Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Marathon Lotteries Vs First-come Vs Age/Performance

  • 11-09-2013 10:59am
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,550 ✭✭✭✭


    Of the big 'six' marathon majors, four of 'em are now lotteries. Specifically:
    Tokyo: 1/10 chance of getting a spot
    London*: 1/50
    New York*: 1/10
    Berlin: TBC

    Chicago continues to work a first come first served, while Boston has a age/performance related grading system for entry. Just wonder what people's thoughts are, on the lottery versus the age/performance grading system? Is the lottery the fairest method for distributing marathon entries, or should it be on a first come first served basis? Should they adopt the Boston model and distribute all entries based on age/performance? Will any on the entry models lead to a decline in overall performance?

    *Aware that some marathons have a limited age/performance entry system, but these are largely lottery systems.


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭belcarra


    Berlin is now Lottery also :-(

    Certainly the age/performance criteria for Boston definitely adds to its prestige. I think the fact that you have to work so hard just to get in to it makes it extra special. (Hopefully it'll be worth it anyways if I ever do qualify!)
    The lottery for NYC & London is sh1t though. However, once you have ran them all is quickly forgotten (personally speaking for NYC anyways).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    I don't mind the lotteries so much as the charity places. My preferred system would be to have some places given to people who run a qualifying time, and the other places distributed by lot (with separate starts for the qualifiers and the lottery winners).
    If any of those people want to raise money for charity, good for them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,550 ✭✭✭✭Krusty_Clown


    I guess the reality is that all of these marathons sell out within hours, so they can use any entry system they like. At the most basic level (without trying to introduce elitism), they are running races, rather than tests of endurance. Whether we like it or not, every single finisher is ranked according to how long it takes them to complete the distance compared to everyone else in the race.

    So, instead of having the randomness of a lottery, or the speed at which one can hit the refresh button on one's browser, why not have the basis for entry entirely based on age graded performance? Use IAAF Gold/Silver/Bronze marathons as qualifiers for these Blue Riband events? Kind of like a 'world championships' for amateur runners. Would this be completely unfair, as it would prohibit slower runners from ever competing in a marathon major, or would it drive the standard upwards, as runners improve to participate in a prestige event?

    At the root of it all, I suspect the fact that marathon majors are big money-making machines will ultimately determine how registration happens. If you can charge people to enter a lottery, where the prize is another fee to be paid, well that's like free money, right there! (I don't believe that Berlin or Tokyo charge to enter the lottery).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 606 ✭✭✭Slow_Runner


    If all 6 majors went to age/performance then all us mere mortals would never get a chance to experience running them:(. Many people could never aspire to sub 3:10 - me included. Personally there should be (sizable?)entries for age/performance (it is a major after all) but lottery seems to be the fairest way for the rest.

    Boston is the exception in that famous in its entry requirements so the fact you qualify for Boston is almost more of an achievement than running it. Would changing the others to the same entry system dilute the charm of Boston?? Who knows?

    From watching the London marathon on the goggle box it comes across more as a charity/morale boosting celebration than an actual race outside the elites (perhaps that's the BBC coverage as have never been there <2014 fingers crossed>)

    Ramble over!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,818 ✭✭✭nerraw1111


    It’s a difficult one.

    Initially, qualification times seems like the best way to go. But then, that alienates a lot of people, particularly, locals wanting to run their home race.

    That’s what makes Boston so attractive. Virtually every marathon event discussion has at least one person mentioning Boston qualifying time, be it as a target, or simply as a marker of a good time.

    Perhaps have a quota of places for locals outside the qualifying times, and for everyone else, if you want to run a major, you have to earn it and then lottery for the remaining places.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,864 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


    I go with a certain section of first come first serve and another section of time for age.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 511 ✭✭✭EauRouge79


    I go with a certain section of first come first serve and another section of time for age.

    +1 on this.

    1st Come 1st Served for the most part and a some % allocation for "good for age"


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,144 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    There must be some other criteria for gaining entry to Boston, otherwise how do you explain the non-pensioners finishing on this page of results:
    http://www.marathonguide.com/results/browse.cfm?MIDD=15120416&Gen=B&Begin=20901&End=21000&Max=21554

    London has a lottery, but the main method of entry for people is down to charity places and therefore how good you are at pestering other people to part with their cash.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,762 ✭✭✭✭ecoli


    robinph wrote: »
    There must be some other criteria for gaining entry to Boston, otherwise how do you explain the non-pensioners finishing on this page of results:
    http://www.marathonguide.com/results/browse.cfm?MIDD=15120416&Gen=B&Begin=20901&End=21000&Max=21554

    Charity runner entries as far as I know or entries bought through agents (AFAIK these people aren't subject to these criteria but pay extra)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 629 ✭✭✭Clum


    The Major Marathons could be populated by feeder marathons.

    Take London for example. About 35000 people run the marathon every year. 35 marathons around the world could apply to be a qualifying marathon with 1000 places each. These could then be divided amoung the age groups based on percentages of particpiants' age. So maybe something like 100 senior male spots and 100 senior female spots. If the 100 places are not taken by the first 100 seniors then the remaining places roll down to 101st, 102nd, etc. Maybe weigh local marathons with more places. For London this would mean more spots would be available in UK marathons, for example 20000 places in other UK marathons and 15000 places from international marathons.

    Or a feeder marathon could be a feeder for a number of Major Marathons with those running in qualifying positions choosing which marathon they wish to take a place in.

    This would give feeder marathons more prestige also because a lot of runners would choose these races just for the qualifying process.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    20% of Boston places (I think) are not BQ places - they're allocated/sold? to running clubs, sponsors, charities and agencies.

    I think Slow_Runner is selling himself short, there's no reason why he can't run a 3.10 marathon. Maybe not this year or next year, but if it's an important goal to you, it's achievable. But there are a lot of people who think the times are unattainable, so a lottery/fastest finger gives them another way in.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    Clum wrote: »
    Take London for example. About 35000 people run the marathon every year. 35 marathons around the world could apply to be a qualifying marathon with 1000 places each.

    Reminds me of Iron Man TM and its Kona qualification money spinner process


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,818 ✭✭✭nerraw1111


    RayCun wrote: »
    Reminds me of Iron Man TM and its Kona qualification money spinner process

    Yup, that would be awful idea.

    There are already thousands of qualifying races.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,144 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    The slowest BQ time is 4:55, and you have to be 80 to claim that. Only pensioners, or people rapidly approaching pensioner status can claim a time over 4hrs, but from a quick look at the spread of finish times chart on the marathonguide.com site well over 50% of finishers are finishing in times from 4:30 down. That is a lot of people having a bad day in the office if they had got a place via qualifying times. I would guess a lot more than 20% of the places are given to non-BQ people.

    Of the 35,000 entries for London, only 10,000 or so are in the lottery, and another couple of thousand for GFA then celebs and elites make up the rest. Get out there shaking a charity bucket if you really want a place in London.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 629 ✭✭✭Clum


    RayCun wrote: »
    Reminds me of Iron Man TM and its Kona qualification money spinner process

    Yeah, that's where I got the idea. But there's not much different between Major Marathon's and their money making schemes and Ironman and their money making schemes.
    nerraw1111 wrote: »
    Yup, that would be awful idea.

    There are already thousands of qualifying races.

    I don't think it would be that bad an idea. It'd give me more hope of qualifying for a major marathon than blindly entering a lottery every year for the rest of my life. I've entered the London lottery about 6 times now with no luck and there's no reason to expect my luck to change.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭belcarra


    robinph wrote: »
    The slowest BQ time is 4:55, and you have to be 80 to claim that. Only pensioners, or people rapidly approaching pensioner status can claim a time over 4hrs, but from a quick look at the spread of finish times chart on the marathonguide.com site well over 50% of finishers are finishing in times from 4:30 down. That is a lot of people having a bad day in the office if they had got a place via qualifying times. I would guess a lot more than 20% of the places are given to non-BQ people.

    http://www.marathonguide.com/results/browse.cfm?MIDD=15130415
    Ironically when you look at the 2013 data you get the output you'd expect Robin but hopefully we'll never have to suffer through this year's despicable process again!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 502 ✭✭✭ClashCityRocker


    The 9+1 thing they have for New York is an excellent idea imo and rewards local runners who support club races etc all year round. A friend of mine living in Manhattan is running it this year as a result of this

    http://www.nyrr.org/join-and-give/become-a-member/run-9-give-1


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 332 ✭✭kkcatlou


    I just noticed the average 2012 Dublin marathon time (4.14) is faster than the average Boston time (4.18), so there's definitely something funny there!

    Since I've posted this, I've become a little bit obsessed with that link, and have noticed that Dublin has one of the fastest average marathon times around - faster than London, New York, Sydney, Boston, etc.... Could this be right? And why would this be? Are we faster over here, or is the course easier?


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,144 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    The London guaranteed entry times and Boston qualification times (which do not guarantee entry) are not wildly different. They only diverge by significant amount once you reach the over 70 age category.

    http://www.virginmoneylondonmarathon.com/marathon-centre/enter-virgin-london-marathon/good-for-age-entries/
    http://www.baa.org/races/boston-marathon/participant-information/qualifying/qualifying-standards.aspx

    There were 736 people in total who finished inside the 3:05 time in Boston 2012. There were 1731 finishers inside that time in London 2013, not including elites, and nobody gets turned away if they have the time for GFA in London.

    Boston is lying if they are claiming that the majority of people get in with qualification times. They must have very limited numbers of places available if they are only letting in less than half the number of sub 3:05 runners than London does.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,148 ✭✭✭rom


    Would this be completely unfair, as it would prohibit slower runners from ever competing in a marathon major
    Life is unfair. Anything worth achieving is hard work. The marathon majors should be performance based simple as. It would mean that I wouldn't be running Berlin this year which would be fair. Its not like saying that I couldn't run any other race but in the current lottery systems their in no achievement getting into one of these marathon majors. People like to throw around comment like they are not talented runners or they would never achieve the time. Anything is possible with hard work. Other than New York the times are achievable for most who put the work in. If you want to go for the atmosphere, the occasion, sightseeing etc. then go on a city break.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭RayCun


    On the other hand, what purpose would be served by making London (for example) entry completely time based? Boston qualification has a tradition behind it, and it's special because it is one of the few mass participation races that awards most places on the basis of times. But if all the majors did that? Where would the kudos be in qualifying for London if 80,000 places were awarded based on qualifying times? How soft would those times be? 3.30 for a MS? 3.50? If the three US majors had a BQ model there would be 70-80,000 places a year available to the fastest runners in the US, so again the slowest of those would not be very fast.
    Probably massive congestion too. Instead of the usual distribution centred around the 4/4.30 mark you'd have twice as many people at every time up to 4.30/5 hours.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 610 ✭✭✭figs


    robinph wrote: »

    There were 736 people in total who finished inside the 3:05 time in Boston 2012. There were 1731 finishers inside that time in London 2013, not including elites, and nobody gets turned away if they have the time for GFA in London.

    Boston is lying if they are claiming that the majority of people get in with qualification times. They must have very limited numbers of places available if they are only letting in less than half the number of sub 3:05 runners than London does.

    Unfortunately Boston 2012 is not a great race to use for comparison... it was one of the hottest Boston marathons ever. I qualified for the 3:05 time, and hoped to go significantly under 3. It took me almost 4 hours on the day. Much better runners also were outside the 3:05 limit.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,148 ✭✭✭rom


    Personally I don't think it should be a lottery. You should have to earn your place somehow be it raise money for a charity, help out with the sport or run a certain number of other events. Big city marathons are turning into mini marathons where it essentially is the sociable thing to do. Put in the least amount of training and talk about it around the water cooler. Look at Ballycotton for example. People are more concerned about a new mug that they can bring to work than their time. Or in the US them wearing their suit with their medal the next day.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,818 ✭✭✭nerraw1111


    rom wrote: »
    Personally I don't think it should be a lottery. You should have to earn your place somehow be it raise money for a charity, help out with the sport or run a certain number of other events. Big city marathons are turning into mini marathons where it essentially is the sociable thing to do. Put in the least amount of training and talk about it around the water cooler. Look at Ballycotton for example. People are more concerned about a new mug that they can bring to work than their time. Or in the US them wearing their suit with their medal the next day.

    Nothing wrong with that. That's the point of big city marathons. Always has been.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 214 ✭✭Smartguy


    The reality for most people is that the marathon is a time trial rather than a race. It's not like the lottery system is excluding a potential race winner.

    some hybrid system where say sub2.50 hour runners are gives bit of favouritism but still plenty of room for the mass public would be my preference


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 444 ✭✭PVincent


    I have done 3 majors via the charity route and probably will do Berlin the same way. BUT as a runner , despite being able to buy a place in Boston without having a time, I would much prefer to HAVE the qualifying time. And I think most runners still talk in a reverent tone about qualifying for Boston as a real status symbol. Because they have always had the target , it has that added appeal. I just wonder how quickly others will develop that same status with the qualifying time.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,642 ✭✭✭TRR


    Just reading through these posts breaking my heart laughing. Marathon "majors" ? Biggest marketing scam going! If youre willing to buy into that crap then fair enough. Rotterdam and Paris are in the same league as the "majors"

    Anyway back to original question. For large marathons that get oversubscribed an open lottery with slots set aside for time qualifiers would be my preference.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,144 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    figs wrote: »
    Unfortunately Boston 2012 is not a great race to use for comparison... it was one of the hottest Boston marathons ever. I qualified for the 3:05 time, and hoped to go significantly under 3. It took me almost 4 hours on the day. Much better runners also were outside the 3:05 limit.

    Good point, had forgotten about that years results being skewed. That actually makes the 2013 results for sub 3:05 times a fairer comparison then, and this year there were 2832 runners getting that time in Boston.



    Edit: Strangely the last M18-39 sub 3:05 finisher in London this year was a boardsie.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,642 ✭✭✭TRR


    robinph wrote: »
    Edit: Strangely the last M18-39 sub 3:05 finisher in London this year was a boardsie.

    YEAH FAIR PLAY TO BRIAN ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,915 ✭✭✭✭menoscemo


    TRR wrote: »
    YEAH FAIR PLAY TO BRIAN ;)

    haha, I had to work for that at the end.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,864 ✭✭✭✭average_runner


    rom wrote: »
    Life is unfair. Anything worth achieving is hard work. The marathon majors should be performance based simple as. It would mean that I wouldn't be running Berlin this year which would be fair. Its not like saying that I couldn't run any other race but in the current lottery systems their in no achievement getting into one of these marathon majors. People like to throw around comment like they are not talented runners or they would never achieve the time. Anything is possible with hard work. Other than New York the times are achievable for most who put the work in. If you want to go for the atmosphere, the occasion, sightseeing etc. then go on a city break.

    You dont think this will force the average runner out of running and then lead to a decline in numbers running? Hence the majors will have to drop their standard?

    Sometimes a joe soap could enter a major for fun but take it serious afterwards due to the experience he had and become a 2:40 runner, plenty have done that. Dont give them a chance and you could lose those people.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,144 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    You dont think this will force the average runner out of running and then lead to a decline in numbers running? Hence the majors will have to drop their standard?

    Sometimes a joe soap could enter a major for fun but take it serious afterwards due to the experience he had and become a 2:40 runner, plenty have done that. Dont give them a chance and you could lose those people.

    For exhibit A, I give you Steve Way:
    http://www.steveway.co.uk/


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,053 ✭✭✭opus


    belcarra wrote: »
    Berlin is now Lottery also :-(

    Bit disappointing as I was thinking of a return trip to Berlin next year :( Personally I'd prefer the performance angle but can see how the lottery gives everyone an equal chance, will throw my name in the hat and see what happens.

    Of course I reserve the right to use the GFA route to the VLM again using my 'UK address' ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,550 ✭✭✭✭Krusty_Clown


    TRR wrote: »
    Just reading through these posts breaking my heart laughing. Marathon "majors" ? Biggest marketing scam going!
    True enough! I forget that sometimes, in my pursuit of all those shiny medals! At the same time, if you remove the 'major' moniker, they are still the marathons with the greatest tradition and prestige (with the exception of Tokyo), having been around for 35+ years and each, on numerous occasions having celebrated marathon world records. Adding Tokyo to the list (established 2007), just confirms the money-making machine that is the 'majors'. Doesn't make me want to do them all any less though. I'm just glad that I had a qualifying time for all of those that support that method of entry. Tokyo and its lottery may prove to be the one that got away.

    If this running boom continues in the same vein, many marathons will have to consider their entry system logistics. For example, the number of Dublin finishers has almost doubled over the last decade. Not sure what the max capacity of Dublin is, but it is feasible that at some point in the near future, they will hit max. capacity, and will naturally evolve into a first-come first-served basis of entry. With the massive over-subscription of the majors, we'll likely see a knock-on impact on non-'major' marathons, as those who would previously have registered on time for the likes of Berlin, are now forced into a lottery system. Selfishly, I'd love a dual entry system (age-graded and lottery), but can't see why the organizers would be interested in complicating a system that is already pulling in money hand over fist.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,642 ✭✭✭TRR


    True enough! I forget that sometimes, in my pursuit of all those shiny medals! At the same time, if you remove the 'major' moniker, they are still the marathons with the greatest tradition and prestige (with the exception of Tokyo), having been around for 35+ years and each, on numerous occasions having celebrated marathon world records. Adding Tokyo to the list (established 2007), just confirms the money-making machine that is the 'majors'. Doesn't make me want to do them all any less though. I'm just glad that I had a qualifying time for all of those that support that method of entry. Tokyo and its lottery may prove to be the one that got away.

    Fair enough didn't realise you were a major marathon chaser. I have done 3 of the "majors" and they are everything you say regards tradition and world records. The majors thing is a gimmick though. Sure you could do Tokyo next year and what will you do then if money talks and they add Dubai or the likes to their list of majors. Anyway I've gone OT on this.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,762 ✭✭✭✭ecoli


    Personally never saw the "majors" as prestigious for that reason alone. I saw elites doing them because of the WMM purse on top of the race purse and for the rest of the general public it was just the prestige and tradition of each individual race. I know personally the likes of Boston, New York and Tokyo don't have too much appeal but the likes of Rotterdam, Fukuoka and others would.

    Personally I think that qualified entry places for a certain number of big marathons is a good idea. For years Road Running has been promoted as a hobby rather than a sport. The constant stream of charity stories (not having a go at them here) seem to actually take away from the fact that at the end of the day it is a sporting achievement.

    There is plenty of place for encouraging people to take up the sport but there also needs to be some form of competitive element to marathon running outside of the elites rather than leaving it solely on personal motivation/goals


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 207 ✭✭Tipp man running


    I'd imagine it would make sense to have a % of entries allocated to GFA places so that there is a more even spread of finishing times. After the elites have finished there is that big gap to fill before the "Fun Runner" start to come home.

    Also I believe if you've worked your butt off over years to get your times down there should be some benefits to you, like GFA to the the big marathons.

    Disclaimer; The term "Fun Runner" is not a term I particularly like, just borrowing an overused word by commentators.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,643 ✭✭✭ThePiedPiper


    London has a lot going for it in my opinion. The GFA allows there to be a good way to aim for a guaranteed entry by running well in another race, the 3:10 qualifying is very achievable for most. Then, the lottery system gives the less serious runners the colour, fun and mass appeal that makes it such a fantastic event.

    Boston has traditionally got the prestige alright, but it is definitely getting diluted in recent years. New York is a pure money machine. I think Chicago will probably have a different system of entry after this year's nightmare, they sort of alluded to that a few months back.

    I don't mean to sound elitist about it, but I genuinely do think that people who've showed their commitment to the sport by running a couple of half decent marathons have a bit more entitlement to enter one of the very popular, much sought after races, than a person who simply wants to run the biggest marathon as their one and only race to tick a box on a 10 things to do before I die list....


Advertisement