GFA Times(again)

ip(FeS2)

Can anyone remember when they were released last year?

I've looked for it a bit, but don't have time to search the whole forum

Iron SwissBobby

it was in late may early june i think

[Deleted User]

it was two weeks after Lake V marathon last year (I was having a slight panic!), ie late June...

ip(FeS2)

Thanks:

Oh well, I was hoping it was before Lake V. so I'd know beforehand what I needed.-

[ Recent 10K(44:43) time says 3:30 might just be possible ( still can't believe it ...), so 3:45 is a more sensible option.- But I'd be gutted if they then changed the rules on me :-(

Blisters

10 k time means it might be possible. It depends upon whether you could walk afterwards! There's also a big difference, as you are aware, and being trained up for 10k, even a good half doesn't mean that you get the comparable marathon time. I know.

I think it depends on the number and quality of 20 milers.

ip(FeS2)

I was fine within a couple of minutes of finishing, no aches/pains.-
Ran an 8 mile recovery run the next day no probs :-P

It was off the back of no speed work at all [ except for during the 2 weeks before when I upped my maximum heartrate for my runs .]( Kinda base training )

So I'm really hopeful, but don't want to totally crash and burn... I just have to wait and see what happens in the Breakfast Run

Broadsword Calling Danny Boy

Sub 3:45 for women!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

That's bleeding outrageous, as a bloke to get in through GFA using the sort of time that'd see a woman qualify you have to be over 60!

When the women's WR is only 10 minutes slower than the men's how can this be justified.

JFHC, Germaine Greer's been tampering with the rules!

As a bloke of thirty-one, to qualify through "Good For Age" I don't just have to be "good" I have to be "####ing amazing"!

Grrrrrrrrrrr ... !

Blisters

Ah yes, but as a bloke of 31 you are apparently at your absolute peak, and don't have the disadvantage of "age". Come back in 10 years time when the bones are creaking a bit more, and the niggling injuries occur with monotonous regularity.

Anyway, I understand that the GFA start point for Wimmin was 3:30.

To put it another way, the organisers are merely playing the statistics. The majority of entrants are male and ~30yo. The best GB marathoner happens to be female, because she raised the level of the game, and the Brit males are struggling to play catch-up.

If you want to play the game, you've got to play by their rules I'm afraid. Let's be honest. If you want to run badly enough YOU WILL DO WHATEVER IT TAKES.

ip(FeS2)

Don't do that to me blisters... The below is copied from the london marathon page. This year it's 3:45, next year, who knows?

I have to admit, I think 3:45 is generous.- I'm not "fast", and I regularly get overtaken when out running, but the predictors say I could get GFA for London.- It makes no sense when compared to the training men hoping for sub 3 seem to put in.

good for age qualifying times
Good for age applies for UK residents only.

(times need to have been achieved since January 2002)


MEN 18 - 40 2:45-3:00 WOMEN 18 - 49 3:15 -3:45
MEN 41 - 59 sub 3:15 WOMEN 50 - 54 sub 4:00
MEN 60 - 64 sub 3:30 WOMEN 55 - 59 sub 4:15
MEN 65 - 69 sub 4:00 WOMEN 60 - 64 sub 4:30
MEN 70+ sub 5:00 WOMEN 65 - 69 sub 5:30
WOMEN 70+ sub 6:30

If you are a man or woman who has achieved a performance that equals or is faster than the standards listed above then write to us at the following address:

Good for Age,
Flora London Marathon
PO Box 3460
London
SE1 8YN

Blisters

OK
I ought to know better than to try and pluck figures from memory.
Needless to say that I'm slightly over 40 and training my testosterones off to try and get 3:15. It ain't easy, and I reckon that it would put me in the top 20% nationally.

40 minutes

Surely there is a big difference between a 41 year old male & a 58 year old male? Expecting the same GFA performance from both seems a bit tough on the older ones in this group.

Looks like it's just set up to fit in with 15 minute times?

Blisters

Oooh a statistician!
You'll be playing the stats with your entry application I bet.
ie Would you have more chance in the draw if you put 3:15, 4:30, or 5:30? (Code D,F,or I)
Do they actually check if you have run before (Code A)
Number of draw rejects is irrelevant until its 5 (code F)

Remember, it's only in the broadest sense that you have a 1:3 chance in the draw, for common combinations the odds are far worse.

Good luck for Bideford.

40 minutes

Indeed I used to be a Statistician, but I recovered some time ago.

Sorry to disappoint, but my entry was quite straight (& rejected!) Fortunately I got a club place.

You also have a decent chance of GFA for next year - providing nobody lowers the times too far.

[Deleted User]

A comparison with Boston qualifiers wouldn't go amiss:

http://www.bostonmarathon.org/BostonMarathon/Qualifying.asp

So for London you can go 5 minutes slower as a woman, but as a man you need to go 10 minutes quicker. Not that I'm at all bitter about this (could comfortably do 3h15, going to try for sub-3 in 2 weeks time... I expect to come in the top 10 with that time (Bungay).

That said, just under 900 men went sub-3 last year at London, while about 780 women managed sub 3.45. So it looks like they're going for roughly equal numbers. We can argue separately about whether this is good or bad, but if it encourages lots of fit women to go out running on my training routes and ease the boredom of the long run, then I'm all for it

SusieBee

lp, having seen that you ran a storming 1:58 something at Kingston yesterday, I'd say that sub 3:30 is well within your grasp. You must have overtaken me - I finished in 2:05 but did a sub 7 minute first mile.