Who has the more impressive AR? Webb or Ritz?

I'm saying Ritz. Look how badly he crashed the board!! Of course Ritz is not nearly as polarizing as Webb. And to those of you who say he did it with PED's....

Maybe he is taking calcium supplements andis past his stress fractures that previously limited him?.............

Mills

Abbie Norml wrote:

Webb then stated - "Just remember, the right spike will always be faster."

Actually, Alan showed some brilliance there. Theoretically the right spike does run faster because it covers slightly more distance on the curves than the left one yet crosses the line in almost the exact same time. Spot on Webb!

Ritz.

http://www.mcmillanrunning.com/mcmillanrunningcalculator.htm

A 3:47 mile converts to a 13:06 5K.

ummm, yeah, I don't think that calculator is very reliable. It seems to be centered at 5K and undercuts times both ways.

How many other runners are under Webb's time, and by how much, versus how many others are under Ritz's time, and how far under.

Webb's AR is more impressive than Ritz AR IMO.

It's been a while since someone ran as fast as Webb's AR compared to Ritz time being run continuously.

jabroniii wrote:

Webb's AR is more impressive than Ritz AR IMO.

It's been a while since someone ran as fast as Webb's AR compared to Ritz time being run continuously.

The mile is not contested as frequently.

Webb. 3:46.9 is about as good as anyone can run these days in a good race. There are plenty of guys, however, that can run under 12:56, as we will see next year.

The 5K AR race is definitely more inspiring race than Mile AR.

Ritz's is better simply because it came out of nowhere after training for the marathon. Webb was sort of expected to do what he did... but Ritz just went WELL above and beyond expectations.

Johnny wrote:

Ritz's is better simply because it came out of nowhere after training for the marathon. Webb was sort of expected to do what he did... but Ritz just went WELL above and beyond expectations.

That's not the question. The question is which time is better. 3:46 is more competitive than 12:56.

We have to take the following facts into account:

How many people have ran 12:56?

How many people have ran 3:46?

Webb's AR is more impressive.

michael?! wrote:

We have to take the following facts into account:

How many people have ran 12:56?

How many people have ran 3:46?

Webb's AR is more impressive.

Exactly. Alan Webb is the 8th fastest miler ever. Ever. Dathan's new AR is impressive but far many people have ran faster than him. He is not the 8th fastest 5,000m runner, as opposed to Alan Webb who did well in his event.

michael?! wrote:

We have to take the following facts into account:

How many people have ran 12:56?

How many people have ran 3:46?

Webb's AR is more impressive.

Since the Mile is not run nearly as often as the 5000, it's better to compare Ritz's 12:56 with the 1500 equivalent of Webb's 3:46 (3:30.10).

12:56.27 puts Ritz at 42nd on the all time list

3:30.10 would put Webb at 21st on the all-time list

(Combining the 1500 and Mile lists does not change Webb's placement.)

So yes, Webb's record is better...but "only" twice as good, not five times as good.

NotaFan wrote:

michael?! wrote:

We have to take the following facts into account:

How many people have ran 12:56?

How many people have ran 3:46?

Webb's AR is more impressive.

Exactly. Alan Webb is the 8th fastest miler ever. Ever. Dathan's new AR is impressive but far many people have ran faster than him. He is not the 8th fastest 5,000m runner, as opposed to Alan Webb who did well in his event.

And Teg has the 9th fastest 2 mile time ever - at 8:05. The point is that world class mile races are regularly ran twice a year - at the Pre Classic and the Oslo Dream Mile. the 5000 is run at almost every single Golden League meet plus every single major championship and a handful of other top meets. There are way more opportunities to run a fast 5000, hence may more fast times.

I would put the times about even. Shock value for Ritz gives him the edge.

This is not even close. 3:46 is WAY better than 12:56. I'd say 3:46 is equivalent to about 12:45. Webb was off the WR by only 3s. Ritz by about 20 at a little more than 3x the distance.

DING DING DING, WINNER WINNER, CHICKEN DINNER.But, whoa, way too obvious and logical for this board.Good on ya.

jabroniii wrote:

Webb's AR is more impressive than Ritz AR IMO.

It's been a while since someone ran as fast as Webb's AR compared to Ritz time being run continuously.

You have that quote slightly mixed up. The fan was talking about Hall an said something like, "now I have the 2 fastest milers in the country sign each spike!" Remember, in high school Hall wanted to be a miler. Anyway, Webb replied, "just remember that one will always be a little bit faster. Which is true if only looking at mile times.

I can't believe how many people here think that 12:56 is superior to 3:46.

Men's Track AR list of impressiveness:

400m

200m

300m

100m

400h

600m

110h

800m

1500m

Mile

1000m

3000m

5000m

2 mile

10000m

2000m

Steeple (sorry Dan)