Just noticed that the VMLM GfA time for Male 18-39 is now 3:00 rather than the 3:05 it was previously and that they're now employing a system similar to Boston of capping numbers for each gender at 3000 and reducing these times further if necessary.
How long has this been the case?! I'd been expecting another cut in times sooner rather than later, but that's a bit of a double-blow! Especially after all the changes to the public ballot process that drastically slashed the odds of getting a spot there.
You would guess that a reducing the "qualification" time is going to be almost certain seeing as it's impossible to raise them to reach the 3000 if they're too fast, because those people in the 3:00-3:01 won't even have applied!
Anyone know how fast I'd realistically have to run to secure a GfA spot for M18-39? Is there a thread already discussing this as I feel like I might be a little late to the party?!
0 ·
Comments
I researched it a bit more thoroughly and discovered that the cut to 3:00 for M18-39 was at least in place last year, but the capped number of GfA places is new for this year.
I started a similar thread in the General Running forum, because I figured it's a fairly important topic for a broad range of people and the title of this thread may limit its appeal
https://forums.runnersworld.co.uk/discussion/347121/changes-to-london-marathon-good-for-age-applications
I wonder if they are making the same gender balance stipulation for ballot and charity places... and C list celebrities!
I guess if oversubscribed they will take a minute off the qualifying time for each age group of both men/women and keep going until they get down to the 3000 each they will accept.
There may be a greater number of applicants in M18-39 and where the cutoff lays relative to the published times may be driven by this, but this method is arguably a lot more punitive to this group because it's much harder to shave two minutes off a 3:00 marathon than it is off a 5:00+ one for the older age groups.
At the end of the day the distribution of spots across the age groups is driven by the different GfA times (and year-by-year adjustments therein) not by the number of applicants in that group.
"Reduced evenly" could also mean reduced by the same percentage rather than the same time, which would avoid your issue AW3. But at the end of the day there are also going to be some age group targets that are harder than others, they're not perfect.
What I haven't seen is whether GFA deferrals, who from 2019 have to apply for the next race through the GFA process but once they've done so are guaranteed a place without risk of being cut, are counted among the 3000 limit or not.
As I mentioned previously, it's basically a copy of the Boston Qualification system (albeit with two separate pools for Male and Female participants). Boston determine a single "cutoff" time that is subtracted from every age-group's GfA time that will reduce the total number of qualifiers to the desired level. That system has been in place since 2012 and you can see those historical cutoffs on their Wikipedia page, typically around a couple of minutes.
But yes, as you say, some age-groups are more competitive than others and to achieve an even spread of participants across age-groups then some targets will be relatively harder than others. I guess that's the way the cookie crumbles, but as I mentioned above, it feels like a double blow being in M18-39 considering the time has now effectively been cut by around 7-8 mins in two years!
I think also you may find that what appears to be an easier target of some of the older categories may not seem quite so straightforward when you reach that age group! Nevertheless I agree that sub 3 is tough and should guarantee GFA.
If that's right, though, then having a total cap across all the different age groups and making younger sub-3 runners compete for places against older runners further back makes no sense: if there's still space towards the front of the race, then how many people have already been given places further back shouldn't affect whether a faster runner gets a place or not.
In theory, a load of fast V70s could scoop up pretty much all of the 6000 GFA places by running sub-5/sub-6 by 15 minutes or so, causing massive congestion in the middle of the race and loneliness for the few faster runners that get in through the ballot.
What they should do is work out the course capacity and cap the number of runners in each time range. To make sure older runners aren't disadvantaged by running faster times putting them in a more competitive time range, they could then let in the oldest runners in each time range until they hit that time range's limit.
Simple. Can't think why they didn't go with a system like this.
If they hadnt put in the waves then I'd think the tighter GFA might cause problems.