I decided to do more "how many Chicago runners qualified for Boston?" Now you have a full set of data from this year (men and women) and last year (with near-perfect conditions).
And the results?
Here are my completely non-scientific conclusions based on two years' data for this one race:
- Conditions at Chicago were bad this year, with significantly fewer finishers;
- More younger people run marathons, by a wide margin;
- Based on percentage of finishers, middle-aged runners tend to qualify at a higher rate. Either the qualifying standards are too lax for older runners or older runners have more experience and are better trained to run hard;
- Men - especially middle-aged men who ran Chicago in 2009 - seriously need to STFU about women's "lax" standards.
|This guy ran for charity last year.|
I didn't really need to know that I got beat by an 83 year old man last year (by a wide margin), and I certainly didn't need to see how many people were heartbreakingly close to their qualifying times (3:41:03! that sort of thing).
As an fyi that most of you probably know, Boston allows 5000 non-qualifying runners to enter the race: 1600 charity runners and other "special invitation" folks (likely how Will Ferrell got his bib several years ago). While I do personally agree that charity runners should have to qualify, I don't necessarily agree that their participation (as qualifiers or not) in any way dampens the prestige of the race.
More inanity, fewer statistics tomorrow, I promise.