Tightening the standard will only streamline the application process. With cut off time higher than 5min already. There will be no impact on final acceptance result even B.A.A. don’t update the standard

I remember years ago when I heard of the marathon Majors, I read about what it took to run each. The Boston qualification standards were out of reach for me in my 20s. I'm in my 30s and a sub 3h marathon is something I can run in dreamland. Wonderful that when I turn 40 it will be sub 3h5. I'm nowhere near that either! I'd be happy to just run a sub 3h30.
I understand that race organisers need to make money and am fine with them targeting high income runners who are willing to travel from far, pay hiked prices for hotels and other expenses all after running insane times to qualify. Running is indeed becoming an expensive hobby! I for one will stick to my local races and do 1 or 2 races internationally or domestically in other parts of my own country, within my budget. It's fine how other runners spend their money – non of my business.

I was bummed I was currently training to qualify in the 40-44 and knocking it down another 5 minutes might make or break me. I understand running right at or a minute under the old time, 3:10:00, doesn't guarantee anything I can at least say I qualified. But for the spirit of the sport and event i'm glad we are progressing!

I finished a marathon in 2:59:47 in 2019 on a certified course. They lowered the standards for 2020 that year to 3 hours. I didn't get in and was crushed. COVID canceled it, but this experience still has always frustrated me about Boston. So much so, I don't even want run it anymore.

Hard no on the lottery for Boston. I do think the big net downhill races shouldn’t count as BQ events. I’d like to see the BAA adopt a ratio or to account for net downhill races – like for every 100 ft of downhill, the course must have at least 50 ft of uphill, or something to that effect. Big Sur is an example – net downhill I believe, but like 2k of uphill out there.

Glad I ran Boston 2007-2011 when the standards were slower and initially a winter marathon could be used for 2 Bostons.

I think it should be a lottery, with preference for first timers and those who have continually not been accepted. It's not a championship-type race that should require qualifying times, unless the BAA aspires to be some kind of amateur championship.

Think it's good to tighten so that they reject less qualified runners. Boston Qualifying is something that is well known. 2:50 used to be the fastest standard in the 80s. That's what makes the race special. You earn your slot. It's pretty cool that people are running faster & faster. There are other marathons with tighter qualifying standards and you can still run for charity if you're set on running the race. I don't think less of any runner who hasn't run this marathon & I do think most can still get to a BQ. We know so much about training/nutrition/recovery/etc. I definitely do not have good running genes & I put in 2-3 years of good mileage to then hit the standard. It's a commitment but a lot of people can get there with good training.

I think it's time to scrap (non-OTQ) downhill marathons. You can't reject someone who ran a second faster on a downhill course than someone who didn't. Weather obviously influences time but you can't control for that. Some of those downhill races give back quite a bit of time. Maybe Boston should consider a certain # of slots for American runners like London does with their good for entry standard. Not taking a hard line on either. Overall point is that Boston usually gets slammed for lack of communication. They're being proactive about something that is well established. Feels like a win.

I'm going to give a positive shout out for the charity places. As a Boston local – I see how much the race takes over the cities – not just of Boston but all of them along the course.

The race's existence and history is built upon the goodwill of local people, thousands of volunteers, and tens of thousands of spectators that make it special. 

Its absolutely fair for the race to give back to those communities and the charity runners are one of the key ways it does so.

Don't be upset if you (like me) have ever "lost a place to a charity runner" – there wouldn't a race to lose a place to without them.

At current trajectory BQ times are eventually going to reach elite levels, and that's not what the Boston Marathon is: it's not a championship race, it's supposed to be a pillar of the running community. Regardless of popularity a BQ should remain a challenging-but-accessible life goal.

My humble opinion: a two-tier system. Have a fast guaranteed-entry time for half the field, and then fill out the rest with a lottery with the 2013-2019 qualifying times. Random lottery, not a secret second cutoff dependent on entries. That keeps the BQ a special goal to try to attain without putting it out of reach of the non-elite running community.

Hey Sage…Billy Simpson here. Good to see you in Steamboat last weekend. I remember back when i first started qualifying for Boston and the standard was 2:50. I'm a better runner today because those standards were harder.

Thanks Sage!
The writing is on the wall for all outdoor sports; if you got $ you can buy your way to the trash dump formerly known as Mt. Everest. Once the simplest – and what I termed “the noblest” in my books – sport of foot racing is growing more expensive each year, thus trending towards more elitism. When younger? I never thought or cared about AG’rs. At 62+? It means a lot to be racing with peers to see how our respective training approaches have truly worked. Essentially, if you’re young and fast you’re focused enough to find a way to deal with the expenses and politics or you’ll just do what we older warriors do; we race for the inner, not outer rewards. 🙏🏽

It's nice to have an apirational race. I wish the marathon majors were all like this, rather than having so many lotteries.

There are plenty of marathons, and ultras for beginners. Leave the elite races for the elite.

As the demand is increasing and folks are getting faster, it is inevitable that the times would reduce. Having qualified for the past 7 years, i have only had the joy of running it once in 2018 (where i got to meet you in person Sage), as i can't afford the costs of travel and accommodation, which is real bummer! Would of loved to have entered for 2025….maybe one day i may get a corporate sponsor? Good luck to you Sage in 2025!

I'm 46 years old, done 6 marathons. PB is 3:34 in 2023. BQ has always been a reach goal. When it was a sub 3:20 it felt like if the stars ever aligned, I might be able to make it. But a sub 3:15 is truly out of reach for me. That is ok. If reach goals were easily attainable they wouldn't be reach goals.

New York City Marathon has higher standards/cut off times (more difficult to make)

I'm 6:30 under after my first marathon attempt in Eugene (55 years old, been running hard for 1 year), not sounding like I will get in by many people's opinions. My time standard moved down 5 minutes for 2026…what does that mean? The "manufactured" and advertised downhill courses are a joke…like qualifying for the US Open in golf with bigger holes!

(Sorry for the long post, but I've been thinking a lot about this the last week or so and I thought I'd share what I was thinking)

I have no problem with time qualification, nor cut offs to match the allowed field size. Let the fastest qualifiers run. If you are faster than the next guy, you make it. If not, you don't. I don't believe something like the Boston Marathon, with its rich tradition of being a premier event should worry about people who do not make the cut having the opportunity to run Boston. Yes, it is an amazing race to run (or so I'm told as I've yet to qualify), and obviously many people would like to do this. But what makes it an amazing race to run is that it is difficult (for most normal humans) to qualify for, and almost everyone who hopes to qualify has to make sacrifices to do so (sometimes major ones).

But it should not be about giving people an opportunity to run Boston. You (and by "you", I mean "one" or people in general) HAVE an opportunity. You just have to run faster than enough other people who want to run Boston to make the cut. If you don't have the ability, work ethic, finances, free time, dedication, motivation, pain tolerance to make the cut off time… well, then maybe the Boston Marathon is not the right thing for you. And that's OK. But you think it is, you can keep on trying!

What makes Boston special (or in my opinion what SHOULD make Boston special), is that only the top 3%-4% of runners can get a qualifying standard and make the cut off. So you HAVE to be good, and better than 96% – 97% of other runners to be admitted into this prestigious club. But wanting something and deserving something are two different things. Just because you WANT to run Boston doesn't mean you DESERVE to run Boston. If you cannot get in with a BQ and Cut Off time… then you don't deserve it… you just don't. It doesn't matter if this is your first time qualifying, if you have qualified and missed the cut 20 times before, or if you have run it every year since you were 20. It SHOULD be about making the standard to run the race, in my opinion (I'm sure some people will disagree).

If they do a lottery, or a "first time qualifiers get an entry whether they make the cut off or not", or people who raise X amount of money for charity get in, or you are a celebrity who all of a sudden got it in their head they would like to run a Marathon and figured running Boston for their first one would be cool, or you have a bunch of Marriott Bonvoy travel points to bid for a race bib (yes, this is now a thing), you have to remember that for every person that is being let in by these means results in another runner, who worked very hard (sometimes for years or even decades) and actually DID get their BQ and now is being left out because someone else, who didn't get the BQ is being allowed to run.

I'm sorry, "but I really, REALLY want to run Boston and I can't get a BQ or make the Cut Off" is not a good reason, in my opinion, to let someone have an entry. The more people you let in with non-qualifying times, even if its for charity, or celebrity, or first time qualifiers (what about all those people before you who were first time BQs that didn't make the cut in past years), the less special it becomes.

I realize people want to run Boston because it is special, but if you make exceptions for so many non-qualifiers (BQ and Cut Off), it is no longer special. I mean last year, 27% of the participants were charity entries (or "non-BQ and Cut Off" entries… it is hard to get exact numbers on actual charity bibs). That means that 33% of the people who actually DID get a BQ were not allowed an entry… over 11,000 out of 33,000 applications. But nearly 8,000 people who did NOT BQ or Cut Off ran the race. I'm honestly really happy for these 8,000 people who got this opportunity and I'm happy for all the money that was raised for charity… I think it was like $70M!!!

But if you think about it. Charity runners are guaranteed an entry (if they make the charity goal). Boston Qualifiers are not… in fact, 1/3 of them, in spite of putting in all the long hours, training, injuries, early morning runs, life sacrifices, avoiding illness or injury etc. and finally getting their BQ, did not get entry. I wonder how charity runners would feel if in spite of meeting their fund raising goal, 1/3 of them were not given entry into the race. Would that seem "fair" to them?

Maybe they should limit charity entries to the top 66% of fund raisers. Have a qualifying standard, like $7500. But then on September 15th, release the "Cut Off" and tell people who had raised at least $7,500 that they actually had to raise $10,300 to get entry. I mean how would that feel to people who had put in all that work to raise money for charity, make the goal and then be told you didn't make it?

I'm really not trying to rag on charity runners. These entries are a part of the race and wow, $70M?! That is going to do a LOT for a lot of people in need. But it just seems like the RUNNERS are kind of treated like second class citizens here and all the priorities seem to be going to charity runners, celebrities, travel groups, frequent fliers, influencers (except @TheSeriousRunner… we know how the BAA feels about him!). Whatever entries are left after these other people are taken care of then go to the runners. It just seems a little backwards to me.

I have both run multiple times and don't feel like I need to run Boston multiple times. But the idea of giving first timers vs repeat runners is totally against the competitive idea of running. Should we stop Olympic competitors from participating in more than on year? The unique part of Boston is that it is competitive, without that I don't think Boston is that cool of a marathon to run otherwise.

The only benefit I told myself for turning 50 a couple months ago was i got to knock 5 minutes off the BQ. Well.. there that went 🙂 .. Probably the only truly fair way would be the qualifying times and the lottery. But Yeah.. maybe limiting the repeaters to every other year or every 3rd year.

Honestly, BQ times are way too easy. NYC marathon is much harder to qualify for and Boston should use similar times. Sage, please do a shakeout group run in Boston 2025. I would love to meet you in person, I'm running Boston 2025.

Get rid of the massive downhill races, and check which qualifying races have the worst finish times for Boston, and get rid of those too.