Willis' 3:29.66 = 3:46.22 mile. Sorry Alan.

Nick Willis just did a workout in Italy, which was live streamed.

3x1000

4x400

1000

2:47 2:46 2:44-5

61 58 58 58-9

2:22.9

1) the mile isn't contested as much as the 1500m

2) Willis has the medals to back his times up

3) Willis has had a much longer and better career

4) While Webb had more range in terms of PR's. He was always more of a 1500m/5k so Webb's 1:43, Willis wouldn't have touched anyways. Why would Willis bother running at 10k. It was stupid for Webb to do it in the first place and contributed to his injury and short career. The fair comparison is the 5k, but I feel like Willis has 13:05 ability, he just hasn't seriously gone after it.

5) Willis is a lot more consistent

Willis > Webb wrote:

Webb gets 10x the LRC attention of the still-in-it Willis. Among the fans, emotion always comes first (notwithstanding the US bias of these boards, but that is also emotion-based).

Of course Webb get's more attention here. As you point out this is a US-based message board and site. Many of the posters grew up in the Webb era and he was a major figure in the beginning of the resurgence of US middle and distance running.

That doesn't mean people don't have respect for Willis, but they certainly have a lot of emotional interest in Webb. Factor in that Webb is a bit of an enigma, and thus he produced a lot of "what if" posts over the years. Whereas, Willis has been a pretty steady and uncontroversial runner. He has consistently ground results, but a flashier runner, even if they burn out earlier usually is going to attack more attention.

Why is that an issue?

NOP Skeptic wrote:

1) the mile isn't contested as much as the 1500m

2) Willis has the medals to back his times up

3) Willis has had a much longer and better career

4) While Webb had more range in terms of PR's. He was always more of a 1500m/5k so Webb's 1:43, Willis wouldn't have touched anyways. Why would Willis bother running at 10k. It was stupid for Webb to do it in the first place and contributed to his injury and short career. The fair comparison is the 5k, but I feel like Willis has 13:05 ability, he just hasn't seriously gone after it.

5) Willis is a lot more consistent

Willis could probably scare sub 7:30 and 13:00 if he were to focus on it and get in the right race.

All 5 points on your list would likely be things Alan Webb himself would 100% agree with.no one should be arguing this stuff, especially since they are the SAME AGE and Webb sits on the couch and watches Willis compete

NOP Skeptic wrote:

1) the mile isn't contested as much as the 1500m

2) Willis has the medals to back his times up

3) Willis has had a much longer and better career

4) While Webb had more range in terms of PR's. He was always more of a 1500m/5k so Webb's 1:43, Willis wouldn't have touched anyways. Why would Willis bother running at 10k. It was stupid for Webb to do it in the first place and contributed to his injury and short career. The fair comparison is the 5k, but I feel like Willis has 13:05 ability, he just hasn't seriously gone after it.

5) Willis is a lot more consistent

in Webb we trust wrote: wrote:

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

Bro that entire statement is ret@rded. So what exactly is your "weighting" for attributes of a runner in the measure of greatness? 80% based of best time, 10% each for competitor and medal winning?

So longevity of career (Willis is arguably the greatest of ALL TIME when it comes to this having run 3.32 in 2004 and 3.34 in 2017) isn't really comparable between the two, neither is consistency or honors (Olympic/WC finals and medals). Alan Webb was a phenomenal talent but the only metric he beats Willis on is time and at their key event (1500m/mile) they split the honors (Willis with a better 1500m PR, Webb a better mile)

The correct statement is "Webb has a better portfolio of PR's from 800-5000m. Willis the better overall runner"

Trackbot! Compare Alan Web vs Nick Willis

Could not find / disambiguate Alan Web

I am a bot. Info: habs.sdf.org/trackbot

calculo wrote:

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 shoulda run

~ 1'43-flat

that is a measure of guy...

No its Webb's 1; 43.86 pace.

If you want to play that game, Usain Bolt goes through 1:20 pace or better every time he runs a 200.

And the shoulda bs is just that. If he coulda, he woulda

I am sure that Webb is disappointed with many 'achievements' in his career. But it was his career. I am sure he's moved on. He did what he did.

Trackbot! Compare Alan Webb vs Nick Willis

Could not find / disambiguate Alan Webb

I am a bot. Info: habs.sdf.org/trackbot

TrackBot wrote:

Could not find / disambiguate Alan Webb

I am a bot. Info: habs.sdf.org/trackbot

Lol

The mile is as real an event as the 1000, the 3000, or the half marathon; if mile PRs mattered, Webb wouldn't have had to go to some random fan-less 6-lane track in Belgium to chase the AR. These guys are 1500 runners through and through. Webb was great, intense, a vortex in split shorts, who threw down some great times and loved to challenge any- and everyone, not to mention stirring up real emotion and inspiration in a US crowd begging for a competitive hope.

Runner= ability to run. Webb had more. End of story.

again not difficult.

Willis = better 1500m runner / Webb= Better Runner

People forget that Webb was setting records in HS. and that Webb placed top 10 in USA cross the 3 times he ran.

no

go & read the article on homepage

webb had a hamstring injury 100m in & was on verge of dropping out of race !!! but bravely continued on

i was unaware of this injury until reading the article

to run 1'43.86 off stoopid 24-high & virtually suicidal 49.9 !!! with an injury for last 700m is almost beyond belief !!!

if you think that 1'43.86 was his best possible time that day carrying an injury last 700m & off stoopid bell-time, then you need to wise-up fast

i reckoned he had ~ 1'43-flat that day off just those dumb splits, but if carrying an injury last 700m which meant he coudn't sprint fully, it's likely his uninjured time off ideal 2s +ve splits there'n'then wouda been

~ 1'42-mid/high

those estimates i gave for potentially '08, based on this injury have to be likely re-ascribed for '07

webb in '07 couda gone one of these series or in-between :

~ 46.875 / 1'42.75

->

2'12.06

3'27.96

3'44.96

~ 46.75 / 1'42.50

->

2'11.75

3'27.49

3'44.45

eh ???

what is this joke ???

if you want to bring up bolt, he ran his 19.19 off ridiculous 9.92 split

if he'd run that 100 in ~ 10.00, he wouda run ~ 19.05 & into a wind !!!

if your not interested in race analysis & seeing/improving on mistakes in splits, etc, then this topic isn't for you

oh & i'm sure he has no regrets that that day in heusden, if not for his injury & poor splits that he couda given the US 800 record a huge scare !?

salvatorestitchmo wrote:

The correct statement is "Webb has a better portfolio of PR's from 800-5000m. Willis the better overall runner"

No.

Willis ran faster at the meaningful event that they each raced 100s of times. They event at which they competed.

Webb was faster at a contrived distance only Americans care about. So little was the globe's concern with the 1609.34m that Webb's agent literally had to beg all over Europe for a meet to put a mile on the schedule; nobody runs it!

As well as the novelty mile, Webb engaged in novelty exercises such as attempting fast PRs in the 800 and 10,000. Willis did not. (This is called "focus" and "discipline" and "prioritization.")

Webb was a flash in the pan guy 1s slower at 1500, who never figures in any global results. Webb isn't even in the same conversation as Willis. Frankly his trajectory screams of suspicion.

in Webb we trust wrote:

Runner= ability to run. Webb had more. End of story.

again not difficult.

Willis = better 1500m runner / Webb= Better Runner

People forget that Webb was setting records in HS. and that Webb placed top 10 in USA cross the 3 times he ran.

So ability to run is only the ability to run fast? Not to beat someone head to head or compete against competition from others?

So by that logic any plethora of random Kenyans that ran faster than Jim Ryun is a better runner than Ryun?

Let's even go era to era - so Ivan Heshko was better than Webb just because his PR over 1500m was better?

In fact your argument on times doesn't apply to the Willis vs Webb scenario because over their key distances (1500m/mile) Webb is only faster at the mile. I mean everything else is pure conjecture - congratulations to Alan that decided to run a 10000m early season once and ran 27.30 - as far as I know Willis has never even run a 10000 on a track so we don't even know what he is capable of if he even cared.

Bob Stitchmo wrote:

In fact your argument on times doesn't apply to the Willis vs Webb scenario because over their key distances (1500m/mile) Webb is only faster at the mile. I mean everything else is pure conjecture - congratulations to Alan that decided to run a 10000m early season once and ran 27.30 - as far as I know Willis has never even run a 10000 on a track so we don't even know what he is capable of if he even cared.

Sorry Willis ran everything Webb did (except the 10k) . It's not conjecture.

Not sure why Willis fans hate Webb and want to discredit him.

Geez next your going to be going on and on about Nick's Commonwealth games medals and it being a "key" race

Webb was kind of like a speedy Ron Clarke: ran sometimes phenomenally in time-trial type situations, but always flustered in big championships. Unpredictable peaks and valleys. Probably represents cycles of overtraining.