After two years of no cut-offs, 5:29 buffer for this upcoming year.

https://www.baa.org/global-field-qualifiers-notified-acceptance-128th-boston-marathon-presented-bank-america

I saw that this morning and had a solid freak out moment. It doesn't affect me for the 2024 race, but I am chasing 2025. It definitely seems like a considerable jump from the two years of no cut-off. I am sure that there are good reasons for the jump, with the residual effect that covid had on racing seeming most likely to me.

Just got cleared to return to running yesterday. Hoping I can stay healthy and make it to the start line this year.

Wonder how soon it will be before they lower times again. I expect them to drop it another 5 minutes.

Will be interesting to see if they do. The last two years they accepted all qualifiers and then jumped to >5 minutes this year. That's a big leap. I haven't looked at any analysis but was it more applicants or fewer available spots (more charity spots)?

A record number of applicants is the big thing. There were over 33,000 applicants, and the previous record was ~30,000 in 2019.

The percentage of charity spots versus time qualifiers is right about the same as it's been for some time, from what I understand.

Yeah I think the last couple years numbers were simply down due to the pandemic canceling races etc

I would have to double my Half Marathon to make it. I know there are plenty of people out there who can actually do stuff like that. I'm not one of them. I've learned my place, and was ecstatic to get my sub-4 at 50 years old. Maybe gonna chase a 21 minute 5K instead. I had a 6:02 mile this evening. That was fun. Boston, nope.

Over 5 minute cut off is heartbreaking for people. Instead of lowering times, I'd prefer they tighten the course requirements. Get rid of point to point BQ courses (I get the irony of Boston being point to point). All races aren't equal, and it stinks that some can run a significant down hill marathon to qualify. This would lower the number of qualified applicants real quick.

I'm a purist when I comes to Boston, so I don't think charity runners should get a "free" pass. That would open more slots for qualifiers. Or run the charity folks on the day before or something. That said, I know the above will never happen.

zachsccr said:

---

Over 5 minute cut off is heartbreaking for people. Instead of lowering times, I'd prefer they tighten the course requirements. Get rid of point to point BQ courses (I get the irony of Boston being point to point). All races aren't equal, and it stinks that some can run a significant down hill marathon to qualify. This would lower the number of qualified applicants real quick.

---

Weather-adjusted times would be more fair than downhill point-to-point qualifiers. Houston was 60-70 degrees this year. Every marathon in the entire region was unseasonably hot - Texas was boiling, Seabrook and USA Fit had heavy rain, Galveston was boiling, and The Woodlands was barely passable. Somebody running Houston in 3:30 this year, maybe flying in and spending a bunch of money to race at 70 degrees, had a way better race than someone running 3:25 in a downhill point to point at 45 degrees.

I doubt Boston wants to open that can of worms. Where do you draw the line? Do you start putting shoe restrictions to not allow the carbon plate shoes?

I hope the baa is upping charity fundraising requirements as well.

Two weeks out and training has gone really well for me. No major setbacks or lingering issues. All that's left is to rest up and make it to Hopkinton in a fortnight.

Roll Call - anyone else toeing the line this year?

2026 times adjusted, fastest men now need a 2:55.

https://instagr.am/p/C_-z-4SO8yl

glad i got mine in when i was "fast" and the the times were "slow"

I have been bracing myself for my 6:05 buffer not getting me in. That number of applicants pretty much confirms it. I guess I'll wait until they officially announce to give up all hope, but the math doesn't work for me. This sucks.

AggieOO said:

---

glad i got mine in when i was "fast" and the the times were "slow"

---

Word. I keep getting older, slower, fatter and everyone else seemingly doesn't?

ptothemo said:

---

I have been bracing myself for my 6:05 buffer not getting me in. That number of applicants pretty much confirms it. I guess I'll wait until they officially announce to give up all hope, but the math doesn't work for me. This sucks.

---

I think 5:29 is the largest cut-off so the assumption is that this would be larger than that but impossible to know how much higher. I hope you make it.

I haven't been this excited to get older since I turned 21.

Here's hoping for next year!

Damn it now I'm actually curious about Boston's stance on gender identity because thats the only way I'm getting in as well lol

Interesting that it's a 10 minute jump from 3:05 to 3:15.

I turn 45 in March 2025. Am I correct that 3:15 is my qualifying time, and I have to meet it between now and 9/1/25 in order to qualify for 2026?

You are correct about the age calculation. It is calculated as your age on the day of the race you are qualifying for, so you will be 46 for the 2026 race.

The only part that is not totally correct is the qualifying deadline you mentioned. The qualifying window runs from 9/1/XXXX to the last day of the registration window in year XXXX + 1.

So for 2025, the qualifying window opened on 9/1/2023 and ran through 9/13/2024 with the registration period being open from 9/9/2024 through 9/13/2024. You always know when the qualifying window will open, but you don't know when the qualifying window will close until the registration period is announced. The registration period is typically the second week in September, and I think the actual dates were announced in June this year.

There are a handful of races - the Erie Marathon being one that I am most familiar with - where you can "double BQ" because they fall in early September.

wangus12 said:

---

Damn it now I'm actually curious about Boston's stance on gender identity because thats the only way I'm getting in as well lol

---

Non-binary has the same qualifying times as females, but you have to run as as non-binary in your qualifying race. That'd be quite the sight if you still have the big beard.

As has been discussed among other sports, IMO, the Men's division should be reclassified as Open so all non-binary and "other" persons and all Men have the same qualifying times. Seems a lot easier to regulate.

I agree, but am unaware of any races doing that.

bert harbinson said:

---

I agree, but am unaware of any races doing that.

---

Race directors, sponsors, etc don't want to be labeled as "bigots."

The Pilot said:

---

AggieOO said:

---

glad i got mine in when i was "fast" and the the times were "slow"

---

Word. I keep getting older, slower, fatter and everyone else seemingly doesn't?

---

Both of these posts speak to me.

https://www.baa.org/field-qualifiers-notified-acceptance-129th-boston-marathon-presented-bank-america

Quote:

---

Qualifiers who were 6 minutes, 51 seconds (6:51) or faster than the qualifying time for their age group and gender have been accepted into the 129th Boston Marathon. A total of 24,069 qualified applicants have been accepted to date or are in the process of being accepted, pending final verification of their qualifying performance.

---

FML

About what I was expecting, though them accepting ~2500 more qualifiers than last year made the cutoff number smaller than I thought it might be. It still hurts, but I'm back to racing this weekend and it's on to the next one.

12,000 people qualified but did not get accepted. That's brutal!

For 2026 they reduced all the qualifying times by 5 minutes which will help that, but just makes it that much harder.

The journey continues!

I'm one of those 12,000. Gonna have to get faster and run a faster course for this year qualifier!