One thing I think some of the BQ posters forget is that they are basing their idea of "average" on the people they have known and trained with. Even those who say they were the slowest runner on their track teams were runners on their track teams. Reminds me of one colleague who couldn't understand how the average math scores could be so low - everyone in the high school he attended (in a small California town where the majority of parents were literally rocket scientists) scored over the 90th percentile on SAT exams; he scored higher than that and wasn't the best student, so he figured anyone should be able to do well in math if they just studied at all.

Take a look at the Newbie column once in a while. You'll find runners there who celebrate finally being able to complete a whole mile, runners who have trouble with the Cto5K program, have to repeat weeks, etc., but still stick with it. Way back in the good old days when Boston standards were higher most people who had trouble running a mile would never consider a running program or joining a running club. Today I know a lot of people in running clubs who were never fast enough to be on any track team or were on any athletic team, for that matter, but still want to improve their health and fitness and do train seriously to run. Some of them do get BQ times, eventually, but I know quite a few marathoners with 5-10 years of serious training and ideal weight who still can't make the standards.

brianinptown
It sounds like you have the right attitude. Keep setting those intermediate goals and keep improving and see how it goes.

Speaking personally, at 21 and ideal weight I couldn't even complete one lap of a track and took 2 months to get up to running a whole mile in 12 minutes. A few years later I was running 5 miles in 50 minutes, later still 10Ks in 50 minutes - a tremendous improvement, but that's the pace that was needed for a whole marathon for a BQ at the time. Several attempts at higher mileage (about 50 was my max) resulted in slowing down rather than speeding up and injuries - every body's limits to handle stress are diffferent. I don't think there was any way I could have an achieved a BQ at my prime and being less than 100% after back surgery and knee surgery limit my training now. On the other hand, that was a 4 min/mile improvement in pace over starting out, and a 2 min/mile improvement from year 2 or 3 to 8, so if you haven't been running long and did anywhere close to the same kind of improvement, a BQ for you certainly sounds possible.

brianinptown,

Don't ever let anyone tell you that you can't do something. Yes, genetics play a roll in this but "will power" is a very powerful trump card.

I have a friend who was 5' 10" and tipped the scales at over 250 lbs. Like you he went on a crash diet and lost more then 100 pounds and yes he did qualify for Boston. But there was 3+ years of training and there were failures as well as successes along the way. Today he is still doing marathons and Tri's and is still competitive at 45+ years old.

I'm certain that there are many people who don't make it. But it is better to try and fail then to not try at all.

My own little story goes like this. I remember playing baseball and trying to steal 2nd and the coach turning to the little league parents and saying that I was the slowest kid he had every seen. My mother was in the crowd and told me this later on. I was also the smallest, weakest and slowest kid in my high school up until I was a senior. That year I grew 13 inches and started running. I had an axe to grind with a lot of people by this time. I never became a speedster but could hold my own. When I turned 25 I ran my first Boston in 1985 (I got a waiver number for working for my club) I finished Boston in 3:20. I remember sitting in the middle of Boylston street after the finish and I was in tears. I was mentally and physically spent. I swore that I'd never do something that STUPID to my body ever again.

I was WRONG!!! This year will be my 22nd consecutive Boston. I'm still qualifying but it's getting tougher on my body as well as finding the time to train. Life does get in the way. I always try and make my family my first priority and my running 2nd. So there are weeks that I only get 30 miles in but there are weeks that I can get 70 in.

Don't ever give up your dream!! Standing on that starting line with a qualifier will be one heck of a proud moment for you.

Also charity numbers are another alternative. They fund excellent causes and give everyone a chance to experience this truly amazing race. You still have to do the training but it will be well worth it.

Brianinptown - Looks like you have the right attitude - Enjoying the journey and not just trying to grind out miles. Your choice of races tells me you are looking to have fun - That is a key component of becoming a life long runner.

Good running to you

Certainly there are some people who will never be able to qualify for Boston, but you'll never know if you're one of them until you try. Until you've trained hard for 10 or 15 years you'll never really know for sure. In the meantime enjoy the journey, train at a level you can manage without getting injured or bored with it and have fun.

Really the key to everything is to enjoy what you're doing, I sound like a sap in saying it, but it's true.

If you enjoy it, you'll stay with it, you won't mind persevering through injuries illnesses and setbacks, you won't let your ambitions get too far ahead of your abilities and you won't quit when the going gets tough. And that's what it takes to be a good runner.

If it's drudgery or if it's constant struggling for some far off goal that you may or may not attain, you probably won't be able to stick with it long enough to see what you can really accomplish. Most of us who have been running for a long time have far exceeded what we thought we could do as beginners.

Good luck with your running.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by cowardlylion:
1,000th on the US list is generally about 2:46-2:47 for men and 3:13-3:14 for women, a difference of 26 to 28 minutes. For the next cut below, the people who have to work at qualifying for Boston, 30 minutes is probably right on the money.
<HR>

I see your point, but use the WR times because it more accurately measures according to potential rather than achievement. The marathon is still a fairly new event for women, and it stands to reason that fewer women are performing to their potential than men. I think it's a relic of the "your uterus will fall out" days. I don't think there's anything wrong with having a softer standard for women - the imbalance in races like Boston is pretty ridiculous, but let's not satisfy ourselves with these perceived limitations. If Paula Radcliffe is running 2:15, there's probably a few more than 1000 women who can run an hour less fast.

And (just to return to the original topic) even 2:46-:2:47 men and 3:13-3:14 women had to work at qualifying for Boston at some point in their running careers

------------------
My Profile[/URL" target="_blank">

quote:<HR>Originally posted by ljwoodw:
I see your point, but use the WR times because it more accurately measures according to potential rather than achievement. The marathon is still a fairly new event for women, and it stands to reason that fewer women are performing to their potential than men. I think it's a relic of the "your uterus will fall out" days. I don't think there's anything wrong with having a softer standard for women - the imbalance in races like Boston is pretty ridiculous, but let's not satisfy ourselves with these perceived limitations. If Paula Radcliffe is running 2:15, there's probably a few more than 1000 women who can run an hour less fast.

And (just to return to the original topic) even 2:46-:2:47 men and 3:13-3:14 women had to work at qualifying for Boston at some point in their running careers

<HR>

The imbalance is changing. If you look at the statistics for Boston in 2006 you'll see that just as many women ran as men in the 19-39 age group. After that age group the imbalance does exist and gets worst as the age goes up. But as you can see from the 19-39 age category there really isn't an imbalance any more.

Here's the link:

http://www.baa.org/2006/cf/public/Statistics.htm[/URL" target="_blank">

quote:<HR>Originally posted by baggio16:
I'll just share my own personal example. My first marathon was 5:20 in 2003. I never dreamed of running Boston. I kept working and building a pretty good size base. Last year, I ran a 3:07 to get me in.

It took lots of work and sacrifice, but I did it.

<HR>

OUTSTANDING.