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

Dublin Marathon moves to lottery entries!

Options
145791029

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 45 akeady


    ligerdub wrote: »
    You're right, but the

    2019 edition sold out 22,500 spots in about 40 days,
    2018 edition sold out 20,000 spots by May
    2017 edition sold out 20,000 spots by July
    2016 edition sold out 17,500 spots by August

    2016 was the first time the DCM ever sold out. There were "just" 13,000 for 2015.

    Taking these numbers for entries, the numbers finishing haven't changed by nearly so much and the numbers finishing as a percentage of those entering are considerably lower now.

    Finishers / Entries

    2019: 17725 / 22500 = 78.8%
    2018: 16251 / 20000 = 81.3%
    2017: 16104 / 20000 = 80.5%
    2016: 16762 / 17500 = 95.8%

    [It's likely that some more finishers will be added to the 2019 numbers, as this seems to happen in the days and weeks after a race - in fact, the 2016 and 2017 numbers were slightly higher when I looked today than the last time I updated my boring spreadsheet, maybe a year or more ago]

    When the race filled up in August (2016), a very high percentage of those who entered actually ran. While 2500 more people entered in 2017 than in 2016, 658 fewer finished! This year, there were 2500 extra places compared to last year, but only 1474 more finishers.

    There were 963 more finishers this year than in 2016, with 5000 more entries - is it likely that there's a large increase in demand from people or just that people are entering earlier, to be sure of a spot, and then are unable to take part, for one reason or another?

    ATB,
    Aidan.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,467 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    Vinnie222 wrote: »
    Good for age. Men Qualifying standard
    Age 18-34 sub 3:00
    Age 35-39 sub 3:02:30
    Age 40-44 sub 3:05
    Age 45-49 sub 3:10
    Age 50-54 sub 3:15
    Age 55-59 sub 3:20
    Age 60-64 sub 3:45
    Age 65-69 sub 4:00
    Age 70-74 sub 5:00
    Age 75-79 sub 5:15
    Age 80+ sub 5:30
    Women Qualifying standard
    Age 18-34 sub 3:45
    Age 35-39 sub 3:47:30
    Age 40-44 sub 3:50
    Age 45-49 sub 3:53
    Age 50-54 sub 4:00
    Age 55-59 sub 4:05
    Age 60-64 sub 4:30
    Age 65-69 sub 5:00
    Age 70-74 sub 6:00
    Age 75-79 sub 6:20
    Age 80+ sub 6:40

    For Dublin

    I guess I will have to identify as a 60-64 year old women


  • Registered Users Posts: 235 ✭✭Tommy Max


    From what I can see, less than 18k out of 22.5k actually ran this year. my result showed that so i assume it was excluding anybody who failed to finish as many would of still been running after I had finished.

    anybody confirm the actual turn out? if it is in fact less than 18k then there is a big issue over so many not taking part and so many others missing out?


  • Registered Users Posts: 905 ✭✭✭Vinnie222


    ted1 wrote: »
    I guess I will have to identify as a 60-64 year old women

    It's a National Championship they should be no qualifying times


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 20,365 Mod ✭✭✭✭RacoonQueen


    Tommy Max wrote: »
    From what I can see, less than 18k out of 22.5k actually ran this year. my result showed that so i assume it was excluding anybody who failed to finish as many would of still been running after I had finished.

    anybody confirm the actual turn out? if it is in fact less than 18k then there is a big issue over so many not taking part and so many others missing out?

    As has already been said on thread, all races bank on a certain % not turning up and 20% is about average for no shows.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,584 ✭✭✭ligerdub


    akeady wrote: »
    Taking these numbers for entries, the numbers finishing haven't changed by nearly so much and the numbers finishing as a percentage of those entering are considerably lower now.

    Finishers / Entries

    2019: 17725 / 22500 = 78.8%
    2018: 16251 / 20000 = 81.3%
    2017: 16104 / 20000 = 80.5%
    2016: 16762 / 17500 = 95.8%

    [It's likely that some more finishers will be added to the 2019 numbers, as this seems to happen in the days and weeks after a race - in fact, the 2016 and 2017 numbers were slightly higher when I looked today than the last time I updated my boring spreadsheet, maybe a year or more ago]

    When the race filled up in August (2016), a very high percentage of those who entered actually ran. While 2500 more people entered in 2017 than in 2016, 658 fewer finished! This year, there were 2500 extra places compared to last year, but only 1474 more finishers.

    There were 963 more finishers this year than in 2016, with 5000 more entries - is it likely that there's a large increase in demand from people or just that people are entering earlier, to be sure of a spot, and then are unable to take part, for one reason or another?

    ATB,
    Aidan.

    Great post, and it's a fair observation. However, it's logical to assume that a race that sells out in 2 months out from a race will have a much higher percentage of finishers than one than sold out almost a year in advance. The organisers probably knew that would happen, but it's a very new problem for DCM organisers. It's not that long since they were seeing numbers going massively down not up.

    They've also cracked down a lot more on those transferring numbers, or those who sold numbers for other races in the series, so the numbers taking someone else's number (I'm not advocating it) also had downward pressure on those actually running the race.

    People entering 2 to 3 months out can plan accordingly and can predict with decent accuracy that they'll be in the shape needed to do it. It's different for people 12 months out, they could have all sorts of change of personal circumstances, motivation, ability to run, they might not even be in the country.

    Some of those numbers though can't really be explained by selling out quicker, such as the drop from 2016 to 2017, so who knows.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 591 ✭✭✭Cona


    What’s Dublin’s transgender policy?


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,193 ✭✭✭PaulieC


    Cona wrote: »
    What’s Dublin’s transgender policy?

    Jeez, this must be a record. Longest thread ever before something completely off topic is posted 😄


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    PaulieC wrote: »
    Jeez, this must be a record. Longest thread ever before something completely off topic is posted 😄

    It's fair to assume it's a tongue in check reference to the qualification time for men versus women.
    I guess it's needs to spelt out clearly.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,193 ✭✭✭PaulieC


    It's fair to assume it's a tongue in check reference to the qualification time for men versus women.
    I guess it's needs to spelt out clearly.

    Maybe. Bit obvious though.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,449 ✭✭✭✭Murph_D


    I assume these GFA times are determined by Athletics Ireland and not the Dublin Marathon people as their point is to restrict entry to the separate entry for AI members?

    Any announcement as to why they used London Q times rather than something that better reflects historic standards, or is this a fallback to protect clubs who have their fastest runners excluded by the lottery?

    If so, again the GFA flak should be directed at AI, not DM.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,080 ✭✭✭BeepBeep67


    They are the same as is posted earlier, this is last years team results
    https://www.athleticsireland.ie/downloads/eshop/Team_Results_Published_01112018.pdf

    and overall championship where 19 women under 35 make the cut. Bull****.
    https://www.athleticsireland.ie/downloads/eshop/Age_Category_Results_Published_01112018.pdf

    Screenshot-2019-10-29-at-22-15-46.png
    Screenshot-2019-10-29-at-22-25-05.png

    5 of 9 F50 2018 team medalists did not have the 2020 AG standard.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,400 ✭✭✭✭Burkie1203


    ligerdub wrote: »
    Great post, and it's a fair observation. However, it's logical to assume that a race that sells out in 2 months out from a race will have a much higher percentage of finishers than one than sold out almost a year in advance. The organisers probably knew that would happen, but it's a very new problem for DCM organisers. It's not that long since they were seeing numbers going massively down not up.

    They've also cracked down a lot more on those transferring numbers, or those who sold numbers for other races in the series, so the numbers taking someone else's number (I'm not advocating it) also had downward pressure on those actually running the race.

    People entering 2 to 3 months out can plan accordingly and can predict with decent accuracy that they'll be in the shape needed to do it. It's different for people 12 months out, they could have all sorts of change of personal circumstances, motivation, ability to run, they might not even be in the country.

    Some of those numbers though can't really be explained by selling out quicker, such as the drop from 2016 to 2017, so who knows.

    The lottery is being used to remove the time wasters who sign up and by xmas have forgotten all about it and don't run a single KM training.

    I expect the number of people who actually run next year to get close to 21000 as a result.

    If numbers drop off or demand isn't as expected they will just go back to how it was previous


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 591 ✭✭✭Cona


    Burkie1203 wrote: »
    The lottery is being used to remove the time wasters who sign up and by xmas have forgotten all about it and don't run a single KM training.

    I expect the number of people who actually run next year to get close to 21000 as a result.

    If numbers drop off or demand isn't as expected they will just go back to how it was previous

    Why would a lotto remove time wasters? If anything it is going to add to it significantly.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,884 ✭✭✭Van.Bosch


    Cona wrote: »
    Why would a lotto remove time wasters? If anything it is going to add to it significantly.

    Yeah, before you had to pay in full initially. Now you just have to pay 15 which is refundable. So people will enter for the craic.


  • Registered Users Posts: 18,366 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    Burkie1203 wrote: »
    The lottery is being used to remove the time wasters who sign up and by xmas have forgotten all about it and don't run a single KM training.

    But a well organised transfer system would be infinitely better at addressing that problem, certainly better than a lottery system where people still have to confirm their place 9 months in advance.

    So why go with a lottery when there is a much better way of addressing that problem?


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 20,365 Mod ✭✭✭✭RacoonQueen


    Burkie1203 wrote: »
    The lottery is being used to remove the time wasters who sign up and by xmas have forgotten all about it and don't run a single KM training.

    I expect the number of people who actually run next year to get close to 21000 as a result.

    If numbers drop off or demand isn't as expected they will just go back to how it was previous


    People had to sign up a year in advance without being 100% sure of what their goals would be the following year, they are not time wasters :rolleyes: A lot of things can change for a person within 11 months. For many, possibly more so pointy end runners, goals can change dramatically and the marathon may not be a focus any more once it rolls around.
    And again, Dublin marathon do not care that 20% do not show up, this is what they want and what they cater for. Why do people find this so difficult to understand? if they had a 10% drop out rate they'd be in trouble with t-shirt, medal, water volumes etc so their profit margin would be less. The expected drop out are subsidising everyone elses race.

    BeepBeep67 wrote: »
    5 of 9 F50 2018 team medalists did not have the 2020 AG standard.

    Yep, looked at some of the male age groups and could see a huge % of their championship fields being knocked out and that clubs wouldn't be able to field teams, some wouldn't be able to field senior or M35/F35 teams and they'd be ordinarily top 5 teams. Insane. I wonder did AI approve the new qualification system for the national championships?


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,449 ✭✭✭✭Murph_D


    I wonder did AI approve the new qualification system for the national championships?

    I’m sure they did. It would be extraordinary if they didn’t.

    But they will say the vast majority will get in via the ballot anyway, and they’ll be right. (And no, I don’t think this is a good way to do it.)


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,338 ✭✭✭TheW1zard


    Considering the amount of entries available the average marathoner is more than likely to get a place, considering the booking window is a month and not 6 odd months like previously no?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,338 ✭✭✭TheW1zard


    Also if I run a 3.01 its considered bad for my age :rolleyes::rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,400 ✭✭✭✭Burkie1203


    Cona wrote: »
    Why would a lotto remove time wasters? If anything it is going to add to it significantly.

    Because if they get an entry and have to pay in 3 months time they will have already had a change of mind. If they buy one now and forget about it those numbers are lost to the system. I would guess a lot of the no-shows entered on a whim last November at €70 and had forgotten about it by xmas. I know 2 or 3 who did so and didn't even go for a refund in June/July.

    Or else demand won't be as high as expected and everyone who enters gets a race number.

    I think we need to let this play out before judging it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Burkie1203 wrote: »
    The lottery is being used to remove the time wasters who sign up and by xmas have forgotten all about it and don't run a single KM training.

    I expect the number of people who actually run next year to get close to 21000 as a result.

    If numbers drop off or demand isn't as expected they will just go back to how it was previous

    I have friends who entered the London for the crack and got in, several wouldn't run a bath but take great pleasure in saying they are in. The lottery will only encourage the 'wasters' as you put it. They have nothing to loose except 15 euro if they refuse a place.


  • Registered Users Posts: 75 ✭✭chasingpaper


    TheW1zard wrote: »
    Also if I run a 3.01 its considered bad for my age :rolleyes::rolleyes:

    No not bad, just not "good" relative to serious runners. It can still be a good or great time for you personally.
    But remember there are people running an hour faster than that. Women are running 40 mins plus faster. Irish winner was 2:12. Irish women's winner was 2:32.

    3hrs is a lifetime away from these times to be fair. And there are hundreds of club runners who meet that standard. 3hrs was about 650th on men's side last weekend.
    A 10 year old girl and 9 year old boy have run sub 3.
    http://age-records.125mb.com/
    70 year old men and 55 year old women have run under 2:55

    Vinnie222 wrote: »
    It's a National Championship they should be no qualifying times

    The marathon is a national championship but it is mixed with lot of half serious runners, joggers, walkers, charity runners.
    If you cannot meet the GFA standard you are not really running in the national championship, you are running against the mass entries and whatever entry system they use is appropriate for that level of runner.

    It is different from national champs on track where there are no masses. People generally don't turn up and take 135% (3hrs/2:12), or typically way longer, to finish than the top end of the race. The fact that you would be alone on the track miles behind, or getting repeatedly lapped, is generally a deterrent, so qualifying system isn't required.

    Imagine sticking a massive park run along with national 5k race on track, you could finish in 19 mins, get lapped 4 or 5 times, still be top of park runners though and feel good about yourself, but you are really in a different race. That is the marathon.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,507 ✭✭✭Damo 2k9


    No not bad, just not "good" relative to serious runners. It can still be a good or great time for you personally.
    But remember there are people running an hour faster than that. Women are running 40 mins plus faster. Irish winner was 2:12. Irish women's winner was 2:32.

    3hrs is a lifetime away from these times to be fair. And there are hundreds of club runners who meet that standard. 3hrs was about 650th on men's side last weekend.
    A 10 year old girl and 9 year old boy have run sub 3.
    http://age-records.125mb.com/
    70 year old men and 55 year old women have run under 2:55
    So running 3:01 doesnt class you as a serious runner? Whats the magic number we have to hit before we can call ourselves serious runners?


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,583 ✭✭✭✭tunney


    Damo 2k9 wrote: »
    So running 3:01 doesnt class you as a serious runner? Whats the magic number we have to hit before we can call ourselves serious runners?

    2:59


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,171 ✭✭✭ooter


    has anyone got a link to the GFA times on the official site?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,807 ✭✭✭skyblue46


    The marathon is a national championship but it is mixed with lot of half serious runners, joggers, walkers, charity runners.
    If you cannot meet the GFA standard you are not really running in the national championship, you are running against the mass entries and whatever entry system they use is appropriate for that level of runner.

    People who won medals in masters team events in the Nationals won them with times which didn't meet GFA requirements. I think they were "really running".

    As Murph said most will probably get in through the public ballot anyway.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,811 ✭✭✭Tigerandahalf


    How much will it actually cost now to enter?
    You pay €15 for the lottery. How much more do you pay if you are successful?

    Thanks


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    How much will it actually cost now to enter?
    You pay €15 for the lottery. How much more do you pay if you are successful?

    Thanks

    78.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,807 ✭✭✭skyblue46


    How much will it actually cost now to enter?
    You pay €15 for the lottery. How much more do you pay if you are successful?

    Thanks

    Another 75 plus 3 admin...the same as the top tier last year. Tiered pricing is gone.


Advertisement