Why There's So Much Hand-Wringing Over Downhill Marathons

A heated debate is cascading through the world of amateur marathoning—specifically, over whether using steeply downhill races to qualify for the iconic Boston Marathon is clever strategy or outright cheating. The controversy centers on a growing number of mountain marathons that boast "incredibly fast" times, like Utah's Big Cottonwood, where the 5,242-foot descent can shave an average half-hour off runners' times compared to flat courses, reports the Wall Street Journal.

These events appeal to runners hungry for a Boston bib in an era where just qualifying isn't enough—Boston receives more qualifiers than it has slots, so the amount you beat the qualifying time by matters. Critics argue that these courses offer an unfair edge and potentially bump stronger runners from clinching a spot. As one marathon purist puts it, "Those people should burst into flames." Downhill defenders fire back: if it's so easy, try it—just be prepared for higher altitudes and "trashed" quads and calves.

Boston Marathon bosses have been paying attention. They began monitoring the impact of downhill races six years ago and said about 2,000 of last year's 30,000 runners qualified via a race that had at least 2,000 feet of elevation loss. They responded, too, by introducing new rules in June for the 2027 Boston Marathon: Runners who complete races made up of 1,500 to 2,999 feet of elevation loss will get five minutes added to their time; it's 10 minutes for drops of 3,000 to 5,999 feet, and anything 6,000-feet-plus is prohibited—though Run notes that's so steep no current active races have such a drop. The Journal finds this move, too, has spurred debate, with some calling the penalties inadequate and others finding them random.