Could Webb be faster than Ritz at 10K if he trained for it?

This is way high on the list of "who cares" questions. Why should Webb even think about running a 10,000?

This question is begging for escalation of epic proportions, so I offer one of the few reasonable replies you will get. We'll never know until he actually RACES it, will we? That said, his X-C win, 13:30 5km PB, and the development of his endurance coupled with raw 47 400 speed suggests great things should he opt for the 10km in the future.

He has a great future in the Mile (aka 1500). Just leave him alone and let him develop.

It must really suck to actually care about this.

I know he's a miler and should stick with the mile because that is his best event. I didn't imply he should train for anything else....but I know many of you have poor reading comprehension. I am just curious if there is any reason why someone like Webb, who is great miler and has demonstrated reasonable long distance ability (ie 4th in the 12K XC, probably on limited training) cannot be a good 10K runner?

In time he could be... but my guess is that he wants the WR in the mile more then the 10K.

What if Seb Coe didn't stop running and focused on the 5k..

What if Pre didn't die?

What if I didn't stop running in College?

What if I got the M5 instead of the 540?

What if Said ran the Olympic 1500 in 1984?

What if Bush questioned his advisor before commiting our troops?

What if I sold all my options at their peak value?

What if people stopped creating "What if" threads?

"It must really suck to actually care about this."

Can you imagine? Ugh. Then again, he didn't ask to be born.

What if fellows didn't click on threads that they already knew they didn't care about?

1337hax0r wrote:

What if fellows didn't click on threads that they already knew they didn't care about?

What does it matter to you? It's funny and you know it. And besides, it's the internet dude, relax.

I'll actually answer without being the smart ass the others are being.

1) Actually Webb can't beat Ritz at 2 miles. Never has and never will (assuming both are properly trained and uninjured and not ill).

2) Webb could try the rest of his career and not be able to beat Ritz at 10,000 meters. The same is true in the other direction. Ritz has no chance to beat Webb at 2000 meters on down.

3) Yes Webb could be a good 10,000 runner, even a slightly competitive one. Ritz though is and will continue to be a GREAT 10,000 runner. 27:38 for a first try? Are you kidding me? Webb has NO shot at being that good in the 10,000, and Ritz is only going to get better.

Flagpole Willy wrote:

1) Actually Webb can't beat Ritz at 2 miles. Never has and never will (assuming both are properly trained and uninjured and not ill).

Now, Flagpole, we all know that you love Ritz, but how do you figure this? "Never" is a strong word. Based on this logic, would you say that El G can't beat Geb in a 2 mile? Obviously, neither Webb nor Ritz is anwyhere near El G and Geb, but I think that their 'specialty distance' comparison is favorable. I just don't understand how you can say that a world-class 1500 meter runner "can't" and "will never" beat a 10k/5k specialist. What is your basis- the fact that Ritz owned Webb in high school?

Flagpole Willy wrote:

I'll actually answer without being the smart ass the others are being.

1) Actually Webb can't beat Ritz at 2 miles. Never has and never will (assuming both are properly trained and uninjured and not ill).

2) Webb could try the rest of his career and not be able to beat Ritz at 10,000 meters. The same is true in the other direction. Ritz has no chance to beat Webb at 2000 meters on down.

3) Yes Webb could be a good 10,000 runner, even a slightly competitive one. Ritz though is and will continue to be a GREAT 10,000 runner. 27:38 for a first try? Are you kidding me? Webb has NO shot at being that good in the 10,000, and Ritz is only going to get better.

Flagpole, I know you love Ritz, but this is out of hand. Webb will clean Ritz's clock at 2 miles, just like Ritz did to Webb over 12k. Webb will blow his doors off over 3k, and within the next year (if not now), 5k. Webb ran 7:47i in his first race, months (3?) ago. Ritz just ran, outdoors, less than 4 seconds faster. Webbs race is far superior given the time of year he ran it in, and how it was on an indoor track and a very low key race with only Carroll to race. Webb ran 13:30 (first race outdoors), closing in sub 27 (in lanes 2 and 3!!) and came back to run 1:47. A few weeks later (closer to peak shape and with a rabbit), Ritz runs 13:22, winning, but closing in 35(!) and lying on the ground in agony and exhaustion afterwards. Webb had a lot left, again a far superior race on his part. Ritz has never broken 3:42. Webb ran 3:32 and 3:50. All of this is speculation, but I feel Webb is capable of sub 13:15 and 3:31 NOW. Ritz may be able to run 13:15, maybe, but the race between then is 1800 meters shorter, which only works to Webbs advantage. The kid is strong, but Webb is so much faster, with phenomenal strength to boot. Even if Dathan can hang with Webb for 7 laps (not gonna happen) Webb would run away from him so easily it would be like Mo Greene racing some kid in the special olympics 100m. And of course, Webb would have no chance hanging with Dathan over 10k now, and probably not ever. But I guess we'll all see in a few weeks, eh?

"1) Actually Webb can't beat Ritz at 2 miles. Never has and never will (assuming both are properly trained and uninjured and not ill)."

They have never raced each other at 2 miles (or 3k for that matter), so your assertion that Webb "never has" beaten Ritz at 2 miles is very misleading. But then again, your opinions on Ritz aren't backed by facts; they are built on your baseless assumptions and lies in some cases (please see the thread where you wrote that Kennedy was almost 26 when he first ran sub 13:10 for 5000m)

Californian wrote:

They have never raced each other at 2 miles (or 3k for that matter), so your assertion that Webb "never has" beaten Ritz at 2 miles is very misleading.

True nonetheless. I did also say though that he "never will", and he won't.

You're right, we will see. I don't get all geeked about closing 200 meters or laps or anything of the sort. It's the final time that matters, and 13:22 is faster than 13:30 the last time I checked.

The thing is that when Ritz beats Webb, everyone who screamed that Webb would destroy Ritz will either be silent or will have excuses for Webb. I will make no excuses if Ritz loses to Webb, but he won't.

Flagpole Willy wrote:

You're right, we will see. I don't get all geeked about closing 200 meters or laps or anything of the sort. It's the final time that matters, and 13:22 is faster than 13:30 the last time I checked.

The thing is that when Ritz beats Webb, everyone who screamed that Webb would destroy Ritz will either be silent or will have excuses for Webb. I will make no excuses if Ritz loses to Webb, but he won't.

I dont want to beat this issue to death, but I feel the way a race was ran matters a lot. 13:30 with a lot left is worth more in my book than 13:22 all out, espicially when both were wins.

Hell, if Ritz wins (by win, of course I mean beating Webb), bring this thread up, and I'll gladly admit I was wrong. If he can beat Webb over 2 miles, that is a sign of huge things to come this season, and I would love to see it, as long as they both run fast. Either way, this race is great for the sport. Webb will win though, no contest.

Let this be an example to all of Flagpole's style of argument: Deception and twisting facts to back up his opinions.

Now, I do hate Fagpole Willy, but he is not the one twisting facts.

13:22 is a better time than 13:30. If you want to be subjective and talk about finishing kicks and margin of victory and how tired each runner "seemed" to be after finishing - well, that sounds more like twisting facts than Fagpole simply saying "13:22 is superior to 13:30."

Just sayin.

I'm not talking about Webb's 13:30 vs Ritz 13:22. Flagpole said that Webb has never beaten Ritz in a 2 mile race. They have actually never raced before. That is deception on his part. In another thread, he twisted facts concerning Kennedy's race times at 5000m when he was comparing Ritz to Kennedy. His arguments do twist facts around.