Why aren't there more good American women distance runners?

To answer your question, I did mean compared to women from other countries. Primarily the women in Russia, China, and Ethiopia- I do wonder about the possibility of illegal enhancements to their performances. A women looking at the international 5k and 10k records would be discouraged.[/quote]

From my observations of the women I coach post-collegiately in GBTC is that none of them consider running as their only hope in life. For example several are medical students. Racing is a serious recreational activity for them and perhaps the anchor to their sanity, but not their road to fame and fortune. For them the risk of drug use to enhance performance is a measure of desparation they do not need to take. Neither is full-time training.

Second they are not discouraged by what the world professional runners do. It is as if those runners are on another planet.

It would make no sense for them to sacrific the careers they are preparing for in the remote hope of making a living and a retirement and a life from distance running. It may be possible for only 10 women in the country to do that. Yet how many women can do that with their graduate degrees?

That is what I see.

The view for Russia, China, and Ethiopia is one I can only imagine or ask about.

Tom

I think most HS girls think college is a time to grow boobs and get married. They don't realize that a trim girl beats a chuncky girl with big knockers everytime.

jerrry wrote:

In addition to what female perspective said - why are colleges searching high and low for female distance runners? Something else is going on (probably more cultural) Why don't more girls want to run in college and run on scholarship?

Is this really an accurate statement?

My niece ran 19:08 5k in cross as a senior, 4:48 1500m as a junior, and is a 4.0 student in a good high school program with a very high profile in track. She got progressively faster every year in HS, despite maturing and not running more than about 30 mpw. Her dad was a 2:15.xx marathoner, so she's got pretty good genetics.

She hasn't been contacted by any college coaches(that I am aware of) and as a result is going to a smallish D1 school with no intention of running.

Maybe coaches aren't looking all that hard for potential.

es verdad? wrote:

[quote]

My niece ran 19:08 5k in cross as a senior, 4:48 1500m as a junior, and is a 4.0 student in a good high school program with a very high profile in track. She got progressively faster every year in HS, despite maturing and not running more than about 30 mpw. Her dad was a 2:15.xx marathoner, so she's got pretty good genetics.

She hasn't been contacted by any college coaches(that I am aware of) and as a result is going to a smallish D1 school with no intention of running.

Maybe coaches aren't looking all that hard for potential.

Your niece may indeed have potential, but to expect major college recruitment off of a 4:48 1500 is unrealistic. That is like a boy running 4:30 for the 1600- either could be a walk-on at a mediocre D1 or decent D2, but don't be waiting by the mailbox in June.

And please don't expect coaches to have X-Ray vision with regard to a father running a fast marathon, etc.. They've got their hands full just trying to keep track of their current runners, if they are any good at what they do.

rock in my shoe wrote:

Your niece may indeed have potential, but to expect major college recruitment off of a 4:48 1500 is unrealistic. That is like a boy running 4:30 for the 1600- either could be a walk-on at a mediocre D1 or decent D2, but don't be waiting by the mailbox in June.

And please don't expect coaches to have X-Ray vision with regard to a father running a fast marathon, etc.. They've got their hands full just trying to keep track of their current runners, if they are any good at what they do.

OK, that's why I was asking. What exactly did he mean by his "searching high and low" comment? Checking the dyestat top 50 for girls with 11 or 12 next to their names?

From the Pac 10 cross final results:

33 McGregor, Emily Arizona 5:58 22:15

Shouldn't a good coach be able to coach an undertrained 19 minute 5k athlete up to a 22:15 6k runner within the 4 to 5 years?

I'm not advocating for an athletic scholarship (she'll do just fine with academics), I'm just doubting the "high and low" comment.

I can't account for the "high and low" comment (maybe a 19 minute runner escapes the radar for a higher-level program for reasons I cited). However, I think the following quote from your first post is telling:

"She hasn't been contacted by any college coaches(that I am aware of) and as a result is going to a smallish D1 school with no intention of running."

So she is talented, has potential, and yet she is not self-motivated enough to walk-on in a program which is presumably small enough for her to be competitive? Sounds like she is (typically) reliant on external rewards/encouragement.

Most 4:30 HS guys i have met would jump at the chance that your niece has. This just reinforces the apathy factor we are seeing amongst young women generally towards sports. I am not singling out your niece; I coach post-colegiate women, and I see the low-prioritization that Tom Derderian and others talks about constantly. I just have to accept it and work with it. Just the way it is.

"Vive Le Difference", I guess.

(anyone know why my earlier post came up in bold type?)

thank you dear.

Now I know what to ask at my next visit.

rock in my shoe wrote:

I can\'t account for the \"high and low\" comment (maybe a 19 minute runner escapes the radar for a higher-level program for reasons I cited).

I didn\'t realize that jerry\'s comments were specific to higher-level programs. I must have missed that part or at least I\'m unaware of his credentials since I don\'t come around here very often.

If she was coming from a wealthy family, then the walk-on option might be more attractive. As it is, she\'s very self-directed and will fill the void with school, work and snowboarding.

When I was in high school, I ran 5:08 for the 1600 and 19:35 for 5k cross country. Only 3 SMALL DI schools contacted me, along with a slew of DII and DIII schools. I personally tried to get in contact with several DI schools at a higher level (not even THAT high, one was top 30 and the others were just high in their region). None of the coaches were interested in giving me a scholarship. I ended up going to one of the small DI schools that had offered me a scholarship. I don't have any competition on my team, yet I have run 4:38 in the 1500 and 21:29 in cross country (6k), and I am only a sophomore. Now, if I was on any of the teams I had contacted, I would be the number 1 or 2 runner. I am not sure why schools don't look a little further down the lists, especially when I expressed interest in the school. Oh well, I am very happy with my coach and the program at my current school. I just think that there are a lot of runners with potential to improve who have put up decent times but haven't had the best coaching or training who don't get a chance to run with better runners.

Sorry if that sounded like a bunch of rambling.

Untapped potential usually doesn't show itself until it becomes reality, there's no way to measure it prior to that time. Coaches go for those who have displayed their talent level prior to college, assuming that there's more to draw from the well where that came from. Playing long odds never pays well, they're much more apt to find 21:30 6k women among sub-18:30 5k girls than they are among 19:30 5k girls.

As a sidebar to this tangent, it is too bad that there isn't better high school coaching across the board so that runners with potential will get an opportunity to shine, but that goes back to one of the many inadequacies in the US scholastic/collegiate 'system'.

American problem is that they eat too much like pig and they arenot brave.

therfore, they can not have a long distance runner. i am afraid that the x-kenyan and x-ethiopian should take care of it specally dealing with foods

I think maybe it's to do with the American collegiate system of racing.

Over here, university racing isn't seen as a big deal and it's all based around a club system. So people don't go to university and think they'll compete for the team and then stop - the team is still there when they're 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 etc. There's no sudden change.

I know if my team suddenly disappeared it would make things difficult for me but that's not going to happen as it's a club team. University racing is just incidental and the main competitions are focused around something that is there for 20+ years rather than just 3 or 4.

After reading 2 pages I've been drawn in to write something. I run for a top 4 D2 school in the top 5. I think the biggest thing is having teammates to train with. I've been on spring break this week and have dreaded running, when usually I look forward to spending time with my best friends running and working out. This week has been a pain to get out the door. I do usually run by myself in the summer and I really have to "hunker down" and it really seems more like a sacrifice when I'm by myself, but I must say when the going gets tough I think about my teammates and how they need me (and how, I must admit, I dont want them to beat me). Body image also plays a big role. My first year I was a walk on 21min 5k runner who wanted to stay skinny, now I'm a full scholarship 4:44 1500, trying to break that 18 min barrier junior. Body image still plays an issue but getting faster is more important. Girls just need to learn that if you run 70 miles a week you can get what you want and wont gain an ounce- at least I don't, maybe I'm lucky for now. Oh, another factor is injuries, I've had 3 metatarsal stress fractures (I'm a true toe striker) and every time I do the "Is this really freaking worth it" game with myself. I guess it is because I keep coming back for more. But for some people it's not. I have one more year of eligibilty and I'm glad. I just got married and I want to get my masters and have babies- I think that sums up where the post collegiate women are.

Looking at many of the greats in american womens distance running a very clear pattern comes to mind.

Benoit, Decker, Jennings, Ruth Wysocki all quit D1 running or never got involved with it in the first place. Not having to go through the grind of three seasons year in and year out allowing for good buildups or not having to rush back into shape seemed to allow these ladies as well as many others to escape the down cycles in running. Not having to consistently put it on the line when they were not prepared to allowed them to train hard and race when ready. These women are some of the very best that we have ever produced yet they all had breakdowns at one point or another that might have ended the progression to top notch runners.

Is she hiding under a rock? Did she let any schools know about herself, by way of a letter of introduction or a phone call followed up by a visit?

A full ride for 4:44? Good for you, but that boggles my mind a bit. It's worse than I thought.

es verdad? wrote:

My niece ran 19:08 5k in cross as a senior, 4:48 1500m as a junior, and is a 4.0 student in a good high school program with a very high profile in track. She got progressively faster every year in HS, despite maturing and not running more than about 30 mpw. Her dad was a 2:15.xx marathoner, so she's got pretty good genetics.

She hasn't been contacted by any college coaches(that I am aware of) and as a result is going to a smallish D1 school with no intention of running.

Maybe coaches aren't looking all that hard for potential.

All I have to say to this is WOW!!! But really, she could turn out to be even better if she runs on her own (get her dad to coach her!), does road races, and runs unattached in track and cross country races. These are the types of girls who get swept under a rock, and it's quite sad.

Is your niece in a larger state where she's overshadowed by faster runners??? Her credentials would win her State Championships and lots of glory in some states. Heck she's faster than I was in high school, and I went on to be recruited by some decent D1 schools and decided upon a small D1 school, only to realize after 2 years I would be much happier running on my own. Giving up collegiate running was the best thing I ever did! It gave me some time to recuperate, and while all my teammates have quit and moved on, I'm currently training and racing seriously to qualify for the 2008 Olympic Marathon Trials. Your niece needs to keep running.... this isn't the end of the rope. There's much more out there!:)

Ah crap, here's a repost (ignore the above):

All I have to say to this is WOW!!! But really, she could turn out to be even better if she runs on her own (get her dad to coach her!), does road races, and runs unattached in track and cross country races. These are the types of girls who get swept under a rock, and it's quite sad.

Is your niece in a larger state where she's overshadowed by faster runners??? Her credentials would win her State Championships and lots of glory in some states. Heck she's faster than I was in high school, and I went on to be recruited by some decent D1 schools and decided upon a small D1 school, only to realize after 2 years I would be much happier running on my own. Giving up collegiate running was the best thing I ever did! It gave me some time to recuperate, and while all my teammates have quit and moved on, I'm currently training and racing seriously to qualify for the 2008 Olympic Marathon Trials. Your niece needs to keep running.... this isn't the end of the rope. There's much more out there!:)

Good points, jaguar1. As 'Quit University running' illustrated, it would seem that a more gradual build-up with a more long-term view is a much more sensible progression rather than two or three big peaks in a 9-month span every year for four or five years. I wish I knew what I know now back when I was just starting college (or even just after college) because I would've done a lot of things very differently. I certainly had fun and don't have regrets, but I just feel that I would have run a lot better, ultimately, without that kind of a short-term view.