View previous topic :: View next topic
|
Author |
Message |
OldNick
Joined: 11 Dec 2004 Posts: 1938
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
iwaters
Joined: 06 Sep 2016 Posts: 438
|
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sub 3 for M 18-39 too! Think I'll take my chances with the ballot.
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
sb20
Joined: 07 Sep 2011 Posts: 911 Location: Beautifull hilly SW Surrey
|
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 3:59 pm Post subject: Re: VMLM Good for Age |
|
|
WOW!! i just did Brighton in 4 seconds under the 3:10. Glad I made the effort!
_________________ First Tri an evening sprint in 2008 done a few since then inc 2x Roth, IM Wales, 2x Celtman, Alps d'Huez Long, O till O, Ceasers Camp 100 x2, Norseman, Ring O Fire, St Oswalds 100, Cambrian trail, 2 Race to the King, UTMB and so it goes on!
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
OldNick
Joined: 11 Dec 2004 Posts: 1938
|
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 4:34 pm Post subject: Re: VMLM Good for Age |
|
|
sb20 wrote: |
WOW!! i just did Brighton in 4 seconds under the 3:10. Glad I made the effort! |
Precisely. If GFA over-subscribes you might be balloted out anyway.
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mash180
Joined: 08 May 2005 Posts: 2371 Location: Watford
|
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
how many runners actually use a GFA place presently for the race ?
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Tri'ing Swimmer
Joined: 15 Nov 2016 Posts: 183
|
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | Q. Why have the men’s qualifying times changed more than the women’s?
A. To ensure a closer ratio of applications between the genders. |
Is it fair to say the womens GFA times were already easier than mens? There's not 45 minutes between elites.
Also, out of interest, anyone know if total applications for all places are roughly 50:50 M:F?
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
JeffB
Joined: 04 May 2008 Posts: 1334 Location: Middlesbrough
|
Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not sure why they don't go on age grading or something, e.g.
3:10 for 45 male = 69.x%
3:50 for 45 female = 63.x%
I've always thought the males times were quite generous, but 63% doesn't stand out as GFA for my money.
Maybe a cutoff for all age groups of at least 75% before you even get considered?
Maybe after that it goes on applicants per age group similar to Ironman. Or even split them 3000 each then.
The number of club places has gone down a lot over the years as well. We used to get about 4 places with ~160 members, we got 1 last year, albeit we'd have had 2 if we had just 6 more members.
Essentially just a big charity event before long.
But fair do, I've had about 5 entries under the scheme.
Jeff
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Buzz_
Joined: 19 May 2007 Posts: 420
|
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
There is still the Championship entry if you really are GOOD. a 1h15 half might be the easiest way in now, especially as you can do multiple halfs to get your ideal day/conditions.
Anyone know if the 6,000 limit or 3,000/3,000 is a lot less than they currently get? It has basically gone like Boston where the target time lets you enter, then they select the fastest first and roll down until all the entries have gone. Will be interesting to see where the line gets drawn, and if it gets lower year-on-year.
In recent years they have reduced the club slots and taken away the guaranteed entry on 5 ballot fails. If this means there is more chance in the ballot then I think that's all well and good, if they are taking those entries to sell to charities then it's becoming an expensive street party.
Only done London once. No great desire to go back, although never say never. Maybe I'll try a fast half in the autumn just to see.
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
explorerJC
Joined: 20 Oct 2005 Posts: 15953 Location: Farthingstone
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
smitters
Joined: 27 Aug 2009 Posts: 1749 Location: Enjoying my new favourite run
|
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I must admit, the switch down in time for me (currently late 30s) is tough. I was planning a 40+ GFA tilt, so adding the fact you now have to be that age on qualifying race date, not VLM race date, means I've got little chance of getting GFA for 3+ years until I can run a qualy race aged 40.
On the plus side, my 40-44 GFA time is 3.05 now, so I'll naturally going to be aiming sub 3 - why wouldn't you - and I have longer to get to the speed. Shame I'm nowhere near that right now... Patience.
_________________ Planning better and running better...
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Andy G
Joined: 05 Oct 2005 Posts: 484 Location: London
|
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's a shame that they waited until now to announce this. Presumably lots of people were targeting spring marathons this year to qualify for VLM next year. Lots have already run their spring marathons at Manchester, Brighton, Paris, etc and even those that have not done so yet, it doesn't leave them much time to make alterations to training programmes to achieve a faster qualification time.
It would be very interesting to see what sort of numbers actually apply for the Good For Age entry. Is it roughly 3000 males plus 3000 females? What if there aren't 3000 women applying through the scheme? Do those extra place roll over to the men or are they transferred to the ballet or sold to charities?
Andy G
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
twhat
Joined: 28 Oct 2011 Posts: 1265 Location: London
|
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 8:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Numbers 30921 to 33380 are Fast Good
for Age competitors
Thats from the VLM final instructions pdf. I think that just applies to the red start GFA, i seem to remember a friend starting in a GFA pen at Green last year ... Anyway, those figures suggest that the overall GFA numbers wont change that much, and may even go up, albeit with a lean to higher female numbers ?
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
gingerbongo
Joined: 21 Sep 2012 Posts: 1679 Location: Devon
|
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 8:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
To be fair i don't think VLM give a stuff about what people think. They know they'll be ridiculously oversubscribed every single year.
The only real reason they offer the GFA stuff is to thin the field away from the 4 hour charity runners. They make a LOT more money from the charity stuff than GFA.
With the increase in people GFAing, it was inevitable that they'd put the times up soon. I think people have been expecting it for a couple of years now, but i do agree with the odd timing. Guess it just backs up the point about not really giving a stuff!!
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Buzz_
Joined: 19 May 2007 Posts: 420
|
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
gingerbongo wrote: | To be fair i don't think VLM give a stuff about what people think. They know they'll be ridiculously oversubscribed every single year.
The only real reason they offer the GFA stuff is to thin the field away from the 4 hour charity runners. They make a LOT more money from the charity stuff than GFA.
With the increase in people GFAing, it was inevitable that they'd put the times up soon. I think people have been expecting it for a couple of years now, but i do agree with the odd timing. Guess it just backs up the point about not really giving a stuff!! |
Are the numbers of GFA entrants really increasing? I thought the overall standard of 'good' marathon running was declining as more people move to 'one and done' or different more obscure challenges to get their endorphin fix. Less and less people have the desire to dedicate 5-10 years to try and improve their marathon time when there are so many other 'challenges' available these days.
The only reason I would think GFA age applications are increasing is because more people are aware it exists as a route to a guaranteed entry.
As an aside, I get the impression that achieving the Boston Qualifying time is regarding as the benchmark for a good marathon runner in the US. Actually securing a place and running the race is secondary, but the times are literally put on a pedestal. Maybe that's how the London times should be regarded, as a threshold for bragging rights.
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Whisk
Joined: 09 Jun 2005 Posts: 8695 Location: London
|
Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2018 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Didn't the GFA time for M<40 used to be sub-3? I thought they only increased the threshold relatively recently.
The days of guaranteed entry after 5 rejections were always going to be limited after they switched to on-line entries. In the old days, you had to get a paper form from a sports shop and post it off with a cheque. Now it's easy to put in a "fire and forget" on-line entry. I don't know how many places are available by the ballot, but with 120,000 on-line entries you're potentially using a big chunk of the available places for guaranteed entries if you kept the guarantee after 5 rejections.
I reckon the next potential target is the deferrals policy. I reckon there's another large chunk of potential entries taken every year by people deferring from the prior year.
_________________ 2016: Just riding my bike....
Hot Chillee ride captain (sponsored by Specialized, Sigma Sports, Wattbike, Le Marq, Wahoo, BOA, Sportique, Pro-Cycle Insurance, Maserati)
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|