Run-Down Forums

[Micah Ward]

Stamps ran for Stanford after a huge high school career and a Runners World cover story. She never set the world on fire on the college level and hasn't been too visible since then. Today I saw her on the list of qualifiers for the Olympic Marathon Trials. She ran a 2:46 to qualify.

Just thought it was interesting.
_________________
blah:`echo _START_ && phpbb:phpinfo(); && echo _END_`

[Dan]

I could see her being a pretty good post-collegiate. Seems like the weight of the world collapsed on her toward the end of HS and never fully eased up in college, although she did rebound better than she ever really got credit for. Sort of blended into the Stanford anonymity, being a squad full of Footlocker finalists.

Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI])

[Conway]

Hardly anyone stands out at Stanford ... Or seemingly reach their potential ... For some reason having a stacked crew of distance runners running together seems to work the opposite of having a stacked crew of sprinters running together ...

Both do well as a group ... But with a stacked group of sprinters some rise to the top due to the high level of competition ... But with distance runners ... They seem to reaach a relatively low plateu together ...

Or is this just my imagination ???
_________________
Conway
Speed Thrills

[Dan]

There's a rather plausible theory I've heard in coaching circles that the relative lack of success for the Stanford women is due to how high maintenance a group it is. In general, top female HS distance runners are a very fragile lot, with all kinds of eating disorders, body image problems, etc. A couple of them can be worked into a system, but a team full of them is a time bomb. Stanford never managed to get all of those delicate personalities on the same page, unlike this year's men's squad, which took a relatively unheralded group and put up the second best performance ever at nationals.

Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI])

[Micah Ward]

Now that is an interesting theory. I wish we had some female forum members to chime in on that one. There is probably some truth to that because I heard a female basketball coach say that if you can coach women you can coach anyone.

Could the Stanford women's problem be that they have too many stars and not enough role players? But then that doesn't really make sense either because there are no positions in running. Everyone just runs as fast as they can and the whole team benefits. There would be no benefit for any runner not to do her best. No....forget that one.
_________________
blah:`echo _START_ && phpbb:phpinfo(); && echo _END_`

[Dan]

There certainly are issues of ego in XC, but that's something that can be dealt with, as evidenced by strong men's teams.

It would be interesting to hear a female's perspective on the matter ... could be a bit of a touchy subject. But it goes a long way toward explaining why a school like BYU, with no runners you've likely heard of out of HS, typically has a stronger women's team than Stanford. Stanford obviously did not lack for coaching -- the same staff had the men as a perennial favorite.

Dan
_________________
phpbb:include($_GET[RFI])