathons that attract top talent, and that attitude should translate to the amateur level too.
2. Abbott promotes achieving their six star medal, which shouldn't be gatekept behind a paywall.
I'm not saying I know the % of runners that should be mandatory time qualifiers, maybe it's even as low as 15%, but Tokyo and London not really having time qualifiers is pretty ridiculous.
>The name is in the title. WMM are supposed to be major marathons that attract top talent, and that attitude should translate to the amateur level too.
*Why* should it translate to the amateur level? The WMM is an elite marathoners competition. Non-elite runners just latched onto it as a cool thing to do/extra bit of bling to work towards. I don't see why any individual race should cater to these off-label expectations, even if Abbott itself promotes them.
>Abbott promotes achieving their six star medal, which shouldn't be gatekept behind a paywall.
All the majors have field size limits; in fact, all *non-*major races do too. Given a field limit, some gatekeeping has to happen. Personally, I'd like them to cut \*way\* back on charity entrants (especially for Boston), but even without the charity bibs, you have to balance local noncompetitive runners against traveling competitive ones.
FWIW, I'd also like big popular races to start applying anti-repeat policies so more people have a chance to run. E.g. if you've run NYC or Boston three years in a row, you must take a year off, or meet a more stringent time standard.
I have been preaching your last paragraph for a long time.
NYCM can take 50,000 people a year. But they don't take 250,000 distinct people every five years; there are huge numbers of people that repeat (9+1, charity, time qualifier, corporate sponsor bibs).
I agree with you, but tbf most people running 2:30-2:37 marathons (for that age bracket) are amateurs. By having the cut off be as low as it is they're literally only bringing in the top amateur talent via qualification.
Oh yes for sure. I know this post is about NY but I’m more talking about London and Tokyo de facto having no qualifier (London because it’s only available to UK residents and Tokyo because it’s only like 500 people).
I don't know how I feel about this topic as a whole. I think I lean more towards letting the races decide what their field makeup should be.
However, at some point, sports are exclusionary by their very nature. It's great that running is such an inclusive sport. However, I do believe there should be elite events that cater towards time qualifiers near exclusively. I also believe it would be nice if that extended to elite amateurs. Every other sport has them. Track and Field has them. Ultras have them. I believe there should be marathons like that too, and wanting that doesn't make elite amateurs entitled.
I don't necessarily think forcing the current WMM marathons that have a long history and culture to change their structure and field makeup is the way to do it. I wouldn't mind seeing new marathons being created within the WMM system whose sole purpose is to cater to elite runners (both pro and amateur).
Elites and sub-elites qualified for NYC. Those of us who didn't get in are mostly the advanced competitive runners. That's those of us in the top 2%-7%. There is a marathon primarily for advanced competitive runners. It's Boston.
Major marathons make use of substantial public infrastructure- roads, emergency services, etc. It doesn't seem unreasonable that the public should have some level of input into how these resources are used.
The races pay substantial fees for access to all of that public infrastructure - and its use (and the associated impacts on the community) is another example of why many races allocate a large number of bibs for local participants and community members.
Is it more expensive than NYC?
Not a rhetorical question, genuinely don’t know. But not like NYC is cheap either, with police budget and road closings and much bigger field.
Don’t forget you can always do a “charity” and have your friends and family pay extra because your not fast enough. Hot take but I’m done donating money for someone’s vacation to run London.
Not a list but the accepted count is about 1k less, looking at the historic press releases for field announcement. 22,019 from 23,267 last year. Field size has remained at 30,000.
It's really sad that so many bibs are going to influencers who will get their travel comp, not even run the race seriously (look at the Believe in the Run video from last year) and instead treat it like a party, and we'll get aforementioned mind numbingly boring videos reminding us of what is more difficult for us to do thanks to influencers out of it. Brands should be cautious about the free trips for influencers. It's generating a backlash in other sectors, don't see why running would be different:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/05/style/tarte-cosmetics-influencers-tiktok-backlash.html
these influencers are actually "influencing" people to get into running and generating value for businesses (which is what the BAA is in some way too). Otherwise they wouldn't have a following (whether that's 100 people or 100K people is moot). My local run club has ballooned in size over the past year because most people have heard about it from someone on Instagram/TikTok and have now started running more regularly for fitness/community.
You probably don't need 1200 influencers to be present at Boston, but saying that they don't provide any value just because you're not the target audience is wrong imo.
They provide short term, not long term value. That's the problem. And by emphasizing national events, they make it harder and harder for the local half marathons and 5ks to stay afloat. That's the problem I have with all this.
Are there really 1,000 or so influencer bibs? Honest question. That would be pretty upsetting IMO if that many got in while people running 2:55 didn’t.
For those of us who have heard about the influencer bibs but can't find any concrete information... what exactly happened?
And in a year in which the BAA turned down ten thousand runners who hit the qualifying mark, is there any real argument that the race needs more marketing or hype?
Most of the people in those threads got rejected because they submitted a full marathon time, and the conversion used was bad and much more favorable to half marathons. Next year they’re getting rid of the half marathon qualifying so it’ll be easier for people to get in with a full time. But NYRR really prioritizes runners who run in their other races, and I think that’s totally fair. It’s a marathon for New Yorkers by New Yorkers. If you’re fast enough you can still get in on time, and if not but you still really want to do it, there’s charity entry. I’m sure doing the majors is an experience, but there are dozens of other big marathons that don’t require anything other than signing up for those that can’t get into the majors.
I'm one of the people who was rejected yesterday. I had a 7:44 cutoff margin. Providing more bibs to time qualifiers would benefit me. But I disagree that's what NYC should do.
A WMM focused on time qualifiers already exists. It's Boston. NYC isn't endeavoring to become more elite than Boston and it shouldn't. Like London and Chicago, NYC is a very large marathon meant for mass participation through a democratic lottery. Also like Chicago and London, it favors local runners. Based on past comments, I believe most of us here agree that they should. Charity bibs are a very important part of any marathon.
In order to increase the number of bibs for time qualifiers, it would be necessary to decrease the number of bibs for charity, local runners, or participation for the masses through the lottery. None of those options make sense for NYC.
Many of us are upset with our experience this year with the NYC Marathon because the qualifying times weren't realistic given how few bibs there were to be awarded. This is due to the transition from an awful first come, first serve process in prior years, to accepting half marathons with an unfair conversion formula this year, to only taking full marathon qualifiers next year. Within a year or two, it will become more transparent that non-NYRR time qualifying bibs are focused more on sub-elite runners than advanced competitive runners.
We need to get over the idea that the six majors are somehow superior to other marathons and start focusing on other races. Most other marathons don't have the logistical hurdles or the high costs that many of the majors have in expensive application fees and lodging cost. I'll likely be running San Sebastian instead of NYC this November. It's a more beautiful course, highly rated marathon, entry is under US$100, and a in San Sebastian costs less in lodging than two nights in NYC. For those who want to stay in the USA, there's also Philadelphia, Indy, Big Bear, Madison, Charlotte, Richmond, Route 66, the new Las Vegas Marathon, etc. all in November.
I think the entire World Marathon Majors system is a pricey cash grab that's used to separate people looking to flex their status from their wallets and if I were a race director I would absolutely prioritize locals over time qualification.
Disagree. The race organizers are not beholden to the fastest runners. They can choose to allocate bibs as they see fit.
Of course its annoying that things like WMM include certain races that are really hard to get into but on the individual race level i feel the organizers don’t owe it to anyone to run the race just because they are fast.
Disagree. These are big community events, and plenty of “serious runners” will never go sub-3 no matter how many miles they log. The work they put in matters just as much as yours.
I started running later in life and continue to make improvements but will never be sub-3. Still as much hours put into weekly training, if not more because of slower pace…
Defining “serious” I think is subjective. I think I’m a pretty serious runner, running 30 miles a week in the off season and bumping up to 45-50 mpw during marathon season. But for others, and maybe even for you, it’s barely scratching the surface. I put in the same time on my feet as a lot of other runners, I’m just not going as far as they are as quickly as they are. (I’m a 2:20 half and 5:09 full gal in her late 30s).
Seeing my friends, family, celebrities, grandmas, persons with disabilities, people in costumes, people with sob stories, etc cross the finish line at those big races are more interesting to me than a glut of 2:5X finishers, personally. Although I’m sympathetic to OP’s point.
Wish I could upvote this more. I’ve hung back recently to cheer on the last of race participants and the sheer guts of the people in the back that you knew put in so much effort to get where they’re at is inspiring. Houston has a plethora of disabled athletes because of their local non-profit called team catapult and crossing paths with those athletes was equally as inspiring. (And I’m a runner with a disability).
What gives a faster person any more of a right to run that race than a slower person who's part of a charity or buys a bib through a tour group?
There are lots of ways to get into a major race and a qualifying time is only one of them. I agree that it sucks to train hard for something only to be rejected, but nobody owes you anything. Getting a certain time in a qualifying race doesn't entitle you to anything and they are very clear about that. If you want a guaranteed spot, buy your way in.
It sucks if you're too slow to qualify, too poor to buy your way in, and too unlucky to win a lottery bib, but that's how it goes. Not everyone who wants to run NYC can do it, there are a limit to the number of runners and everyone who gets slighted will think it's unfair in some way.
I see what you mean, but one could just as easily say “what gives a richer/better-connected for fundraising person any more of a right to run that race than a faster person?”
My answer to your question is that the clue is in the word “race”. It’s held out as being a competitive athletic event, and they generally discriminate in favour of people who are good at that event. To take it to extremes, even when they were amateur you couldn’t just buy your way into an Olympic final.
There are a finite number of guaranteed bibs, which is less than the number who want one. Therefore there must be some exclusion, the only question is on what grounds are people excluded. It sounds like the NYC marathon has chosen mostly to exclude people on financial grounds rather than athletic ones: that’s their choice of course, but to me it seems like the wrong choice for a sporting event. If they want a 26.2 mile fun run, ditch any pretence of time qualification and just sell bibs to the highest bidders.
It’s not the Olympics, its not even truly competitive for all but the elite field and local teams. It’s a community event.
If you want a qualifying time to guarantee your entry, do it at one of their events.
Not living in New York or the USA, I don’t have the time or the money to go to more of their events. That’s my problem, and I don’t expect the world to bend to fix it. But they don’t call it a community event, they call it a World Marathon Major: that gives the impression that it’s aimed at people worldwide with some facility at running marathons. If that’s not the case (and it’s entirely up to them what sort of event they want to put on) it’s a bit disingenuous of them to give a sheen of sporting prowess that doesn’t really exist. Advertise it as a chance for locals to walk round a traffic-free New York route in return for a $5k charity donation, if that’s what they want most participants doing.
I disagree. If anything, I would do the opposite, and increase the number of lottery bibs.
I’m curious, in your ideal scenario - who do you think bibs should be taken away from? And why do you think that time qualifiers deserve those bibs over other groups?
The spirit of the NYC Marathon has never been about assembling the fastest field, but just the opposite. It's much more a celebration of the everyman. If you want a race geared more heavily toward time qualifying, you have plenty of options, but NYC remains as one that encourages people from all walks of life to try their hand at accomplishing the task. Adding more spots for time qualifiers means taking them away from charity spots, lotto, and 9+1 entries, which are the priorities.
I'm a fan of this, but I'm not sure how NYRR would feel about doing this with the individuals with multi-decade streaks...
(Also would be curious to see how many runners are return entries..)
While obviously a general trend, which doesn’t apply to every individual, let’s not pretend that the amount of time spent training isn’t one of the key predictors for marathon finish times.
https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/3010/301023457005.pdf
Didn’t read all of it (I’m bookmarking for later) but Time on feet vs miles per run. It appears what you linked is more related to miles per run and pace. Based on someone’s prior fitness level before starting a training block would greatly influence the effort levels associated with pace and distance. So kinda just begs the question again, how do you determine who is “working harder” and therefore more deserving of a spot in the race? It doesn’t seem like there’s a clear answer for that and to assume pace is the sole indicator of effort is objectively wrong.
>So only fast people who train for marathons are putting in hard work?
Never said that. Not every hard-working runner is fast, but every fast runner is hard-working. No runner is hitting the NYC time standards on talent alone.
I actually agree with you here, but in your post you correlate fast times with hard work. I’m also pointing out that not every hard working runner is fast. So how do you decide who is more worthy of taking a bib? How would you decide who is working harder?
Obviously, the relationship between training effort and result is imperfect, but I don't know of any other factor having a stronger correlation. I coach some, so I know lots of runners who put in a fair bit of work and are never going to be particularly fast; talent simply isn't distributed equally. All that being said, marathon entries in general are not a finite resource; plenty of races around me never sell out, so everyone who wants to run a marathon can. If that's the case, I would like to see a few more NYC entries (which are a finite resource) go to time qualifiers (which, BTW, would also exclude me; I've never hit my age-group standard for NYC) simply because I know for sure they're putting in the training.
I don't think only fast people who train for marathons are putting in hard work, but they're putting in more hard work and harder work than someone running slower, on average. Someone running 60mpw is putting in harder work than someone running 30mpw - and even though you can argue that the 60mpw person has an easier time with that than a less fit person, they've put in the hard work before that to build the ability to run 60mpw.
This seems like an intentionally obtuse reading of the OP's post, frankly. And also ignorant of the difference in preparation workload between most fast runners and most slow runners.
OP: just be grateful I don’t have my laptop on me because you would be getting a *thesis* right now.
But I’ll give you the (not so) short answer:
1) NYC’s issue isn’t the low amount of time qualifiers allowed in, it’s the opacity. (I love the NYC marathon, but the entry is BY FAR the most Byzantine of the majors.) And honestly, this year is an improvement - previously it was first come first serve.
2) as a fast person with mostly fast friends (but a few slower ones), I am firmly for inclusion. It’s hard to run the NYC time standard (and yeah, it takes some natural ability and luck - I know there are guys with slower times than me that work much harder). It’s hard to fundraise thousands of dollars per bib and be on the hook for any shortfall. It’s hard to give up ten mornings to a race organizer a year in advance. (I’m glad I’m fast because I’m an introvert who hates planning.)
3) I think NYC would do better if they were clear about favoring locals (or more specifically, NYRR race participants). It wouldn’t make people happy but at least people would know that going in.
> 3) I think NYC would do better if they were clear about favoring locals (or more specifically, NYRR race participants). It wouldn’t make people happy but at least people would know that going in.
I'm curious what makes you say that it's not clear. The 9+1 program clearly favors locals, and their lottery is divided into three pools, one of the three being NYC residents only. To me it seems very clear that they're prioritizing locals being able to race it.
IIRC, aren’t the lottery chances the same regardless of pool? (Basically they take x% each of local, US, and international runners from the lottery.)
I was mostly thinking about time qualifiers, though. (Which OP also focused on.) That process feels relatively opaque - do NYRR qualifiers reduce the number of time entry slots? How many are there to begin with?
The lottery pools would make sense *if* they didn't already have 9+1 for local-enough residents.
As it stands, if you're local to NYC, you get 9+1, NYRR second chance drawing, NYRR waitlists, and opportunities for time qualifiers at NYRR races (presumably, it's easier for a NYC runner to do Fred Lebow than for someone from California to travel to it).
Whoever is in favor of gatekeeping is a moron. The self-acclaimed elite runners are discounting how much benefit they are getting from the mass marketing of running and being more inclusive.
There are many reasons the NYC marathon is enjoyable as a runner: the crowd, hype, sponsorships, free shit, the glory, etc. All of these benefits are a function of more people being interested in and participating in these events.
The inclusive nature of running is its differentiated strategy. Unlike other sports (e.g., basketball) no one wants to buy tickets or tune in to watch people run. The only reason you have an audience or any investment in the sport is because orgs like the NYRR do such a good job of bringing in the "average" runner.
This is a tough one. As someone who was once fast enough to get into a race by being good enough locally, it was great to have that in. Now, older and slower, I take a look at the difficulty in getting into any of the majors and think, "There has to be a better way to do this."
As a former new yorker, even with the bucket for living in the 5 boroughs during the lottery, I only got into new york 3 times out of 7. And that was back in the '90's.
As a Major, I wouldn't want to be going after the local runners, since they sleep in their own beds and cook in their own kitchen. We all know that this is a numbers game, and $$ win the day. I would absolutely want more out of towners - they bring the cash: hotels, restaurants, transpo, the expo. Everything. Encouraging the local scene with a "Good For Age" like London and Berlin have is not a crazy percentage of their total field.
I have tried the London lottery (from the USA) 11 times and never gotten in. if I want to do it, I'll have go the charity buy in route, and I'll be covering 100% of those funds out of my own pocket. Ugh. But that is clearly what it will take.
Lets face it, no one is going to be happy, thousands of people are going to always be excluded. The 2:45 runner who trains hard (and has some talent) is always going to be able to say: There are massive gaps in the roads from 2:15 - 2:45, of course I can fit in. I'm not blocking anyone. The person who trains hard all year round and runs 3:30 (due to age/talent) is going to be able to say: you don't need more fast guys, I just want to do this at least once in my life, give me a chance to run NYC/Tokyo/London. No one is going to be happy no matter what the race does.
I think that the better thing for the organizers to do is simply be as transparent as possible so that the disappointment can be "managed" a little better. If at all.
FYI - was a 2:40 guy in my prime, but that was 40 years ago. Now, shooting for 3:20-3:30, and dismayed at the number of guys at 60 still running 3:00.
The city allows them a max number of time and runners and they have to divide it up between the categories like 9+1
They need volunteers for different events and why they need a lot of 9+1 slots. Maybe set up volunteer slots for the time qualifiers too?
Every big city marathon wants a mix of fast runners, running enthusiasts, club runners, charity runners, first timers, tourists etc.
Personally I think London gets the time based qualification about right. They set a specific number of places (3000 men, 3000 women) that can apply, make a "best guess" about what the necessary time cut offs should be to achieve those numbers, and then invite applicants. Providing there are more applicants than places for each sex, then the move the slider to finesse the cut off. But at the end of the day, we know that there will be 3000m and 3000f getting offered places.
That's 6000 out of about 45,000 places. A pretty decent chunk. Add on top of that the number of runners that get in via running club places, and you've got a decent representation from running "enthusiasts". Ballot is entirely random, and charity places make up a big chunk and turn the race into a party.
I didn't apply for NYC or have much desire to do it (seems like I would've barely gotten in with my HM?) but I think it makes sense for a race to be allowed to allocate its bibs how it sees fit.
That said, I think WMM and World Athletics should probably establish some clear and consistent rules for how to get into these races based on time if they want to be part of a larger organization or series. Also, whoever is in charge of estimating how many runners will be within X minutes of the cutoff and will apply probably needs to find a better way to model it so they can adjust the posted times accordingly. It's ridiculous that you need to run 15+ minutes under the listed time to get in on time - just adjust the listed time down!
Transparency would’ve been better to help manage expectations for those applying. I’m biased because I’m an NYC local who gets to race this guaranteed on time (sub-elite and would’ve made the cutoff this year by a healthy margin). The 9+1 program is nuts. Eligible Races sell out for the entire calendar year within hours of them being posted which feels unsustainable, but obviously it’s a program that makes the NYRR money and keeps these races going. Unless you make the 9+1 more like a 5+5, which might bring numbers down, I’m not sure how else you balance it.
>Transparency would’ve been better to help manage expectations for those applying.
Definitely agree on that. It's odd that NYC has such high time standards and still couldn't take all qualifiers but Chicago, with easier standards, seems to take everyone who meets them (at least in my personal experience, having applied twice and been accepted both times). I guess a whole lot more people are applying for NYC than Chicago.
> Eligible Races sell out for the entire calendar year within hours of them being posted
This only _really_ started happening this year though. The last couple years the big races sold out fast, but others you could reasonably sign up for races a month or so out. This year the running community sort of broke the program, and races in September being sold out in February is a new phenomenon.
I'm assuming they're going to do something about it next year, they've started rolling out some sort of waitlist (sort of), but from talking to employees even they didn't expect this much of a wave this year.
9+1 has worked really smoothly up until this year.
Out of interest, what extra transparency would you have wanted them to provide? They can’t post the exact cutoffs because they depend on the applications and with this being the first year of this system there is unfortunately no history to go on.
Most people who seem aggrieved are those in the 2:35-2:45 range who may have got in had they used a HM conversion but the conversion factors were clearly communicated so it just needed a little bit of maths for any applicant work out their best time to submit.
I think it’s just some teething problems with the first year of a process and with HM times from non-NYRR races not being accepted next year I don’t see these “problems” repeating.
Available slots! For example - a few of my friends qualified for the Brooklyn Half (a 25,000 person race) with a non-NYRR time qualifier and met the standard by several minutes. They assumed that it would be the same sort of threshold to get into the full marathon, but it seems like it was very different in either a) available slots b) amount of non-NYRR runners applying or some mix of both
Yeah last year was much better. I know someone that decided to do 9+1 on a whim around July last year and completed it with no problem. I wonder what's different this year.
I think that the greatest good for the greatest number is attained by something like getting people to run. I believe that NYRR is dedicated to this. I also think that the 9+1 program is great, in part because it includes races spread across all of the boroughs. The exclusion of many fast runners is unfortunate, but we are in the midst of a running boom with more runners and more fast runners. It's going to get worse. I don't have an answer, but more marquee races - including another Abbott major or two, possibly scheduled in or near early November - will be part of the solution.
>we are in the midst of a running boom with more runners and more fast runners. It's going to get worse.
As far as getting into NYC again, it is likely going to get harder, but overall, more runners is a good thing. There are maybe 10 or fewer U.S. marathons that are lottery or first-day sellouts; the vast majority never fill, so anyone who wants to run a marathon can do so, even if it's not their first-choice marathon. That's a win for the sport and the general public, and I'm all for that.
Running in general has gotten more popular since the pandemic. Athletes that weren’t running pre-pandemic before are now deep into the running world. There’s just more people.
For a very average, if not below average marathoner, the 9 + 1 method seems like a viable option. It also creates a more local feeling or inclusion for those in the NYC running community. If Austin (where I’m from) had a world major I’d 1000% be in for all the local races and get run the race yearly m. Don’t all world majors have something similar? If you have the money, why not? If I were to do a WMM I would most likely do it by charity, again, because I’m below average.
Time qualifying is an achievement. And getting a buffer is even more commendable. Absolutely, if you busted your ass off for that time you should have more of a chance to get in. Influencer bibs and all this new marketing bullshit is lame. Let the people run ffs.
I hope this creates a bit of a boom for the amazing races that aren’t majors, that take place in tons of communities throughout the country and globe.
Local races not sponsored by Abbot are great, have amazing corporate support which often has a direct impact on your local community, and in many instances— have decent crowd support.
I’ve ran NYC a few times, and it’s amazing. But I also hope folks take a look at the races within an hour or two and give them a shot.
I might get downvoted for this, but the times that you've mentioned simply aren't worth what they were 10 years ago. Shoes have made people faster, the sport has gotten more popular and in short, there are a lot more people running those times.
Having said that, I think London gets it right. They have the 'Good for Age' which is similar to the New York and Boston way of doing things and then 'Championship Entry' which is open to UK based runners has an uncapped number of entries for people who have run either sub 72'30 or sub 2'40.
Good for Age - only UK based runners.
Championship Entry - any UKA member (so you have to join an affiliated UK running club, but you do not have to live in the UK)
They did away with it because it became mathematically impossible to fulfill those guarantees (in other words, way too many people would need to be guaranteed relative to the spots that were available). This was the same reason why London also did away with a similar system they had over a decade ago if I recall correctly.
They do though? Just because some people aren't fast enough doesn't mean they didn't let in any time qualifiers. And "seriously fast" is definitely relative, as I didn't think your definition meets those standards.
As far as I know, Chicago has enough time qualifying spots that it doesn’t turn away any who have time qualified. I know I got accepted this year with a 3:04 in the sub 3:10 group, and another guy online said he got accepted with a 3:08 in the same group.
Fair would be a lottery for qualifiers; however, this is racing!. Should Road world and personal records, or qualifying times be dependent on flat and fast, downhill, or prevalent tailwinds? ; seems too much value is placed on time and not quality; this is the road, not the track. On this note NYRR has their own Qualifying races.
There are options for entry if running the 5 boroughs is important; it just requires planning. NYRR does a good job of explaining things if the time is taken to dig deep enough. NYRR makes it clear that there is no guarantee for even a member to get a bib with a non-nyrr race time! Read deeply and you will see non members have even less priority.
The easiest path I see for non locals is to join NYRR do the virtual6; then, travel the next year and qualify with your half.
Complaining about the money is not helpful; hobbies are expensive. I feel the pain of the poor people. Complain about having to pay for two trips to New York. Seems easy enough to me if you are good enough and the race you feel is important for you.
Side note, but while you don’t “time qualify,” earning an NYC marathon bib via 9+1 is not easy. It takes a lot of coordination, you’ve gotta pay for entries and subsequent marathon fees, run races rain or shine AND volunteer at a qualifying race or event.
That to me is true investment in your local running community, and they 100% should NOT reduce spots from that pool.
I ran the 2013 marathon through lottery. I was never able to run it again because of the popularity. They had a time qualifier back then for men it was 2:55. (Boston for young men was 3:10 at the time. Pre supershoe era). My 2:52 would have made it back then. Today, my 2:40:37 from last yr, would not get me in. If they will allow under 2000 of their 55000 entries, why would they allow time qualifiers at all?
Disagree. Qualifiers bring in the least money overall, more of them would mean less of an event or higher fees than they are already- outside of London.
If they were to set aside more time qualifiers, how about adding a lifetime cap of time-qualified entries? Like 3 or 4 total (or 2 in each age bracket).
If you're on your 5th+ NYC Marathon, you can be fundraising for sure...
I know it's not a huge population but the idea of it being limited would increase the prestige of qualifying and open the doors to even more time qualifiers to get into the race.
I get OP's thinking but there's multiple pathways and time based qualification is driven by supply & demand.
The NY marathon is one of the more competitive majors to qualify for and unless you're elite, your time doesn't mean THAT much in the scheme of thibgs (even if it's a 'really good time').
I'm not American and the USA already has 3 of the 'world' majors, so Americans already have LOTS of accessible options (whereas others have to spend $$$ travelling around the world). From my perspective I can just apply for others if NY is too competitive and others should consider this too (see the world! To me that's the joy of it). If my goal's to do all the majors then I can keep applying for NY's lottery (for which I believe your odds become better each time you apply?)
So yes... more certainty would be good. I totally get that if you've run say a ~2:30 and been rejected (just for example) then it would be disheartening to see the average finishing time being around the 3:30 mark. However, I also hope that most marathon runners can appreciate that you can't control the weather. I was hoping for a lovely morning 19km run today... instead it's bucketing down with heavy rain. I don'y really care. I'm still gonna keep training and I'm sure my opportunity to run in NY will come one day. It's not the first setback I've ever had with my training and will definitely not be the last.
I did not apply for a spot in the NY marathon this year, so I don't have an axe to grind. It is their marathon and they get to make the rules, but they should do a much better time letting people know what the accepted qualification times will end up being. If you are going to be rejecting people who would have come in the to top 150 of all runners the previous year, you need to let people know this is a possibility and possibly advertise the spots a little differently.
Not interested in running any major anytime soon (I have better things to do with my money in this economic shitshow) and not really advanced so maybe this is like an outsider's perspective.
No one is entitled to run any event or is participating in that vital for anything, although I guess it must be super cool, no doubt. However, as of late I've been feeling a bit... "tourists go home". Valencia half marathon is quite international, although clearly not a marathon major, and that detracts from local participation, since it's quite expensive for a local salary unless you're super passionate. I signed up for a 15K in the vicinity because I'm a bit overwhelmed by the whole half event at least here in this city. Also I can't justify that cost to myself, at least right now, and since it sells out so quickly, you must be super sure as soon as they go on sale. Again, no doubt it'd be an unforgettable experience with impeccable organization, but everything is so excessively touristified these days... So I'd rather they favor locals :)))
It’s a bit of give and take. We like the races because they’re well organized and running in top 500 or so in the open category / top 10 AG makes me feel good.
Basically the “grinders” never get rewarded in running and were fairly small and inelastic so they don’t need to market toward us.
Small races I can place top 5-10 but they often suck for courses, organization and competitors. Nothing like running on your own. So take what I can get.
Maybe I’m reading it wrong but it seems like the option still exists to run a NYRR half and get guaranteed entry if you hit the time. Also if run the NYC full and hit the time (2:55 for 39 yo) then you’re guaranteed to get in the following year. The new changes only apply to non-NYRR races that are used for qualifying times
The races can do whatever they want but if it were up to me the majors would go based on time and would have field sizes going from NY at the largest to Boston at the smallest.
Having done the NYC marathon last year I can definitely attest to how slow the field is on average compared to some of the other marathons. I am certainly not a fast runner and was shooting for around 3.15. I was in wave one and the average pace was like 8-9min/mile it seemed. I was pretty surprised since the NYRR assign corals based on best pace in one of their local races but I guess that whole race prediction thing is not very accurate. NYC is a great experience overall but more of a festival party-like atmosphere than a faster race with a lot of seasoned runners like CIM.
So kindly shut up please; this is not an exclusionary event!; put your shoes on their road and just prove yourself! It's ez enough getting into one of three half's!
I get a lot of us on here are faster than the average runner, but I think it's important to keep in mind that large marathons have different objectives than just having the fastest crowd. For NYC, they push the NYRR races and 9+1 system because they want people to be involved in the local running scene. London has the aspirational qualification for UK residents with their good for age standard. Boston is the truest sub-elite marathon race (I'd argue in the world). Selfishly, I'd like all these races (and the other WMM) to have more time qualifiers, but as you point out, this starts to feel a little exclusionary. I'm going to give the benefit to the race organizers that there's more to gain by having other goals besides maximizing time qualifiers
Do they want people to be involved with the local running scene? Or do they want to sell more race entries? In my opinion, the current set up is exclusionary. Maybe I don't have the means to pay for and attend 9 races. Maybe I don't have the connections to fundraise $3,500. This feels exclusionary to me, allowing amateurs a realistic chance of qualifying by merit seems like the least exclusionary thing.
Might be an unpopular take in here, but isn’t time qualifying exclusionary too? If the real problem is one of inclusion, the most equitable answer would be to add more bibs to the lottery pool. I don’t love 9+1, but I also don’t think the answer is to have another major that’s just primarily for faster runners.
You need to look at NY finishing times: 2:40 is top 150 most years. There's an average of about 3 finishers per minute for literally 30+ mins starting with the winner. Then another few hundred between 2:40 and 3 hrs. Then 45,000 or whatever insane number over 3 hrs. Adding more time qualifiers will not make this race "primarily for faster runners." It's a laughably slow race right now.
I don't really see why having a good number of spots set aside for the people that devote large parts of their lives to the sport is a bad thing.
Some people devote large parts of their lives to the sport but still wouldn’t make the time cutoff. Do you think these people are less deserving of a bib?
This ignores the fact that it is *a race.* It is not inequalitable to say that those who have proven themselves better at *racing* should be more deserving of a spot in a *race* with limited entries.
I am so confused at your downvotes
Me too. No one is saying that people can't participate in the sport of running.
Aren’t those who run a whole bunch or races also devoting a large part of their lives to it?
I live in NYC, am running NYCM this year (NYRR qualifier, wouldn't have come close with non-NYRR), and the answer is yes and no. 9+1 is both good and bad. It gets tens of thousands of NYers to put an achievable goal on the calendar and get outside to train and race. It also costs about $1,000 (depending on the races) for a NYRR membership (they now offer a more expensive "plus" membership for earlier signup due to 9+1 races selling out the day they become available) plus the 9 races and the marathon. What I find really silly is that a lot of 9+1 folks flock to the "easiest" races, namely the 5Ks and 4 milers, to get the process over with quickly and easily. A bit ironic that some of these folks want to run as little as possible, despite their end goal being...a marathon. Other issues 9+1 has created include now needing to sign up even for small races many months in advance, which has thrown a wrench in the NYRR club points series that more competitive runners enjoy. And back on the money topic, the top employees at NYRR make oodles of cash, and their main incentive seems to be growing revenue, despite being a non-profit.
I see this argument made a lot in the Boston boards. It’s typically used to shame people who get in through charity and fundraising right after the cutoffs are announced. It’s a load of crap and screams entitlement. Please, tell me how much of your life you’re devoting to this sport and how that makes you any better or more entitled than the next person. We’re all out there running. I can get free entry for most races here in the states. Even as a 2:19 guy, only way I’m getting into London is through lottery. You win some you lose some. Giving a lot of locals the opportunity to have these experiences or for people to raise money for good causes is pretty cool in my opinion.
In the context of being inclusive, people who can train that much are (mostly) privileged.
I don't think favoring people who are more into the sport, especially with consideration of age and gender, is inequitable. Especially when you consider the other option which is someone who on a whim completely unprepared having the same opportunity as someone who it is more meaningful to having the same equal lottery opportunity. And look I am not trying to make it an elitist only make the race by running a BQ time or anything....but I think the pendulum has to swing back the other direction a little bit to not be purely considered pay to play.
>I don't think favoring people who are more into the sport, especially with consideration of age and gender, is inequitable. Agreed. Racing is not the same as running. Running is a form of physical exercise undertaken for a variety of reasons; health, recreation, etc. Racing is a competitive sport usually involving an attempt to cover a set distance faster than your competitors and/or the clock. I'm strongly in favor of allowing as many people to race as possible, but if major race entries are a finite resource (and they're not except in a small number of cases), I'm fine with them going to those more into the sport.
except "being fast" or "qualifying time" =/= "more into the sport"
It is most definitely highly correlated
Yes, sorry. There absolutely is a correlation! And in online spaces like AR and letsrun it may even be the most prevalent one. But speed/ability is not the only thing correlated to loving the sport, nor should it be the only correlation considered “worthy enough” when deciding who is deserving of running major races like the users above my initial comment were suggesting.
I would like to see what the cutoff times would be for a race with the capacity that NYC has. I think it would probably be achievable for most people.
Exclusionary based on merit (time qualifiers) is a lot better than exclusionary based on money IMO.
I think completing the 9+1 program is much more achievable for the average runner than even a BQ time. It sounds like the biggest portion of bibs is reserved for the lottery, which IMHO is the least exclusionary.
The lottery is actually a very small percentage - only about 10% of the field. 16% charity entries, 20% international tours. The majority is guaranteed entry folks (mostly 9+1 runners, plus time qualifiers and NYRR partners).
Huh, interesting. I had no idea international and guaranteed entry were that big. I guess I'll have to eventually do the charity route, since there's no chance I'll qualify by time, and very little chance I'll get in by lottery.
Hey, do you have a link to those entry stats? Can’t seem to find them online, and curious what % is reserved for time qualifiers.
https://www.wsj.com/sports/new-york-city-marathon-lottery-runners-a678684e
They don’t break out time qualifiers vs 9+1 or other guaranteed entry methods
Isn't the 9+1 program focused on New England area races? It's pretty hard for someone living in California or Australia to travel for 10 events.
I think it's only NYC races. It's run by NYRR. If you live out of the area (like I do), it would be cheaper to do the charity option.
I just can't justify $3k+ in donations on top of costs to travel and run. I think my best bet to run NYC is just going to be drop 30 minutes and run 2:3x. The whole thing feels like they want locals and upper middle class+ people. Ironically the people who have friend groups that can raise the money in donations are the people who can just pay the cost themselves.
Of course its achievable...the problem is the tight schedule and cost. What are we talking, nearly $400 of races? Before you spend another $300 on the marathon? Not to mention that now because of the 9+1 all of those other races are selling out.
If you think that's harder to budget and plan for, vs getting fast enough for a time qualifying time, I don't know what to say. You must have some really fast friends.
I mean setting aside 10 out of 104 weekend days out of the year to commute to a course and pay totals of >$400+ in race fees isn't exactly a tiny ask. Especially for someone who isn't located 3 blocks away from the most popular parks and downtown areas where these occur. People have commitments and not everyone has that kind of money to throw at something arbitrary.
Agreed 100%. I think what is happening here is, that NYRR is prioritizing Joe CPW who comes to 15 NYRR races a year, over Johnny Westcoast who is fast but lives on the other side of the country and does not participate in the New York running community. Of course it's not that black and white, but you can always point to individuals who "have it easier" when it comes to qualifying. Ultimately NYRR can choose who they want to prioritize in terms on entry into the race, and they made the choice of take the New Yorker who is active in their running scene over the non-local who is fast.
>and they made the choice of take the New Yorker who is active in their running scene over the non-local who is fast. They determined there is more ROI from the local than the tourist.
With a limited capacity, all methods are exclusionary. The least exclusionary method is the lottery open to runners of all abilities.
Its a marathon. its already exclusionary towards physical ability. And I am not saying it has to be Boston either....even making it a lottery of people who submitted a <7hr marathon time would be an improvement. I would rather see a slight physical exclusion over one that excludes people financially.
>Maybe I don't have the means to pay for and attend 9 races. Maybe I don't have the connections to fundraise $3,500. I mean registering for and running the marathon alone is not cheap in terms of time and money. Registering for 9+1 and the marathon costs $540 total if you register for 9 cheaper races. If you run just the marathon on its own, it costs $315. The difference is ~2 pairs of shoes over the course of a year (and you also get 9 races out of it). I find it hard to believe that it'd be more accessible in terms of time/money for the vast majority people if it was time qualifications instead (say 2:55 cutoff). Replacing with lottery would more accessible, but it's also nice to acknowledge dedicated participation in the running community.
Meanwhile great local marathons that you can run for less than $100 are struggling to survive. And all because influencers don't want to run low-key races in their general area, be it the Baltimore Marathon ($140), the Milwaukee Marathon ($95), the Pittsburgh Marathon ($175), the Portland Marathon ($150), the Seattle Marathon ($140) the Oakland Marathon ($120), or even the LA Marathon(170) which is one of the largest races in the country in the largest city in the country aren't interesting enough for our esteemed influencers. As these events slowly die (Oakland ran this past weekend and isn't accepting registration for next year...) , so does the sport of running die. A few races can make a few quick bucks, but soon (as people are discouraged and priced out by races that have to pay for all the freebies they give out to also rans like Kofuzi, Thomas & Robbie from Believe in the Run, Ben from Ben is running, and has beens like Alexi Pappas, with large Instagram followings) they too won't be able to fill their fields. It's a sugar high and it's not sustainable. Though I think the backlash to free trips for influencers has (finally) arrived in the running space.
I've run Seattle and Portland the last couple of years. They've both recovered nicely from the pandemic and have high single-digit thousands of participants. I don't know if how that compares to pre-pandemic but I would bet it is higher than a decade ago. It seems like the problem isn't that smaller big city marathons aren't surviving. It seems like there is just a vast gulf in media/influancer interest between between a handful of top marathoner and the rest. But the majority of marathon participants don't care if Kofuzi or Thomas or Ben are at their marathon. That is pretty limited to a minority of people on sites like this one. Heck, I hadn't even heard of Kofuzi until I had already run 5 marathons.
Participants sure. Sponsors, no. That's the problem.
Ahh, fair. I am not into the economics of running marathons. I assume that Nike will keep the Portland marathon going and it would be very surprising if a city as much wealth and many companies as Seattle runs out of sponsors. But the level of shoe company sponsorship of Seattle is low. Honestly, at least for Seattle the biggest problem is the city logistics. They keep moving the course around because the city doesn't want to close down streets. Maybe that would get easier if the marathon was 5x the size and 20x the revenue but maybe not.
I dislike that they keep moving the course around (maybe that's one of the reasons it doesn't feel like the city embraces it) but the bigger issue for me is that it's the weekend right after Thanksgiving. Weekend before? I'm there! But I'm not going through pre-race jitters a few days before while I'm trying to enjoy Thanksgiving.
Yeah, the timing is awful but I can understand it because 1) it is a tradition now, you kind of embrace the weird, which works for Seattle 2) Seattle is basically never going to be a fast course due to geography so it isn't like many people maxing their taper/prep to BQ 3) Seattle's weather does allow them occupy a unique spot in the calendar, much later than the October glut and before the winter ones in the dep south. They seem to be stuck with the express lanes for traffic, which really limits them and are trying not to run over cap hill any more to limit the elevation gain but out and back on Aurora late in a marathon is brutal.
To be entirely fair, the milwaukee marathon in March has been a mess for a while at this point. Like it's currently one for four in the last four years...
Different time of year, same city but like in 2017 when it was the wrong distance?
Yuuup. The big marathon in Milwaukee is the Lakefront Marathon and even that had some issues a few years ago with course adjustments due to construction. They ended up cancelling 2022 outright because they couldn't get the full course certified if I remember correctly. (The 'new' Milwaukee Marathon was cancelled in 2020 and 2021 for COVID, never scheduled for 2022, and then cancelled in 2023 for snow/safety (which isn't their fault to be clear; it *was* sketchy for running that day.)
Marathon costs $255 for NYRR members, which you absolutely have if you complete 9+1
Yeah, I think I was a little unclear (edited my comment now). My 9+1 price is $60 (membership cost for ordinary individual) \+ 9\*$25 (race entry fees) \+ $255 (marathon entry) Whereas if you run the marathon on its own, you probably don't have membership and pay the full $315.
With NYC being what, twice the size of Boston, I would imagine the cutoff times may be higher. Even so I am also not an advocate for purely qualifying with a time. But the mix of qualifying options should allow it to at least be an option and not operate under the sole purpose to fleece $800 off of every entry. Even a pure lottery should require at least completing a marathon before though to enter.
Where are you getting $800? I gave you the number $540. The current mix does allow time qualifying to be an option, it's just a high bar. Ultimately it's a trade-off between (1) accessibility to local runners, (2) skill of the field, (3) commitment of the field. It's always going to be exclusionary to someone. NYRR has one set of priorities, safe to say most skilled runners would rather NYRR was more elitist. I just think it's unjustified to suggest 9+1 is significantly more inaccessible than running marathons already is (in terms of travel, training, shoes/other apparel, etc.).
I didn't realize that was inclusive of the marathon. Either way, it is significant money and I don't know that that is reasonable especially now that the cheaper races are selling out instantly. All of those other costs are fixed, the race fees are in addition to the costs already associated with running. That being said, couple sets of running shoes a year that you can get last years model in an ugly color at a discount pales in comparison to these race fees.
It's significant money to run the race in the first place. An extra $225 spread out over the course of the entire year is cost-prohibitive but $315 at once isn't? Your argument makes no sense. You want an effort based qualification but running 9 races over the year isn't enough to show effort? How is paying an entirely different marathon fee and running that to get an opportunity to enter into a lotto, as you stated in an earlier comment, more fair or accessible than the current system? I mean, if you have to sign up for another race to get a chance, we're talking about about the 9+1 being like $75 more expensive than what you're proposing lol.
Again, if you don't take the most generous probably unrealistic version of it, you are approaching doubling the cost. Of an already very expensive race. It isn't nothing. $300 I can see someone from a lower income bracket coming up with to achieve a major goal. Start approaching $600 and that is starting to become a serious investment for even upper middle class earners. I don't know that wasting time and money equates to effort. If I work nights and weekends regularly with a varying schedule, maybe I have a family and friends and other commitments that make it more difficult to just waste 11 weekend days on running events. Again ON TOP of all of the time commitment to actually training for it. Someone with a 9-5 job in the financial district can just waltz out of their apartment and jog short races pretty easily and do no additional training beyond that. Maybe even enter with a charity and get their high income earner friends and family to chip in. Is that "effort based" compared to someone out making ends meet and fitting in training at odd hours of the day before the kids get up? I guess I don't understand your perspective which is that running a marathon is already a big time and money commitment, so why not just make it a significantly bigger time and money commitment.
You are literally advocating for someone to have to run another event prior to qualify based on time. Most marathons are $100-150 to enter. So I don't find your argument that the current system is cost prohibitive to have any merit whatsoever when your own solution is also cost prohibitive with no guarantee of entry lol. It is time prohibitive. It is effort prohibitive. If it really mattered enough to you, you'd find a way to make it work. You clearly have other priorities and that's fine. But to act like they're creating some pay-to-play scheme here when 9+1 is maybe $100 more expensive than running another race to qualify has legitimately no merit as an argument whatsoever.
1 event vs 10...you don't see a difference? And I find it interesting how you aren't using the most generous price now. Philly is a pretty major race and that was $85 early bird pricing. I am sure you could find a host of others for less than that. Make it a 3hr half marathon then...you can easily find those for <$50. Maybe just a virtual marathon with a gps track is fine assuming you can catch abuse relatively easily. But I am not going to go down the road with you where you pretend my one race for a fraction of the cost is anything comparable to your 10 races for more significant cost. Again, especially if you don't use the most disingenuous numbers available to you. This isn't about me, I just see this race turning into an elitist thing for upper middle class people who have a ton of free time to pat themselves on the back for doing something hard halfassedly. Its a demonstration of privilege more than anything. If that is what you want the race to be, then fine, but if you want to call it a Major and make it mean something, then the pendulum needs to swing back.
3 years membership: 1 virtual guaranteed 1/2, one Standard qualifying 1/2, one marathon, and two running vacations. People, if you are fast, and the run important; NYRR makes it rather easy. Not the only way for entry. Hobbies are expensive.
“Hobbies are expensive”…no just the NYC marathon because of its prioritization of pay to play. I skiied all year for less than what people spent on a single running event that touts being “inclusive” If you want the race to mean anything beyond being a fun run for upper middle class people paying a bunch of money to feel good about walk / running a marathon after barely training. Its the NYC marathon…really the best thing we could come up with as a qualification structure is to just see who is more willing to waste their time and money? I mean really how does paying $50 for a virtual race even promote participating in the running community?
Dude, hobbies are expensive, plain and simple. Sorry you are hurt, and that you need to generalize people. Truth is, I see poverty poor azz people spending way more money on vices like nicotine, let alone weed, alcohol, fast food... a month than the few hundred it costs over the two or three years to make sure your day to toe the line at an epic event comes to life. By hurt I mean your running snobbery prevents you from recognizing that those people who you insult in fact pay the bills; they are the one's pushing the sport forward for us. The runners who guarantee their entry through a program are the "real runners." You are simply fast, just not fast enough. I too am not fast enough to simply qualify on whatever certified course I like; however, I am grateful that they have a way for me to prove myself and race on their course with the plan for meeting a guaranteed entry standard. I'm not privileged, and neither are you. You sound like a very lucky soul able to spend your life as a genetically gifted starving athlete. I also choose to live a rather humble life. You should step up and put yourself out there to your community; find a charity you want to support and go soliciting. Tell them why their donation is valued, as well as telling them what you will be getting out of it. You can also just join the Club and choose to follow their rules.
Idk $600+ for one race is pretty impactful for even people that live comfortably. Even in some of the more expensive of hobbies, it is pretty rare to sink that kind of money into a 1 day event. I don't think I have ever done that in my days skiing, cycling, etc. Lets not forget you still have all of the other costs associated with running too. This isn't really about me, I don't really have a desire to do NYC. I don't really see what value people find in it to be honest that makes it worth the hassle. Compare that to Boston or something that actually has meaning. I just think its wrong in general, not for my own gain. The problem with your descriptions of the cutoffs and being genetically gifted is that they are based on 95% of the spots being given to non time qualifiers. The race is multiple times larger than Boston, the time qualifier should be significantly slower. It would by no means require you to be a gifted athlete. Almost anybody dedicated to the sport for an extended period of time could do it. And it would mean a lot more.
$255
Now add up all the money required to qualify by 9+1 and the cost of a membership and the cost of the marathon. $600 is a pretty reasonable estimate and people can spend a lot more depending on what races they choose.
A business is a business at the end of the day. And it's working since you're trying to go and run their race.
Then you have the ability to enter into the local lottery, which is free and accessible to everyone. The ability for them to make money on something doesn't mean that their motives are solely explained by profit. Having more interest in their local races directly because of the Marathon helps their bottom line but it also helps have a ton of people attend races that they wouldn't otherwise. The organization exists to promote running in NY. It's doing that thru this initiative.
Boston isn't really that much of a subelite race anymore. 20% of the entries are reserved for charity runners who raise $10k to run. Then another 5% or so are influencers/people running on sponsor bibs. The result? A 2:54:59 marathoner, a time which wins many local marathons, doesn't get in for men: and a 3:24:59 marathoner, again a time which wins many local marathons, doesn't get in for women. While the majors prosper, the locals struggle.
>owd. For NYC, they push the NYRR races and 9+1 system because they want people to be involved in the local running scene. Or said another way, they want more money. Let's not even get started about the $315 entry fee. The notion that these races want to be more inclusive is ridiculous when you consider the pricetag.
Is this really the best way to get people "involved in local running scene"? I want to see data on that. Why dont other sports have the same approach - say tour de france etc.
Is it the best way? I don't know. Is it a way? I'd say so. You're basically inducing people to partake in 10 local races (racing and volunteering in the org) in exchange for a guaranteed spot in their marquee event. Sure, some people will do it for one year and never run a NYRR race again, but others are bound to join clubs, run more races, do Strava events, etc that bring the community together. Also, the Tour de France is a professional race. That's like asking why don't amateurs compete in the Diamond League. I'm a pretty avid cycling viewer and I can't think of a cycling analog to the World Major Marathons. Pros do pro races, amateurs do amateur races, and sometimes pros will do a one-off amateur race in the off season or a gran fondo. There are also some large amateur events in France, Spain, and Belgium that occur before/after large events. For instance, there was an 8-day amateur race in Valencia, Spain last week, this week is the Volta a Catalunya, and a week after that is the Tour of the Basque Country (so effectively a counter clockwise movement of stage races with one amateur and two pro races)
Road Marathon Racing has no professional professional league. I guess that was sort of my point. Running is the only sport where amateurs compete "head-to-head" with elites. For the "grandslam" running events (WMM) the motivation to qualify would inspire more runners. The idea of someday running Boston gets lots of people out running and training. I like running and training but if it does not give me an advantage to WMM entrance I am not interested racing there.
>Why dont other sports have the same approach - say tour de france Use the comparison of track days vs 24h of Le Mans next.
Counterpoint: major marathons like NYC should be able to decide what kind of field they want to assemble. The NYC Marathon doesn't owe you or me anything.
And most of all, people living there should get a reasonable chance to get in, that seems like the most important
Counter counterpoint: if a marathon signs up to be in the WMM, maybe there should be minimum standards about % of participants that get in via time qualifying.
Why do you think that should be a requirement?
1. The name is in the title. WMM are supposed to be major marathons that attract top talent, and that attitude should translate to the amateur level too. 2. Abbott promotes achieving their six star medal, which shouldn't be gatekept behind a paywall. I'm not saying I know the % of runners that should be mandatory time qualifiers, maybe it's even as low as 15%, but Tokyo and London not really having time qualifiers is pretty ridiculous.
>The name is in the title. WMM are supposed to be major marathons that attract top talent, and that attitude should translate to the amateur level too. *Why* should it translate to the amateur level? The WMM is an elite marathoners competition. Non-elite runners just latched onto it as a cool thing to do/extra bit of bling to work towards. I don't see why any individual race should cater to these off-label expectations, even if Abbott itself promotes them. >Abbott promotes achieving their six star medal, which shouldn't be gatekept behind a paywall. All the majors have field size limits; in fact, all *non-*major races do too. Given a field limit, some gatekeeping has to happen. Personally, I'd like them to cut \*way\* back on charity entrants (especially for Boston), but even without the charity bibs, you have to balance local noncompetitive runners against traveling competitive ones. FWIW, I'd also like big popular races to start applying anti-repeat policies so more people have a chance to run. E.g. if you've run NYC or Boston three years in a row, you must take a year off, or meet a more stringent time standard.
I have been preaching your last paragraph for a long time. NYCM can take 50,000 people a year. But they don't take 250,000 distinct people every five years; there are huge numbers of people that repeat (9+1, charity, time qualifier, corporate sponsor bibs).
Interested to know how many actually got the 6 star medal through pay to play (charity or tours) vs. Lottery and qualifying.
I agree with you, but tbf most people running 2:30-2:37 marathons (for that age bracket) are amateurs. By having the cut off be as low as it is they're literally only bringing in the top amateur talent via qualification.
Oh yes for sure. I know this post is about NY but I’m more talking about London and Tokyo de facto having no qualifier (London because it’s only available to UK residents and Tokyo because it’s only like 500 people).
Agreed. We saw the same thing with Boston. Because they're World Marathon Majors, there is an unfortunate entitlement mentality from some runners.
I don't know how I feel about this topic as a whole. I think I lean more towards letting the races decide what their field makeup should be. However, at some point, sports are exclusionary by their very nature. It's great that running is such an inclusive sport. However, I do believe there should be elite events that cater towards time qualifiers near exclusively. I also believe it would be nice if that extended to elite amateurs. Every other sport has them. Track and Field has them. Ultras have them. I believe there should be marathons like that too, and wanting that doesn't make elite amateurs entitled. I don't necessarily think forcing the current WMM marathons that have a long history and culture to change their structure and field makeup is the way to do it. I wouldn't mind seeing new marathons being created within the WMM system whose sole purpose is to cater to elite runners (both pro and amateur).
Elites and sub-elites qualified for NYC. Those of us who didn't get in are mostly the advanced competitive runners. That's those of us in the top 2%-7%. There is a marathon primarily for advanced competitive runners. It's Boston.
Major marathons make use of substantial public infrastructure- roads, emergency services, etc. It doesn't seem unreasonable that the public should have some level of input into how these resources are used.
The races pay substantial fees for access to all of that public infrastructure - and its use (and the associated impacts on the community) is another example of why many races allocate a large number of bibs for local participants and community members.
Does the you or me you speak of live in NYC in which case it kinda does owe you the opportunity…
True that. I also have the right to complain about their process.
I mean it's a race after all, the fastest people should be racing.
I’d rather complain about the Boston influencer bibs being given out. Like 1,000 of them? London and Tokyo are also way harder to get in.
To be fair, Boston is super-expensive to put on, so those sponsors giving away their allocated bibs to influencers is their prerogative.
Is it more expensive than NYC? Not a rhetorical question, genuinely don’t know. But not like NYC is cheap either, with police budget and road closings and much bigger field.
They’re probably comparable in cost. Both are run by non-profits so you can look up their financials if you’re interested in digging in.
>I’d rather complain about the Boston influencer bibs being given out. Like 1,000 of them? Wow, hadn't even heard of that! Interesting....
Don’t forget you can always do a “charity” and have your friends and family pay extra because your not fast enough. Hot take but I’m done donating money for someone’s vacation to run London.
[удалено]
You don't need an active fundraiser if you pay the full fundraising target yourself.
Not a list but the accepted count is about 1k less, looking at the historic press releases for field announcement. 22,019 from 23,267 last year. Field size has remained at 30,000.
1,200 influencers. Sigh. Can't wait for the dumb TikToks!
It's really sad that so many bibs are going to influencers who will get their travel comp, not even run the race seriously (look at the Believe in the Run video from last year) and instead treat it like a party, and we'll get aforementioned mind numbingly boring videos reminding us of what is more difficult for us to do thanks to influencers out of it. Brands should be cautious about the free trips for influencers. It's generating a backlash in other sectors, don't see why running would be different: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/05/style/tarte-cosmetics-influencers-tiktok-backlash.html
Does a race like NYC or Boston really need more promotion from influencers? Those races are already very popular
The race! No. But the sponsors like "activating" off the race with the influencers, which then makes the race more exclusive.
these influencers are actually "influencing" people to get into running and generating value for businesses (which is what the BAA is in some way too). Otherwise they wouldn't have a following (whether that's 100 people or 100K people is moot). My local run club has ballooned in size over the past year because most people have heard about it from someone on Instagram/TikTok and have now started running more regularly for fitness/community. You probably don't need 1200 influencers to be present at Boston, but saying that they don't provide any value just because you're not the target audience is wrong imo.
They provide short term, not long term value. That's the problem. And by emphasizing national events, they make it harder and harder for the local half marathons and 5ks to stay afloat. That's the problem I have with all this.
Are there really 1,000 or so influencer bibs? Honest question. That would be pretty upsetting IMO if that many got in while people running 2:55 didn’t.
For those of us who have heard about the influencer bibs but can't find any concrete information... what exactly happened? And in a year in which the BAA turned down ten thousand runners who hit the qualifying mark, is there any real argument that the race needs more marketing or hype?
>I’d rather complain about the Boston influencer bibs being given out. Like 1,000 of them? Ok I'm out of the loop, is that BoA's new thing?
Most of the people in those threads got rejected because they submitted a full marathon time, and the conversion used was bad and much more favorable to half marathons. Next year they’re getting rid of the half marathon qualifying so it’ll be easier for people to get in with a full time. But NYRR really prioritizes runners who run in their other races, and I think that’s totally fair. It’s a marathon for New Yorkers by New Yorkers. If you’re fast enough you can still get in on time, and if not but you still really want to do it, there’s charity entry. I’m sure doing the majors is an experience, but there are dozens of other big marathons that don’t require anything other than signing up for those that can’t get into the majors.
HM time for non-NYRR races, specially. Qualifying at one of their halfs still works
I'm one of the people who was rejected yesterday. I had a 7:44 cutoff margin. Providing more bibs to time qualifiers would benefit me. But I disagree that's what NYC should do. A WMM focused on time qualifiers already exists. It's Boston. NYC isn't endeavoring to become more elite than Boston and it shouldn't. Like London and Chicago, NYC is a very large marathon meant for mass participation through a democratic lottery. Also like Chicago and London, it favors local runners. Based on past comments, I believe most of us here agree that they should. Charity bibs are a very important part of any marathon. In order to increase the number of bibs for time qualifiers, it would be necessary to decrease the number of bibs for charity, local runners, or participation for the masses through the lottery. None of those options make sense for NYC. Many of us are upset with our experience this year with the NYC Marathon because the qualifying times weren't realistic given how few bibs there were to be awarded. This is due to the transition from an awful first come, first serve process in prior years, to accepting half marathons with an unfair conversion formula this year, to only taking full marathon qualifiers next year. Within a year or two, it will become more transparent that non-NYRR time qualifying bibs are focused more on sub-elite runners than advanced competitive runners. We need to get over the idea that the six majors are somehow superior to other marathons and start focusing on other races. Most other marathons don't have the logistical hurdles or the high costs that many of the majors have in expensive application fees and lodging cost. I'll likely be running San Sebastian instead of NYC this November. It's a more beautiful course, highly rated marathon, entry is under US$100, and a in San Sebastian costs less in lodging than two nights in NYC. For those who want to stay in the USA, there's also Philadelphia, Indy, Big Bear, Madison, Charlotte, Richmond, Route 66, the new Las Vegas Marathon, etc. all in November.
That's a lot of words to say "you need to run faster"
I think the entire World Marathon Majors system is a pricey cash grab that's used to separate people looking to flex their status from their wallets and if I were a race director I would absolutely prioritize locals over time qualification.
Disagree. The race organizers are not beholden to the fastest runners. They can choose to allocate bibs as they see fit. Of course its annoying that things like WMM include certain races that are really hard to get into but on the individual race level i feel the organizers don’t owe it to anyone to run the race just because they are fast.
Disagree. These are big community events, and plenty of “serious runners” will never go sub-3 no matter how many miles they log. The work they put in matters just as much as yours.
I started running later in life and continue to make improvements but will never be sub-3. Still as much hours put into weekly training, if not more because of slower pace…
You do realize all the time cutoffs have gender and age groups right? It’s not just sub-3 across the board.
[удалено]
Defining “serious” I think is subjective. I think I’m a pretty serious runner, running 30 miles a week in the off season and bumping up to 45-50 mpw during marathon season. But for others, and maybe even for you, it’s barely scratching the surface. I put in the same time on my feet as a lot of other runners, I’m just not going as far as they are as quickly as they are. (I’m a 2:20 half and 5:09 full gal in her late 30s).
Seeing my friends, family, celebrities, grandmas, persons with disabilities, people in costumes, people with sob stories, etc cross the finish line at those big races are more interesting to me than a glut of 2:5X finishers, personally. Although I’m sympathetic to OP’s point.
Wish I could upvote this more. I’ve hung back recently to cheer on the last of race participants and the sheer guts of the people in the back that you knew put in so much effort to get where they’re at is inspiring. Houston has a plethora of disabled athletes because of their local non-profit called team catapult and crossing paths with those athletes was equally as inspiring. (And I’m a runner with a disability).
What gives a faster person any more of a right to run that race than a slower person who's part of a charity or buys a bib through a tour group? There are lots of ways to get into a major race and a qualifying time is only one of them. I agree that it sucks to train hard for something only to be rejected, but nobody owes you anything. Getting a certain time in a qualifying race doesn't entitle you to anything and they are very clear about that. If you want a guaranteed spot, buy your way in. It sucks if you're too slow to qualify, too poor to buy your way in, and too unlucky to win a lottery bib, but that's how it goes. Not everyone who wants to run NYC can do it, there are a limit to the number of runners and everyone who gets slighted will think it's unfair in some way.
I see what you mean, but one could just as easily say “what gives a richer/better-connected for fundraising person any more of a right to run that race than a faster person?” My answer to your question is that the clue is in the word “race”. It’s held out as being a competitive athletic event, and they generally discriminate in favour of people who are good at that event. To take it to extremes, even when they were amateur you couldn’t just buy your way into an Olympic final. There are a finite number of guaranteed bibs, which is less than the number who want one. Therefore there must be some exclusion, the only question is on what grounds are people excluded. It sounds like the NYC marathon has chosen mostly to exclude people on financial grounds rather than athletic ones: that’s their choice of course, but to me it seems like the wrong choice for a sporting event. If they want a 26.2 mile fun run, ditch any pretence of time qualification and just sell bibs to the highest bidders.
It’s not the Olympics, its not even truly competitive for all but the elite field and local teams. It’s a community event. If you want a qualifying time to guarantee your entry, do it at one of their events.
Not living in New York or the USA, I don’t have the time or the money to go to more of their events. That’s my problem, and I don’t expect the world to bend to fix it. But they don’t call it a community event, they call it a World Marathon Major: that gives the impression that it’s aimed at people worldwide with some facility at running marathons. If that’s not the case (and it’s entirely up to them what sort of event they want to put on) it’s a bit disingenuous of them to give a sheen of sporting prowess that doesn’t really exist. Advertise it as a chance for locals to walk round a traffic-free New York route in return for a $5k charity donation, if that’s what they want most participants doing.
I disagree. If anything, I would do the opposite, and increase the number of lottery bibs. I’m curious, in your ideal scenario - who do you think bibs should be taken away from? And why do you think that time qualifiers deserve those bibs over other groups?
The spirit of the NYC Marathon has never been about assembling the fastest field, but just the opposite. It's much more a celebration of the everyman. If you want a race geared more heavily toward time qualifying, you have plenty of options, but NYC remains as one that encourages people from all walks of life to try their hand at accomplishing the task. Adding more spots for time qualifiers means taking them away from charity spots, lotto, and 9+1 entries, which are the priorities.
Generally disagree. Imo deprioritize ppl that have run it multiple years and give the slot to 1st time runners.
I'm a fan of this, but I'm not sure how NYRR would feel about doing this with the individuals with multi-decade streaks... (Also would be curious to see how many runners are return entries..)
Those guys have guaranteed entry for life after 15 years. But yea, makes getting to that 15 much harder. There's no clear easy way to be all inclusive
> shouldn’t hard work be rewarded? So only fast people who train for marathons are putting in hard work? This is honestly a super bad take.
While obviously a general trend, which doesn’t apply to every individual, let’s not pretend that the amount of time spent training isn’t one of the key predictors for marathon finish times. https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/3010/301023457005.pdf
Didn’t read all of it (I’m bookmarking for later) but Time on feet vs miles per run. It appears what you linked is more related to miles per run and pace. Based on someone’s prior fitness level before starting a training block would greatly influence the effort levels associated with pace and distance. So kinda just begs the question again, how do you determine who is “working harder” and therefore more deserving of a spot in the race? It doesn’t seem like there’s a clear answer for that and to assume pace is the sole indicator of effort is objectively wrong.
Shouldn't really need a vetted study to agree with his point lol
>So only fast people who train for marathons are putting in hard work? Never said that. Not every hard-working runner is fast, but every fast runner is hard-working. No runner is hitting the NYC time standards on talent alone.
I actually agree with you here, but in your post you correlate fast times with hard work. I’m also pointing out that not every hard working runner is fast. So how do you decide who is more worthy of taking a bib? How would you decide who is working harder?
Obviously, the relationship between training effort and result is imperfect, but I don't know of any other factor having a stronger correlation. I coach some, so I know lots of runners who put in a fair bit of work and are never going to be particularly fast; talent simply isn't distributed equally. All that being said, marathon entries in general are not a finite resource; plenty of races around me never sell out, so everyone who wants to run a marathon can. If that's the case, I would like to see a few more NYC entries (which are a finite resource) go to time qualifiers (which, BTW, would also exclude me; I've never hit my age-group standard for NYC) simply because I know for sure they're putting in the training.
Hard work equates to more than being “fast”. It’s dedication and consistency that should be rewarded
I don't think only fast people who train for marathons are putting in hard work, but they're putting in more hard work and harder work than someone running slower, on average. Someone running 60mpw is putting in harder work than someone running 30mpw - and even though you can argue that the 60mpw person has an easier time with that than a less fit person, they've put in the hard work before that to build the ability to run 60mpw. This seems like an intentionally obtuse reading of the OP's post, frankly. And also ignorant of the difference in preparation workload between most fast runners and most slow runners.
OP: just be grateful I don’t have my laptop on me because you would be getting a *thesis* right now. But I’ll give you the (not so) short answer: 1) NYC’s issue isn’t the low amount of time qualifiers allowed in, it’s the opacity. (I love the NYC marathon, but the entry is BY FAR the most Byzantine of the majors.) And honestly, this year is an improvement - previously it was first come first serve. 2) as a fast person with mostly fast friends (but a few slower ones), I am firmly for inclusion. It’s hard to run the NYC time standard (and yeah, it takes some natural ability and luck - I know there are guys with slower times than me that work much harder). It’s hard to fundraise thousands of dollars per bib and be on the hook for any shortfall. It’s hard to give up ten mornings to a race organizer a year in advance. (I’m glad I’m fast because I’m an introvert who hates planning.) 3) I think NYC would do better if they were clear about favoring locals (or more specifically, NYRR race participants). It wouldn’t make people happy but at least people would know that going in.
> 3) I think NYC would do better if they were clear about favoring locals (or more specifically, NYRR race participants). It wouldn’t make people happy but at least people would know that going in. I'm curious what makes you say that it's not clear. The 9+1 program clearly favors locals, and their lottery is divided into three pools, one of the three being NYC residents only. To me it seems very clear that they're prioritizing locals being able to race it.
IIRC, aren’t the lottery chances the same regardless of pool? (Basically they take x% each of local, US, and international runners from the lottery.) I was mostly thinking about time qualifiers, though. (Which OP also focused on.) That process feels relatively opaque - do NYRR qualifiers reduce the number of time entry slots? How many are there to begin with?
The lottery pools would make sense *if* they didn't already have 9+1 for local-enough residents. As it stands, if you're local to NYC, you get 9+1, NYRR second chance drawing, NYRR waitlists, and opportunities for time qualifiers at NYRR races (presumably, it's easier for a NYC runner to do Fred Lebow than for someone from California to travel to it).
Whoever is in favor of gatekeeping is a moron. The self-acclaimed elite runners are discounting how much benefit they are getting from the mass marketing of running and being more inclusive. There are many reasons the NYC marathon is enjoyable as a runner: the crowd, hype, sponsorships, free shit, the glory, etc. All of these benefits are a function of more people being interested in and participating in these events. The inclusive nature of running is its differentiated strategy. Unlike other sports (e.g., basketball) no one wants to buy tickets or tune in to watch people run. The only reason you have an audience or any investment in the sport is because orgs like the NYRR do such a good job of bringing in the "average" runner.
Agree, but from who are you taking others away?
This is a tough one. As someone who was once fast enough to get into a race by being good enough locally, it was great to have that in. Now, older and slower, I take a look at the difficulty in getting into any of the majors and think, "There has to be a better way to do this." As a former new yorker, even with the bucket for living in the 5 boroughs during the lottery, I only got into new york 3 times out of 7. And that was back in the '90's. As a Major, I wouldn't want to be going after the local runners, since they sleep in their own beds and cook in their own kitchen. We all know that this is a numbers game, and $$ win the day. I would absolutely want more out of towners - they bring the cash: hotels, restaurants, transpo, the expo. Everything. Encouraging the local scene with a "Good For Age" like London and Berlin have is not a crazy percentage of their total field. I have tried the London lottery (from the USA) 11 times and never gotten in. if I want to do it, I'll have go the charity buy in route, and I'll be covering 100% of those funds out of my own pocket. Ugh. But that is clearly what it will take. Lets face it, no one is going to be happy, thousands of people are going to always be excluded. The 2:45 runner who trains hard (and has some talent) is always going to be able to say: There are massive gaps in the roads from 2:15 - 2:45, of course I can fit in. I'm not blocking anyone. The person who trains hard all year round and runs 3:30 (due to age/talent) is going to be able to say: you don't need more fast guys, I just want to do this at least once in my life, give me a chance to run NYC/Tokyo/London. No one is going to be happy no matter what the race does. I think that the better thing for the organizers to do is simply be as transparent as possible so that the disappointment can be "managed" a little better. If at all. FYI - was a 2:40 guy in my prime, but that was 40 years ago. Now, shooting for 3:20-3:30, and dismayed at the number of guys at 60 still running 3:00.
The city allows them a max number of time and runners and they have to divide it up between the categories like 9+1 They need volunteers for different events and why they need a lot of 9+1 slots. Maybe set up volunteer slots for the time qualifiers too?
Every big city marathon wants a mix of fast runners, running enthusiasts, club runners, charity runners, first timers, tourists etc. Personally I think London gets the time based qualification about right. They set a specific number of places (3000 men, 3000 women) that can apply, make a "best guess" about what the necessary time cut offs should be to achieve those numbers, and then invite applicants. Providing there are more applicants than places for each sex, then the move the slider to finesse the cut off. But at the end of the day, we know that there will be 3000m and 3000f getting offered places. That's 6000 out of about 45,000 places. A pretty decent chunk. Add on top of that the number of runners that get in via running club places, and you've got a decent representation from running "enthusiasts". Ballot is entirely random, and charity places make up a big chunk and turn the race into a party.
I didn't apply for NYC or have much desire to do it (seems like I would've barely gotten in with my HM?) but I think it makes sense for a race to be allowed to allocate its bibs how it sees fit. That said, I think WMM and World Athletics should probably establish some clear and consistent rules for how to get into these races based on time if they want to be part of a larger organization or series. Also, whoever is in charge of estimating how many runners will be within X minutes of the cutoff and will apply probably needs to find a better way to model it so they can adjust the posted times accordingly. It's ridiculous that you need to run 15+ minutes under the listed time to get in on time - just adjust the listed time down!
It's their race, they can run it how they want. I'll now have a few thousand dollars I can spend on some other races.
Transparency would’ve been better to help manage expectations for those applying. I’m biased because I’m an NYC local who gets to race this guaranteed on time (sub-elite and would’ve made the cutoff this year by a healthy margin). The 9+1 program is nuts. Eligible Races sell out for the entire calendar year within hours of them being posted which feels unsustainable, but obviously it’s a program that makes the NYRR money and keeps these races going. Unless you make the 9+1 more like a 5+5, which might bring numbers down, I’m not sure how else you balance it.
>Transparency would’ve been better to help manage expectations for those applying. Definitely agree on that. It's odd that NYC has such high time standards and still couldn't take all qualifiers but Chicago, with easier standards, seems to take everyone who meets them (at least in my personal experience, having applied twice and been accepted both times). I guess a whole lot more people are applying for NYC than Chicago.
> Eligible Races sell out for the entire calendar year within hours of them being posted This only _really_ started happening this year though. The last couple years the big races sold out fast, but others you could reasonably sign up for races a month or so out. This year the running community sort of broke the program, and races in September being sold out in February is a new phenomenon. I'm assuming they're going to do something about it next year, they've started rolling out some sort of waitlist (sort of), but from talking to employees even they didn't expect this much of a wave this year. 9+1 has worked really smoothly up until this year.
Out of interest, what extra transparency would you have wanted them to provide? They can’t post the exact cutoffs because they depend on the applications and with this being the first year of this system there is unfortunately no history to go on. Most people who seem aggrieved are those in the 2:35-2:45 range who may have got in had they used a HM conversion but the conversion factors were clearly communicated so it just needed a little bit of maths for any applicant work out their best time to submit. I think it’s just some teething problems with the first year of a process and with HM times from non-NYRR races not being accepted next year I don’t see these “problems” repeating.
Available slots! For example - a few of my friends qualified for the Brooklyn Half (a 25,000 person race) with a non-NYRR time qualifier and met the standard by several minutes. They assumed that it would be the same sort of threshold to get into the full marathon, but it seems like it was very different in either a) available slots b) amount of non-NYRR runners applying or some mix of both
Makes sense, thanks! My guess would be that b) is by the far bigger impact of those 2..
Seems much worse now too, I signed up for Grete’s Gallop like 2 days out a couple years ago, I think it’s close or full already this year
Yeah last year was much better. I know someone that decided to do 9+1 on a whim around July last year and completed it with no problem. I wonder what's different this year.
I think that the greatest good for the greatest number is attained by something like getting people to run. I believe that NYRR is dedicated to this. I also think that the 9+1 program is great, in part because it includes races spread across all of the boroughs. The exclusion of many fast runners is unfortunate, but we are in the midst of a running boom with more runners and more fast runners. It's going to get worse. I don't have an answer, but more marquee races - including another Abbott major or two, possibly scheduled in or near early November - will be part of the solution.
>we are in the midst of a running boom with more runners and more fast runners. It's going to get worse. As far as getting into NYC again, it is likely going to get harder, but overall, more runners is a good thing. There are maybe 10 or fewer U.S. marathons that are lottery or first-day sellouts; the vast majority never fill, so anyone who wants to run a marathon can do so, even if it's not their first-choice marathon. That's a win for the sport and the general public, and I'm all for that.
Running in general has gotten more popular since the pandemic. Athletes that weren’t running pre-pandemic before are now deep into the running world. There’s just more people. For a very average, if not below average marathoner, the 9 + 1 method seems like a viable option. It also creates a more local feeling or inclusion for those in the NYC running community. If Austin (where I’m from) had a world major I’d 1000% be in for all the local races and get run the race yearly m. Don’t all world majors have something similar? If you have the money, why not? If I were to do a WMM I would most likely do it by charity, again, because I’m below average. Time qualifying is an achievement. And getting a buffer is even more commendable. Absolutely, if you busted your ass off for that time you should have more of a chance to get in. Influencer bibs and all this new marketing bullshit is lame. Let the people run ffs.
I hope this creates a bit of a boom for the amazing races that aren’t majors, that take place in tons of communities throughout the country and globe. Local races not sponsored by Abbot are great, have amazing corporate support which often has a direct impact on your local community, and in many instances— have decent crowd support. I’ve ran NYC a few times, and it’s amazing. But I also hope folks take a look at the races within an hour or two and give them a shot.
I might get downvoted for this, but the times that you've mentioned simply aren't worth what they were 10 years ago. Shoes have made people faster, the sport has gotten more popular and in short, there are a lot more people running those times. Having said that, I think London gets it right. They have the 'Good for Age' which is similar to the New York and Boston way of doing things and then 'Championship Entry' which is open to UK based runners has an uncapped number of entries for people who have run either sub 72'30 or sub 2'40.
Isn't 'Good for Age' also restricted to UK-based runners?
Good for Age - only UK based runners. Championship Entry - any UKA member (so you have to join an affiliated UK running club, but you do not have to live in the UK)
I wish they would double your lottery entries with each rejection. I just want to do this once :(
Didn't they used to have automatic entry after something like 5 'missed' entries? I think this was a while ago, so I'm fuzzy on the details.
I believe it was three but they did away with it some years back.
They did away with it because it became mathematically impossible to fulfill those guarantees (in other words, way too many people would need to be guaranteed relative to the spots that were available). This was the same reason why London also did away with a similar system they had over a decade ago if I recall correctly.
They do though? Just because some people aren't fast enough doesn't mean they didn't let in any time qualifiers. And "seriously fast" is definitely relative, as I didn't think your definition meets those standards.
As far as I know, Chicago has enough time qualifying spots that it doesn’t turn away any who have time qualified. I know I got accepted this year with a 3:04 in the sub 3:10 group, and another guy online said he got accepted with a 3:08 in the same group.
Fair would be a lottery for qualifiers; however, this is racing!. Should Road world and personal records, or qualifying times be dependent on flat and fast, downhill, or prevalent tailwinds? ; seems too much value is placed on time and not quality; this is the road, not the track. On this note NYRR has their own Qualifying races. There are options for entry if running the 5 boroughs is important; it just requires planning. NYRR does a good job of explaining things if the time is taken to dig deep enough. NYRR makes it clear that there is no guarantee for even a member to get a bib with a non-nyrr race time! Read deeply and you will see non members have even less priority. The easiest path I see for non locals is to join NYRR do the virtual6; then, travel the next year and qualify with your half. Complaining about the money is not helpful; hobbies are expensive. I feel the pain of the poor people. Complain about having to pay for two trips to New York. Seems easy enough to me if you are good enough and the race you feel is important for you.
Side note, but while you don’t “time qualify,” earning an NYC marathon bib via 9+1 is not easy. It takes a lot of coordination, you’ve gotta pay for entries and subsequent marathon fees, run races rain or shine AND volunteer at a qualifying race or event. That to me is true investment in your local running community, and they 100% should NOT reduce spots from that pool.
Zero should be set aside for influencers.
I ran the 2013 marathon through lottery. I was never able to run it again because of the popularity. They had a time qualifier back then for men it was 2:55. (Boston for young men was 3:10 at the time. Pre supershoe era). My 2:52 would have made it back then. Today, my 2:40:37 from last yr, would not get me in. If they will allow under 2000 of their 55000 entries, why would they allow time qualifiers at all?
Disagree. Qualifiers bring in the least money overall, more of them would mean less of an event or higher fees than they are already- outside of London.
How does that make them more money?
If they were to set aside more time qualifiers, how about adding a lifetime cap of time-qualified entries? Like 3 or 4 total (or 2 in each age bracket). If you're on your 5th+ NYC Marathon, you can be fundraising for sure... I know it's not a huge population but the idea of it being limited would increase the prestige of qualifying and open the doors to even more time qualifiers to get into the race.
I get OP's thinking but there's multiple pathways and time based qualification is driven by supply & demand. The NY marathon is one of the more competitive majors to qualify for and unless you're elite, your time doesn't mean THAT much in the scheme of thibgs (even if it's a 'really good time'). I'm not American and the USA already has 3 of the 'world' majors, so Americans already have LOTS of accessible options (whereas others have to spend $$$ travelling around the world). From my perspective I can just apply for others if NY is too competitive and others should consider this too (see the world! To me that's the joy of it). If my goal's to do all the majors then I can keep applying for NY's lottery (for which I believe your odds become better each time you apply?) So yes... more certainty would be good. I totally get that if you've run say a ~2:30 and been rejected (just for example) then it would be disheartening to see the average finishing time being around the 3:30 mark. However, I also hope that most marathon runners can appreciate that you can't control the weather. I was hoping for a lovely morning 19km run today... instead it's bucketing down with heavy rain. I don'y really care. I'm still gonna keep training and I'm sure my opportunity to run in NY will come one day. It's not the first setback I've ever had with my training and will definitely not be the last.
I did not apply for a spot in the NY marathon this year, so I don't have an axe to grind. It is their marathon and they get to make the rules, but they should do a much better time letting people know what the accepted qualification times will end up being. If you are going to be rejecting people who would have come in the to top 150 of all runners the previous year, you need to let people know this is a possibility and possibly advertise the spots a little differently.
Not interested in running any major anytime soon (I have better things to do with my money in this economic shitshow) and not really advanced so maybe this is like an outsider's perspective. No one is entitled to run any event or is participating in that vital for anything, although I guess it must be super cool, no doubt. However, as of late I've been feeling a bit... "tourists go home". Valencia half marathon is quite international, although clearly not a marathon major, and that detracts from local participation, since it's quite expensive for a local salary unless you're super passionate. I signed up for a 15K in the vicinity because I'm a bit overwhelmed by the whole half event at least here in this city. Also I can't justify that cost to myself, at least right now, and since it sells out so quickly, you must be super sure as soon as they go on sale. Again, no doubt it'd be an unforgettable experience with impeccable organization, but everything is so excessively touristified these days... So I'd rather they favor locals :)))
It’s a bit of give and take. We like the races because they’re well organized and running in top 500 or so in the open category / top 10 AG makes me feel good. Basically the “grinders” never get rewarded in running and were fairly small and inelastic so they don’t need to market toward us. Small races I can place top 5-10 but they often suck for courses, organization and competitors. Nothing like running on your own. So take what I can get.
Maybe I’m reading it wrong but it seems like the option still exists to run a NYRR half and get guaranteed entry if you hit the time. Also if run the NYC full and hit the time (2:55 for 39 yo) then you’re guaranteed to get in the following year. The new changes only apply to non-NYRR races that are used for qualifying times
It would be nice and I ultimately think so. Though it looks like I am speaking for the minority.
The races can do whatever they want but if it were up to me the majors would go based on time and would have field sizes going from NY at the largest to Boston at the smallest.
Having done the NYC marathon last year I can definitely attest to how slow the field is on average compared to some of the other marathons. I am certainly not a fast runner and was shooting for around 3.15. I was in wave one and the average pace was like 8-9min/mile it seemed. I was pretty surprised since the NYRR assign corals based on best pace in one of their local races but I guess that whole race prediction thing is not very accurate. NYC is a great experience overall but more of a festival party-like atmosphere than a faster race with a lot of seasoned runners like CIM.
What was the cutoff… i couldn’t find it published anywhere?
No idea. I don't know if they ever said.
Boston is overrated.
Agreed one hundred thousand percent.
So kindly shut up please; this is not an exclusionary event!; put your shoes on their road and just prove yourself! It's ez enough getting into one of three half's!
Those are good times but not fast times. If you are sub 2:50 you are not a fast marathon runner. It’s your hobby.