I've just discovered that the Good for Age applications process is changing for the VMLM 2019 onwards.
According to a recent blog post (link below), it would appear that the London Marathon GfA process is switching to a system similar to Boston Qualification, whereby the times published represent the maximum time required to
apply, however no longer guarantees entry.
There will be a maximum of 6000 GfA places (3000 males and 3000 females) and if the number of people achieving the times required to
apply exceeds that then those times will be reduced to cull the applicants until they're down to the fastest 3000.
I think it's fair to assume that the times are set so that at least 3000 applications will be filed, so you can only assume that you'll have to run significantly
under these times to be confident of a spot, as per the Boston Qualification process.
As a 18-39 male, it's more than a bit disheartening to have seen the GfA time cut from 3:10 to effectively a 2:58 (or lower?!) in the space of 5 years.
I posted a similar thread in
Spring Marathons, specifically regarding M18-39, but thought it might be beneficial to repost here for everyone who might be attempting to run a GfA time soon, as it may affect your race plans.
https://www.virginmoneylondonmarathon.com/en-gb/news-media/latest-news/item/gender-parity-in-new-good-for-age-qualification-process-for-the-london-marathon/
Comments
Over 5 years? Luxury. In 2003 the 18-39 GFA time got cut from 3:15 to 3:00 in one go. Finding that out in the GFA start pen was properly disheartening, I can tell you.
At least though we still knew if we were in or not.
@Cheerful Dave
What do you mean cut to 3:00 in 2003? Are you talking about the London Marathon here? Were they cut that low and then subsequently put back up more recently? Admittedly 2003 is a bit before my time as a runner, but I've only ever known the M18-39 (or wasn't it previously M18-44?) GfA times being cut from 3:10 to 3:05 (for 2014?) and from 3:05 to 3:00 (for 2018?).
My main query is how many people normally qualify via the GfA program? Does 6000 people represent a cut in the total number of spaces available and how far under the published times is one likely to need to run to get a spot now. I'd really be interested in some more details about how it'll work, but given how shady they are about the processes behind the public ballot, I suspect it'll be a blackbox process with the output being a crappy magazine in your postbox.
I don't want to seem like I'm on a massive rant but from the article it would appear that if (or when) the number of applicants exceeds 3000 they'll reduce the time for each age category evenly across the board until the number of runners is cut to 3000. Again this is somewhat unfair on the faster categories, because it means a 2:59:01 M18-39 runner would be bumped ahead of a 5:29:00 M80+ runner even though the former is proportionally a better time in relation to the cutoffs.
So it seems the GFA, certainly for the men, is now oversubscribed.
VLM would say that they are a charity and there is no "profit". I can understand that, once they've paid Mo Farah's appearance money.
I did read that the men had 3200 GFA places this year - so it's only down by 200 - it might not be as big a deal as we thought.
Still 6000+ of the runners are Good for Age - plus the Club places and the Championship qualifiers.
Did my first marathon (dublin) last year - 3.43.22. I guess it's unlikely to be good enough for 18-39 female...
Anyone got any suggestions for getting in a Marathon before august registration?
I've put in for Gloucester marathon - I was planning a fairly lazy year as I was in for London next year but now I'm 2 1/2 mins outside cutoff dammit.
Essentially the change in criteria create a bunch of sub categories: the 40-44 year olds who have run a qualifying time while aged 40-44, and the 40-44 year olds who ran the time when 38 1/2 to 29 and 364 days. (and ditto for every other age category). It's deeply unsatisfactory..... Surely the sensible thing would be to say the age categories are the age you'll be on the day, and accept that it;s possible the runner may have run the qualifying time when 1 1/2 years under that threshold. The new system just muddies the waters.
Then again last years London was too hot for a lot of people so I'm sure loads of people were well off their paces.
According to an article I read earlier there were 3995 GFA VLM2019 times at VLM2018.
You're right though, the lack of reports would suggest that the rate of uptake of GfA spaces is possibly lower than anticipated and beneath than the full 3000+3000 available. Perhaps that might be attributable to the blazing hot weather that we had all summer and well into autumn last year? I can imagine it scuppered a few PB/GfA attempts.
My own GfA ambitions are on-hold for the spring at least, hoping I can mount a decent attempt in autumn for once!
As an example in my v45 cat,this time last year about 230 people were under 3:10,this year it's about 430 so nearly double.
I always suspected that times would improve this year because the announcement last year was so late that people could not adjust their training to the new regime - my target time was suddenly 5 minutes faster than I'd trained for.
This year, a year older and 4 minutes quicker, I finally managed to get GFA in Newport.. with 68 seconds to spare and hoped that would be good enough.
But your evidence of a doubling of qualifiers in your age-cat in London is concerning. I just checked Newport results - last year versus this. In MV50, last year, there were 10 runners sub 3.15. and 5 MV55 runners sub 3.20. This year, the numbers were 15 and 7 respectively... so roughly a 50% increase in qualifiers across the two categories... conditions were similarly good in both races.
I have a feeling that a 68 second buffer won't be enough. Will just have to wait and see.