Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Will I run Boston 2026?

getfast.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 45 posts

Re: Will I run Boston 2026?

#21

Post by loloquwowndueo »

altcognito wrote: post #19
fsckboy wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To qualify to "run Boston", you have to run another marathon in a qualifying time just to add this to the mix: there are faster and slower marathon courses, so you can improve your qualifying time by running in one of them. "downhill" seems to be a promising factor. https://findmymarathon.com/fastestmarathoncourses-state.php?...

there is now a time adjustment for downhill, and extreme downhills are no longer qualifying https://runtothefinish.com/downhill-boston-qualifiers/

Dunno man, running downhill is murder for knees, I usually had to slow down instead of speeding up on down slopes.

Re: Will I run Boston 2026?

#22

Post by rconti »

abeppu wrote: post #10
rconti wrote: post #5

Context: There's a limit on how many people can run the Boston Marathon. To qualify to "run Boston", you have to run another marathon in a qualifying time[1], prior to applying. For example, the qualifying time for a male 40-44 is 3h05m. For a female of the same age, 3h35. Non-binary, 3h35. You submit your application and qualifying race and time, and then some time _later_, based on the number applications received…

Methodologically, why would you have one cutoff vs a different cutoff per group (as there are different qualifying times per group)? I am not a marathoner, but I'd imagine that a 6 min decrease from the stated qualifying time cuts out a larger proportion of younger runners (i.e. decreasing the threshold from 2h55 to 2h49 for men 18-34 seems like a much sharper cut than decreasing 4h20 to 4h14 for women 60-64). I woul…

Yeah, doing it by flat time delta rather than percent delta seems fundamentally flawed, but of course it makes it easier for the average person to understand.

I also don't understand what the motives are behind how the age/gender buckets are calculated in the first place. I'm not sure if it's public or not.

Are they:

* Trying to calculate based on an nth percentile finishing time across each bucket?

* Trying to ensure roughly equal percentages of applicants from each bucket get accepted?

* Something else?

Re: Will I run Boston 2026?

#23

Post by rconti »

moralestapia wrote: post #16

Why does the cutoff get smaller with increasing qualified runners? I would have expected the opposite.

It's not about _qualified_ runners, it's about the size of the total field accepted.

Boston allows "roughly" 25k participants, but that number fluctuates somewhat every year. If they allow 30k, the cutoff delta goes down. If they allowed an unlimited field, the cutoff delta would be 0, and you'd only have to worry about your published qualifying time.

Re: Will I run Boston 2026?

#24

Post by canucker2016 »

nradov wrote: post #13

If you're not fast enough to qualify then you can also run Boston 2026 by donating or raising about $10K for charity. https://www.baa.org/races/boston-marathon/charity-program

According to https://sportstoursinternational.co.uk/blog/how-to-get-entry..., you can also gain entry via a tour operator for non-USA entrants or if you've already run several of the Abbott World Marathon Majors, there's a draw program.

Boston Marathon tour operators: https://www.baa.org/races/boston-marathon/plan/international... and https://www.baa.org/boston-marathon-international-tour-progr...

Abbott World Marathon Majors draw program: https://www.worldmarathonmajors.com/content-hub/majors-draw-...

Re: Will I run Boston 2026?

#25

Post by k2enemy »

rconti wrote: post #22
abeppu wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Methodologically, why would you have one cutoff vs a different cutoff per group (as there are different qualifying times per group)? I am not a marathoner, but I'd imagine that a 6 min decrease from the stated qualifying time cuts out a larger proportion of younger runners (i.e. decreasing the threshold from 2h55 to 2h49 for men 18-34 seems like a much sharper cut than decreasing 4h20 to 4h14 for women 60-64). I woul…

Yeah, doing it by flat time delta rather than percent delta seems fundamentally flawed, but of course it makes it easier for the average person to understand. I also don't understand what the motives are behind how the age/gender buckets are calculated in the first place. I'm not sure if it's public or not. Are they: * Trying to calculate based on an nth percentile finishing time across each bucket? * Trying to ensur…

Making sure they can accept a lot of high disposable income 40+ runners that will buy a lot of merch. The time cutoffs start to get much easier after 40.

Re: Will I run Boston 2026?

#26

Post by canucker2016 »

According to Boston Marathon 2025 statistics, about 9% of entrants don't start the race.

Number of male and female entrants in the 18-39 age group are almost even, but the proportion of female entrants drops in the older age groups.

This pattern appears in 2024 and 2023 as well.

see https://registration.baa.org/2025/cf/Public/iframe_Statistic...

Re: Will I run Boston 2026?

#28

Post by Brendinooo »

Your site looks interesting but your terms of service seem really onerous. That stopped me from finishing the signup process. My running data is deeply personal; it's tied to my health metrics and contains years of location patterns around my daily life.

So when I see stuff like "irrevocable, sublicensable" rights to all of my running data...that's a lot to give up for a company and product I know very little about.

Capping your liability at $50 total for any harm and doing as much as you can to try and get me to lose access to legal protections such as class action and a jury trial is all a bit much.

Re: Will I run Boston 2026?

#30

Post by fidrelity »

Nice idea but I think the predictions are way off. I ran a 3:17 in spring and targeting a 3:10 marathon in a couple of weeks.

As unlikely as it sounds Strava predicts 3:13 (think they base it on my last marathon), Garmin is similar. Runalyze is about as off as you are.

Maybe you're putting too much emphasis on weekly volume. M35 and I can run this with 50k weekly and 75k peak volume. Relatively confident I'd be able to sub 3 with weekly volume of 80k/100k peak.

Post reply on HN