Desi looked real relaxed out there when I saw her at 13 and besides the Americans being there they had a wicked international field. That race was real hot and a lot of fun to run in.
Victor LeMay said: “You don't have any "data" either. Anecdotal evidence is literally based off of personal observation rather than systematic scientific evaluation. Doesn't that mean you are talking out of your ass too? And I don't believe they were pontificating, they were simply stating their own personal experiences and made a point to say that they were just examples and that there are always exceptions. If they were pontificating then I guess so was Hansons and everyone else who isn't a woman.
My personal experience has shown me that female comradery is good for a team but not essential. Sometimes the animosity between female team mates seems to push them even harder to beat eachother which makes for good improvement and work ethic. The women I've been around get along for the most part but when they don't it does not mean the team will fall apart, it just means there will be some extremely quiet bus rides.”
As an asst. coach for the boys track team, I can tell you that the girls track team (and girls XC team) have a LOT more runners. Why? Because they win. Word spreads. And then more girls join. Could it be that their parent(s) push the girls on the team so it looks good on the transcript while simultaneously have them win medals and such? Might could.
I personally believe that girls join groups and teams because, mainly, of word of mouth. If the group has low numbers (in terms of females) then there isn't much social advertising of the group. The males can talk all they want about the club to women, but they just come off as having females join so they can hit on them, etc. Usually.
Someone mentioned that the social aspect of the group is important to females. I tend to think that it's important for males as well, but to a lesser extent. But having females in the group is more important. If a female runner walks into a running store to run with a local running club or group and they see a majority of males, they might shy away. But of there is a near even distribution of females and males, then the female will tend to stay.
Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm rambling. I have no idea what I'm talking about.
Anonymous Coward said: “Shawn and Simon, you're both talking out of your as**es. You've got no data to back up your claims; you're just taking your own experience and extrapolating it to ridiculous ends. My own anecdotal evidence suggests that women are _not_ inherently more social than men, and I for one don't give a s**t whether I "click" with others in a training group. Sam says his group has a bunch of "lazy" females, but that's a judgment call, and it means nothing about the female runners in other groups. Please don't get on here and just pontificate cluelessly, gah!”
You don't have any "data" either. Anecdotal evidence is literally based off of personal observation rather than systematic scientific evaluation. Doesn't that mean you are talking out of your ass too? And I don't believe they were pontificating, they were simply stating their own personal experiences and made a point to say that they were just examples and that there are always exceptions. If they were pontificating then I guess so was Hansons and everyone else who isn't a woman.
My personal experience has shown me that female comradery is good for a team but not essential. Sometimes the animosity between female team mates seems to push them even harder to beat eachother which makes for good improvement and work ethic. The women I've been around get along for the most part but when they don't it does not mean the team will fall apart, it just means there will be some extremely quiet bus rides.
its mostly true what "SHAWN SIMON'S SAID"........... I've been on 4 different distance teams since high school, club team, community college, and now a d2 school and it always go back to the same thing girls hating on each other.... Girls have to put there differences aside to become successful. The good thing is that now, everyone is more serious about what they are doing and where they want to be, so all of us are committed runners, but there are still some conflicts between girls like " if she's on the team, i'll quit" or "i cant run with her ", etc...
Anonymous Coward said: “Shawn and Simon, you're both talking out of your as**es. You've got no data to back up your claims; you're just taking your own experience and extrapolating it to ridiculous ends. My own anecdotal evidence suggests that women are _not_ inherently more social than men, and I for one don't give a s**t whether I "click" with others in a training group. Sam says his group has a bunch of "lazy" females, but that's a judgment call, and it means nothing about the female runners in other groups. Please don't get on here and just pontificate cluelessly, gah!”
hey i didnt say i had any evidence other than my expierence, nor did i say all girls in all groups are lazy i just said based on my expierence there is a higher percentage of dedicated male athletes than female. dont get so angry.
Shawn and Simon, you're both talking out of your as**es. You've got no data to back up your claims; you're just taking your own experience and extrapolating it to ridiculous ends. My own anecdotal evidence suggests that women are _not_ inherently more social than men, and I for one don't give a s**t whether I "click" with others in a training group. Sam says his group has a bunch of "lazy" females, but that's a judgment call, and it means nothing about the female runners in other groups. Please don't get on here and just pontificate cluelessly, gah!
Shawn Simon said: “I can tell you we always had a harder time recruiting girls for cross and distance in track. Boys always outnumbered the girls three to one...
”
That is interesting I am a co captain for my high school xc team and we have 8 guys and like 20+ girls so almost the exact opposite. other than that though are guys team is a lot more dedicated than the girls. i would say about almost all of the guys are serious about running work hard will hopefully give us PR's. most of the girls however do stuff like on a distance jog about half a mile to one of their houses and hang out for an hour and jog back. i think its just harder to find girls who are willing to work hard, which is not to say that some girls dont work hard its just that there is a smaller pool of driven female athletes, like your team with a small girl team and mine with a large lazy one.
Wow! were to start on this one. The problem is deeper then this interview goes. Having coached at the high school level for a number of years I can tell you we always had a harder time recruiting girls for cross and distance in track. Boys always outnumbered the girls three to one and we had a very successful program at the state level. So from the bottom up the numbers are skewed.
Secondly, girls/women are a lot more social then men and will not sacrifice the social time it takes to become successful. Women will argue this point to the death, but it is absolutely true as a general rule. Though, there are exceptions to everything.
Thirdly, girls/women MUST click with the other females in the training group for it to work. Men can ultimately hate training partners, but will suck it up and do the work if it makes them better. Women on the other hand make it personal and a split can happen causing the whole group to fall apart if the girls don't get along. Again, this is a general statement and there are exceptions.
McMillanElite is recruiting 1-3 more women this summer and will then have almost equivalent #s of women and men.
It is more challenging to recruit women but we've experienced slightly different reasons than Kevin described. One is that many of the women don't know about the post-collegiate groups and the support offered. Another is the timing of contacting them about the team opportunity (NCAA compliance) vs. when they make plans for graduate school. Some women (and men) don't want running 24/7 or want/need to be in an environment with more work and social opportunities than what they perceive a town of 50,000 like Flagstaff may offer, and others choose to remain with their college coach because it is working for them. All valid reasons.
There's to much emphasis placed on events that don't score for the US at Worlds and Olympics. If the women aren't motivated to sacrifice like the Kenyans Ethiopians ....
What is the deal with all of the Michigan hatred on here? Rochester Hills isn't exactly the boondocks, and isn't exactly Detroit either. It is one of the nicer places to live in Michigan (along with Ann Arbor of course). I think "miserable in Michigan" is a little harsh.
really?? said: “Hansons-Brooks about 4 women and 20 men
McMillan about 3 women about 10 men
TIE - No women on site about 5 men
ZAP - about 3 women about 6 men
Canadian Group - dont think any women about 7 men
Lets live in reality. Men are way easier to get then women.”
You just named a bunch of tight-knit groups in secluded areas who all live and train together, something that is not as appealing to women at that stage in life. Kevin is correct that it is harder to get women to join his group, but not necessarily for the reasons that he names. There are also solid female training groups who are constantly improving near civilization, in cities like NYC and DC. It's not that women aren't as willing to make sacrifices, it's that they can make sacrifices on their own terms and do not as often see the allure of the secluded training group. There is nothing wrong with that, people should be in the training environment that makes them happy. Miserable in Michigan does not sound conducive to training for many people. For some people it sounds awesome. That preference is skewed towards men. It's pretty simple.
Kevin should look at Boston, where the women's groups (BAA, GBTC, New Balance Boston) rule the roost. 2 out of the top 3 women's teams at XC Club Nationals were from Boston - the men's teams of those respective groups were either non-existent or placed much lower. Boston is a women's team-running mecca!
anonymous chick said: “That was a nice attempt of a man trying to understand female motivation, but as a woman I can tell you that it's off the mark. It's not that women don't want to be in a group. It's that women don't want to be in your group because they don't want to be secluded in a small town in the mid-west where dating amongst athletes is forbidden. The women in MY awesome training group cringe at the thought of moving to the boondocks. And we don't train with men and we improve.”
Hansons-Brooks about 4 women and 20 men
McMillan about 3 women about 10 men
TIE - No women on site about 5 men
ZAP - about 3 women about 6 men
Canadian Group - dont think any women about 7 men
Lets live in reality. Men are way easier to get then women.
Many of these training groups (think Hanson's, McMillan Elite, even the Mammoth group if you're that good) are focused on the high-mileage type. For women, injuries are more of a factor and jumping into high-mileage can be more harmful than good for many women. Secondly, I feel there is a little more pressure on women to settle down/get a job...athletic careers are secondary. I highly doubt it just has to do with the no dating rule..lots of women want to be great at running and will sacrifice as much as men.
That was a nice attempt of a man trying to understand female motivation, but as a woman I can tell you that it's off the mark. It's not that women don't want to be in a group. It's that women don't want to be in your group because they don't want to be secluded in a small town in the mid-west where dating amongst athletes is forbidden. The women in MY awesome training group cringe at the thought of moving to the boondocks. And we don't train with men and we improve.
Driving with the Hansons - Why Women Rarely Join Groups
Kevin Hanson a co-founder and coach of the Hansons-Brooks Distance project goes for a drive and talks about groups in the US and why it is harder to get women to join groups then it is for men. July 2, 2009
Driving with the Hansons - Why Women Rarely Join Groups
“You don't have any "data" either. Anecdotal evidence is literally based off of personal observation rather than systematic scientific evaluation. Doesn't that mean you are talking out of your ass too? And I don't believe they were pontificating, they were simply stating their own personal experiences and made a point to say that they were just examples and that there are always exceptions. If they were pontificating then I guess so was Hansons and everyone else who isn't a woman.
My personal experience has shown me that female comradery is good for a team but not essential. Sometimes the animosity between female team mates seems to push them even harder to beat eachother which makes for good improvement and work ethic. The women I've been around get along for the most part but when they don't it does not mean the team will fall apart, it just means there will be some extremely quiet bus rides.”
I personally believe that girls join groups and teams because, mainly, of word of mouth. If the group has low numbers (in terms of females) then there isn't much social advertising of the group. The males can talk all they want about the club to women, but they just come off as having females join so they can hit on them, etc. Usually.
Someone mentioned that the social aspect of the group is important to females. I tend to think that it's important for males as well, but to a lesser extent. But having females in the group is more important. If a female runner walks into a running store to run with a local running club or group and they see a majority of males, they might shy away. But of there is a near even distribution of females and males, then the female will tend to stay.
Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm rambling. I have no idea what I'm talking about.
“Shawn and Simon, you're both talking out of your as**es. You've got no data to back up your claims; you're just taking your own experience and extrapolating it to ridiculous ends. My own anecdotal evidence suggests that women are _not_ inherently more social than men, and I for one don't give a s**t whether I "click" with others in a training group. Sam says his group has a bunch of "lazy" females, but that's a judgment call, and it means nothing about the female runners in other groups. Please don't get on here and just pontificate cluelessly, gah!”
My personal experience has shown me that female comradery is good for a team but not essential. Sometimes the animosity between female team mates seems to push them even harder to beat eachother which makes for good improvement and work ethic. The women I've been around get along for the most part but when they don't it does not mean the team will fall apart, it just means there will be some extremely quiet bus rides.
“Shawn and Simon, you're both talking out of your as**es. You've got no data to back up your claims; you're just taking your own experience and extrapolating it to ridiculous ends. My own anecdotal evidence suggests that women are _not_ inherently more social than men, and I for one don't give a s**t whether I "click" with others in a training group. Sam says his group has a bunch of "lazy" females, but that's a judgment call, and it means nothing about the female runners in other groups. Please don't get on here and just pontificate cluelessly, gah!”
“I can tell you we always had a harder time recruiting girls for cross and distance in track. Boys always outnumbered the girls three to one...
”
Secondly, girls/women are a lot more social then men and will not sacrifice the social time it takes to become successful. Women will argue this point to the death, but it is absolutely true as a general rule. Though, there are exceptions to everything.
Thirdly, girls/women MUST click with the other females in the training group for it to work. Men can ultimately hate training partners, but will suck it up and do the work if it makes them better. Women on the other hand make it personal and a split can happen causing the whole group to fall apart if the girls don't get along. Again, this is a general statement and there are exceptions.
It is more challenging to recruit women but we've experienced slightly different reasons than Kevin described. One is that many of the women don't know about the post-collegiate groups and the support offered. Another is the timing of contacting them about the team opportunity (NCAA compliance) vs. when they make plans for graduate school. Some women (and men) don't want running 24/7 or want/need to be in an environment with more work and social opportunities than what they perceive a town of 50,000 like Flagstaff may offer, and others choose to remain with their college coach because it is working for them. All valid reasons.
“Hansons-Brooks about 4 women and 20 men
McMillan about 3 women about 10 men
TIE - No women on site about 5 men
ZAP - about 3 women about 6 men
Canadian Group - dont think any women about 7 men
Lets live in reality. Men are way easier to get then women.”
“That was a nice attempt of a man trying to understand female motivation, but as a woman I can tell you that it's off the mark. It's not that women don't want to be in a group. It's that women don't want to be in your group because they don't want to be secluded in a small town in the mid-west where dating amongst athletes is forbidden. The women in MY awesome training group cringe at the thought of moving to the boondocks. And we don't train with men and we improve.”
McMillan about 3 women about 10 men
TIE - No women on site about 5 men
ZAP - about 3 women about 6 men
Canadian Group - dont think any women about 7 men
Lets live in reality. Men are way easier to get then women.