"Doing" London Marathon has become a bucket list item for many people. I think having run a marathon before should be a pre-requisit, like most Ultras.
I’m just grateful GFA will never be an issue for me 😂 I can see them wanting less people applying but then I think the whole application process should be different, but then I say that as I’ve not got through the ballet in 7 years and can’t see that I ever will
They had already published that you needed to be 5 minutes under the 2024 time to have got in. To me this is just moving the GFA to reflect that. Most people knew that anyway and would have been training for the real time they needed.
Manchester for me a week on Sunday! Sub 4 is the main target... so a GFA doesn't apply! 😂 I aimed for the same time in my 1st marathon last year in Chester, but it was a hot day and ended up finishing in 4hrs 11.... I've done the training, it's nearly time to put myself to the test! 💪🙌🏃♂️😀
I think some of the times needed to be adjusted but I really feel for those who have to shoot for sub 3 or low 3:xx It’s a big ask. I got downhearted when Boston adjusted the times in 2019 but it just made me train harder. I’m going out to Boston for the 3rd time next week. Cannot wait 🎉🦄
This news has been on the horizon given the guidance in recent years for GFA applicants close to the top of their qualifying mark to apply to the ballot as well in case they aren’t accepted. I personally think it’s a positive - I’d rather have a better idea of where I stand upon application than if they leave the times where they are and have to reject more and more runners when the places are occupied.
Things move fast. I checked it this morning as was still the old numbers. A little annoying but gives me more to train for and makes it a bigger more unique achievement to qualify.
Maybe I'm missing something but if the GFA applications were already oversubscribed it would mean that you would need to run at least the equivalent new GFA time anyway to stand a chance of getting in so wouldn't make a difference. Now at least it seems that it's more of a realistic time to get a guaranteed place.
I run between 3.05 and 3.10 and am over 60 so never an issue for me to get GfA but I understand some of the frustration. I think the point about carbon plated shoes is a valid one though.....runners are getting faster, so I do get the faster times required by London Marathon....
The main problem is that they waited until now to publish it, (I am doing Manchester in a week and a half) and though I thought the good for age for me was going to be 3:10, I knew that I needed at least 3:05 based on when the places ran out for this year.
The good for age has always been lower than stated, depending on how many people go under time Last year you could apply with a 2hr57min time for 18-39, but needed 2:56:30 to get an entry London marathon say "If you have a GFA qualifying time that is less than 10 minutes under the qualifying time for your age group, we recommend that you still enter the TCS London Marathon Ballot"
I am doing Brighton Marathon on 7th April 2024. Good for Age for London or any other marathon is impossible for me. I am glad to say that I have done the London Marathon through a charity place.
The good for age time previously was lower than stated, depending on how many people go under time Last year you could apply with a 2hr57min time for 18-39, but needed 2:56:30 to get a place London marathon said "If you have a GFA qualifying time that is less than 10 minutes under the qualifying time for your age group, we recommend that you still enter the TCS London Marathon Ballot"
We have been planning on coming to London ( from Canada ) for a family holiday in 2025 and I was hoping to run as well. As an older, slower runner in reasonably priced shoes, the chances of running the London marathon just got more difficult. Still going to give it a shot and hope for a perfect day in a qualifying race. Thanks Stephen and Victoria for continuing to inspire!
Training for London - ran London for Charity during covid times - so that was October , changed my running shoes, hydration, was also training for my first 100 miler so lots of running, back2back training. I think the stars and universe were on my side as I knocked off 22 minutes from my last marathon race .My marathon time was for London was 4hrs 30 seconds so got GFA ,so ran it again the following year again managed GFA ran a third time but missed out by 30 seconds due to stopping and hugging my daughter. Running for charity this year and my age now has given me an extra 25 minutes to get in a GFA . Maybe the key is to train hard throughout your years and wait till your older . I was 60 this year . Saying all that I still think alot depends on the day too
With the size of the marathon and the demand for places, London should be a bi-annual event run in Spring and Summer. Spread the charity places between both and free up more room for people who are aiming for a GFA time.
Since the London GFA only applies to UK residents, it's irrelevant to me that I make the age cut. I can either take the very long shot lottery or pay a ton of money to a tour company. Thankfully there are plenty of other running goals out there.
With a current marathon PB of 3:35, I have a massive amount of work to do get a good for age (I'm 54) time. At least 30 mins it seems. I've yet to do the London marathon despite numerous ballot applications and failed to get a charity place despite pledging to raise £3000. Most of that money probably would have come from my pocket. Personally I think there should be more ballot entry places - and people who have run the race via this route of entry should then only be able to apply four years afterwards, which gives more people a chance of running the race. It just seems to be becoming more and more of an exclusive race - either you have to be very fast or be able to pay/raise lots of money.
I think it just boils down to with the influx to new runners, people are willing to enter via charity places. Which is more money to TCS than just the basic entry fee.
The thing that is unfair, is the insistence, in the current climate of inclusively, of having a 50:50 split of men and women. That doesn't reflect the 5:1 ratio of men and women applicants who actually want to run. Net result is the women's GFA time stays low and is achievable by almost any dedicated serious club runner. For men, the qualifying time is set so high (and then they take another 5 minutes off mid season), that you literally have to be a sub elite to be sufficiently under that time to get a place. That is virtually unachievable for any male dedicated club runner. A better system needs to be in place. Something like a handicap system on power of 10, so the top 100 people in each handicap band get in. Or some similar idea that let's a good club runner have a chance. The ballot is hopeless and anyone serious about running will be using their leave to be off across the marathon. To plan ahead you can't rely on a ballot that you enter for 10 years and never get a sniff.
In my age group, 3:25 was doable with a solid injury-free training block and a good day on the course, but 3:15 is going to be a crazy stretch. Oh well. Lottery and charity spots are still out there, I guess.
You said it yourself, even if you do run the qualifying time, you still might not get in unless you are one of the 'fastest' in that category. Nobody who could run a (say) 3:45 is going to slow down to 3:55 once they know they have reached the standard - they are still going to get the best time they can. Moving the goal posts is something of a moot point given, as you say, more people are running and getting below the qualification standard. They could do away with the standards altogether and just say that the fastest xxx runners in each age group who apply will be selected.
i got caught on this in 2017 when they re-jigged the London GFA's then (I was aiming for 3:15 (40-45) and it went to 3:05 which I was never going to do). So they succeeded in their goal of reducing demand from me. I lost interest in wanting to do road marathons after that and haven't done one since (nor will do now due to health).
I was targeting around 3:06 in AG45 to try to avoid missing out on numbers, so I have about a minute to find, though I might then miss out on entry numbers now, or not, now it’s harder, we shall see! Would be nice to just know
The more controversial topic is the huge imbalance in performance required by men and women to get a GFA. A 40 year old male needs to run a 69.7 age graded time where as a 40 year old women needs to run a 61 grade time. For reference a 61 grade time for a 40 year old male is 3:25 where as a 69.7 age grade time for a women is 3:17. Given this is literally named as a time that is good for your age, I'm not sure making it so much easier for women is reflective of that. For the avoidance of doubt I want more women running marathons, I'm just not sure this is the best way to do that. Make a video on that Stephen!
I turned 65 this year and am training for a sub 4 hour finish in Vancouver this May to earn a GFA for London 2025, so this impacts me. Fortunately, from the start I realised that 3:59 was not going to cut it under the existing fastest first system, so I set my goal at 3:50. It's a pity London had to move the goal posts but understandable given its popularity. My running club's allocation of guaranteed entries has been cut back, I've run too many marathons to get friends and family to sponsor me (again) for a charity place and been rejected in the ballot so many times that GFA looks to be the only way I'll ever get a number. But even if I don't get in, I'm not going to moan - there are plenty of good marathons out there.
Bit out of order this at such short notice, but saying that if your going for a goal GFA you normally go for 5 mins before anyway, hopefully it wont affect many runners but i reckon they will be right on that goal pace now with not much to spare.
Don’t think I’m ever applying for London again, and GFA has never been an option at my speed, but this would be just another way of being turned down rather than a way in. Did 2015, was enjoyable experience even though it was my first and the wheels came off around 22miles.. managed to get in again after continuous trying in 2023, and was a completely different experience.. ran better, but, was just missing something. Would like to do Paris, Berlin or NYC.. but too much of a wimp at trying to get in and planning the trip abroad.
As well as being data driven based on the ever faster runner, I wonder if this also a subtle way to increase the number of spaces available for the main ballot. Less GFA runners = more main ballot spaces? If that’s the case, I support it, even as a GFA runner.
No problem from me as a 54 yo male whose Coros is predicting a 3:12 for Manchester. I just need to step up and get the time. In fact my dream is to be back at Sub 3. People like yourself are an inspiration in this regard. Dawn's opinion is the female times are too soft and should be equivalent age grading to the men's times. Everyone should need to work to a similar standard to achieve their place, not have softer targets to achieve equality of outcome. PS as a 31 yo male in 2001 I got a GFA based on a 3:14.54 at Manchester 😂
Doesn't really change the time you're likely to need to run to actually get in on a GFA, just makes it clearer how fast you're likely to need to be. Been pretty clear for the last couple of years that running close to the GFA target time was a risky way to try to get in.
It is so wrong to change the GFA times so late - it is effectively retrospective. They did the same in 2018 when the 40-49 men’s time went from 3.15 to 3.05!!! That happened days before I ran what I hoped would be my qualifier (Hamburg). I trained hard for the 3.15 target and ran 3.13 but it wasn’t good enough. So frustrating and unfair. I did hit the sub-3.05 target 18 months later but that was brutal!
It is harsh that they have moved the goalposts so close to many spring marathons - surely it could have been announced late last year. Do you think that the gap between men and women GFA times is reflective of actual performance differences? E.g. for the 50-54 group, it is sub 3.10 for men and sub 3.55 for women.
I’ve often thought this. The 45 minute difference for qualifying times is pretty ridiculous, especially in the social climate these days. But what’s the solution? Time requirements won’t be reduced for male prospective entrants, and I don’t see them making entry more difficult for females 🤷♂️
Agree! I’ve run my (old) GFA of sub-3:45, but I don’t feel I’m anywhere near the equivalent ability of a man running sub-3. It’s done on overall numbers i.e., 3K men and 3K women across all age groups, so it must just be that a greater proportion of male runners are serious about their training and therefore running that kind of time.
Well yes there are certainly people who don't like the big city marathons. I'm not one of them. I'm as happy at the London Marathon as I am on a mountain in the alps. It's just a different kind of rush.
I thought these were meant to be fun runs and to help charities, not to be close to professional athletes. This could drive people away. I caught a glance from your age qualifying time for my age, I would never manage it.👎
Just too many people on the planet now. There's only 1 "London". But the population now is double what it was a couple of generations ago. Hence twice as expensive to live there. Twice as hard to get a job there. And twice as hard to get into events (such as a marathon) there.
It’s a running race !!! So it’s easy to fix !!! Put a 5 hr max limit on it !!!if u can’t run a marathon in 5 hrs you shouldn’t even get a place !!That will get rid of the walk /runners that take up all of the actual runners places
Asides from the first 100 over the line, what do Marathon organisers get from the rest of the GFA or club runners? They just pay a fee (same as everyone else) and aren’t doing it to raise money for charity (as almost all of those walk/runners you mention are) which helps raise the profile of the race and keeps public interest going. There is an argument to make the GFA even quicker!
I’m a slow runner. I’m running Brighton on Sunday and aiming for 5 hrs. My PB is 4hrs 47. I do disagree with those who plan on walking a marathon but for me completing a marathon is 5 hours doesn’t make me any less of a runner
Well actually yes it has just got harder. They just changed the criteria this morning. So now even if you get 2:52 you probably won’t get in. So, new news. Why did you just assume clickbait without actually checking first?
