Listen: I get why you're excited. Most of us will never run in the Olympics or the Olympic trials or even routinely place at local races. But Boston is a goal that's attainable for serious runners. And I'm appropriately jealous.
One thing that's been brought up - by at least the WSJ, if not the BAA - is lowering the qualifying standards for women. Evidently women's racing (both in participation and elite finishing times) has outpaced men's. Should they tighten the standards to prevent their servers from freaking out next year? Doesn't much matter to me. Boston is far enough beyond me that it's not a realistic goal for me any time soon. But it kind of does matter, in that it's not just Boston but all races that seem to be filling up like wildfire. Supply for race entries can barely keep up with demand, and new races are popping up everywhere. Registration for Chicago closed in March, nearly 8 months before the race was scheduled to take place.
|Real picture of the BAA's servers this morning.|
Okay, I'm kidding.
So, I ran some numbers. (When someone says something like "run some numbers," you're supposed to be impressed, especially if that person works in the humanities.) How many Chicago finishers qualified for Boston? I focused on the women because, you know, I am one and all.
16108 women finished the Chicago Marathon.
1242 women qualified for Boston at the Chicago Marathon.
7.7% of women who finished the 2010 Chicago Marathon qualified for Boston.
By age group, qualifiers/finishers (and percentage):
16-34: 570/8513 (6.7%)
35-39: 175/2551 (6.9%)
40-44: 216/2247 (9.6%)
45-49: 164/1416 (11.6%)
50-54: 71/802 (8.9%)
55-59: 26/327 (8%)
60-64: 15/126 (11.9%)
65-69: 3/29 (10.3%)
70-74: 2/7 (29%)
I was one of 92% of female finishers of the 2010 Chicago Marathon who did not qualify for Boston. And I'm okay with that. Also? When I'm in my 70s, still running, I'm SO getting a top-ten age group finish.