webb went thru in a ridiculous 49.9 !!! in his 1'43.86
that is 1'41.8 pace !!!
his 200 was too quick as well at 24-high
if he'd run that race smoothly in 25-flat/50-mid, he shouda run
~ 1'43-flat
that is a measure of guy...
webb went thru in a ridiculous 49.9 !!! in his 1'43.86
that is 1'41.8 pace !!!
his 200 was too quick as well at 24-high
if he'd run that race smoothly in 25-flat/50-mid, he shouda run
~ 1'43-flat
that is a measure of guy...
calculo wrote:
webb went thru in a ridiculous 49.9 !!!
that is 1'41.8 pace !!!
.
Oh, really?
yes
it's basic math
ideal fastest 800 is off 2s +ve splits
50.50 -> 1'43.00
50.00 -> 1'42.00
49.75 -> 1'41.50
49.50 -> 1'41.00
& you need appropriate 200 opener as well
this just shows modern pacing for 800 is pretty sh!t, usually far too quick for 200 & then slow too much by bell
it just wrecks clockings
i seriously doubt wanted to be dragged thru in < 50, but he gutted it out
You are weird. Swiping left.
webb in '07, if he'd had "perfect runs" was in
~ 47.00 / 1'43.00
->
2'12.37
3'28.43
3'45.46
& he was building up to '08, which if he'd held his form, not got injured & improved as expected, shouda been looking at 1'42-mid & 3'27+
the shape i expected him to be in peking was
~ 46.75 / 1'42.50
->
2'11.75
3'27.49
3'44.45
that was good enough shape to have even beaten the monstrously doped up ramzi in peking !!!
webb is one of the biggest "what if.." stories of this millennium...
Siri, Open Tinder wrote:
calculo wrote:webb went thru in a ridiculous 49.9 !!!
that is 1'41.8 pace !!!
.
Oh, really?
just because I'm dense, we're presuming a :02/s delta in the second 400?
49.9 is [by definition] 1:39.8/800m 'pace' of course.
I'm sure everyone here can count or multiply by integers of course..
calculo wrote:
webb in '07, if he'd had "perfect runs" was in
~ 47.00 / 1'43.00
->
2'12.37
3'28.43
3'45.46
& he was building up to '08, which if he'd held his form, not got injured & improved as expected, shouda been looking at 1'42-mid & 3'27+
the shape i expected him to be in peking was
~ 46.75 / 1'42.50
->
2'11.75
3'27.49
3'44.45
that was good enough shape to have even beaten the monstrously doped up ramzi in peking !!!
webb is one of the biggest "what if.." stories of this millennium...
Peking, is that not considered an offensive statement in today's world?
I was at the Alan Webb/ Chris Lear talk at the Pacers store in DC a few weeks ago. You can see some of the video here:
https://www.facebook.com/runpacers/videos/966042643538806/
Anyway, a lot of talk was about Michigan/Warhurst, etc.
It struck me there that Webb and Willis are totally different breeds. Webb wanted it right now. He forced the fast times to come whereas Willis just trains and let it comes to him.
Webb always was running to win. One might say that Willis was often running for third.
I don't think that last statement is really fair to Willis if you take it as a slight because really in a race he is doing the smart thing and trying to run as fast as possible and efficiently as possible as he realizes whoever runs the fastest will be the winner. As a result, in the end, he ended up with a better absolute PR and two Olympic medals.
However, that measured approached has also resulted in Willis never winning a DL meet. And that might be a smart thing. Instead of peaking in July and getting hurt, he's peaking in August and picking up a medal.
10 years ago, I would have been obsessed like the OP is in judging one as superior to the other. Instead, now with some maturity, I appreciate them both.
Willis > Webb wrote:
Per IAAF tables, Willis wins. Over and over.
IAAF table are crap.
The ONLY thing that matters is the time that you run.
Did Willis ever RUN 3:46.22?
NO.
You can still argue he is better or not, but table conversions don't wash.
kimani wrote:
I mean...Webb was technically slower than Willis and has zero medals, in his primary event or others.
But yeah, Webb wouldn't been pretty great in like a running events-only pentathlon or something. 100, 400, 1500, 5k, marathon or 110HH. Maybe we should start it up!
Nope Willis never ran a 3:46:91.
Willis is a better competitor, better medalist. Webb better overall runner. It's not that even close. He ran actual great times in races. nothing to make up
Jim Ryun/Peter Snell/Herb Elliot and probably others ran on grass, dirt, clay, and occasionally cinders. They were better than any of today's milers.
(Remember too that they pioneered today's training, had inferior medicine, clothing, shoes, and so many other variables it would make your head spin!)
Da Vinci Code wrote:
Willis > Webb wrote:Per IAAF tables, Willis wins. Over and over.
IAAF table are crap.
The ONLY thing that matters is the time that you run.
Did Willis ever RUN 3:46.22?
NO.
You can still argue he is better or not, but table conversions don't wash.
Agree with all of this. How come no one is mentioning that Willis is a Commonwealth champion and Webb is not?
in Webb we trust wrote: wrote:
Nope Willis never ran a 3:46:91.
Willis is a better competitor, better medalist. Webb better overall runner. It's not that even close. He ran actual great times in races. nothing to make up
And Webb never ran sub 3:30 for 1500 either. Willis has done that twice.What's your point?
Are you trying to say Webb's range is unreal? Yes it was. Remember, Webb won the Big 10 xc title as a FRESHMAN over Matt Tegenkamp. So as a freshman, a guy who would go on to run 1:43 for 800, wins an xc title over Teg who would go on to run 12:58. Now Tegenkamp was only one year older so it's not like he was a senior but that's pretty amazing.
Here are their actualy PRs from races since the poster won't allow common sense to prevail and any conversions to be used.
PR at 800: Edge Webb (1:43.84 vs 1:45.54)
Pr at 1k: Edge Willis 2:20.32 vs 2:16.58
PR at 1500: Edge Willis (3:30.54 vs. 3:29.66)
PR at Mile: Edge Webb: 3:46.94 vs 3:49.83
PR at 3k: Edge Willis (739.28 vs 7:36.91)
PR at 5k: Edge Webb (13:10.86 vs 13:20.33)
PR at 10k: Edge Webb (27:34.72vs NA)
Warhust is an excellent coach, but I see the primary difference between Webb and Willis as mental. Both are insanely talented, though I suspect Webb might have had slightly more natural physical ability. Willis was always more consistent, tactically astute, focused, relaxed, and intelligent as a racer. Webb always struck me as too jacked up (literally and figuratively) and caught in his own head. Warhurst and Willis were a natural match because of Willis's temperament. Its in Webb's DNA to bounce from coach to coach
The real issue was that Webb injured his hamstring just before that race.
Not only that but Teg as a freshman had just taken 5th at World Junior XC, behind Bekele and Ritz (3rd), among others. Of course, Teg was not going all out and I think that he went on to finish very high at NCAA, while Webb was a disappointed 11th--still a great performance and few American freshman have beaten that since.
Willis ran 2:16.58 1k, but Webb ran a 2:17 1k time trial right after (3 minutes after) a 2:00 800m warmup, so could have run much faster.
Webb also ran 8:11 2M, which is close to 7:36.91 3k.
Webb ran 4 times under 3:51 (3:46.91/3:48.92 the two best), Willis twice.
Too bad Webb's greatness was so brief; Willis accomplished his sub 3:50 in 2014, along with sub 3:30 in 2014-15, yet he was there at Michigan around Webb's time (same year?). As a 17 year old high school senior, he ran 4:01.33 in 2001, the year Webb ran 3:53. Just remarkable longevity, vs. a period of 7 years (2001-7), in which Webb had maybe three or four good years, 2001, 2004-5, 2007.
Not really sure why someone needed to make this thread.
Webb has the better range of PRs going for him, and that's about it. Willis has the longevity, the championship results, the better time in their most commonly raced distance, and so it isn't really a close "comparison". But that's no need to knock Webb by translating Willis' 1500m time. The 3:46 was indeed special.