Prime Choice A cut Alan Webb in his prime could've ran a marathon in what time?

I'd say he would have run 2:18. Dieter Baumann tried an ran 2:20. Some people are clearly better on the track.

He's only 35, in marathon years I'd say he's in his prime now.

So like 2:46

2:14:27 to win MCM.

Mile talent does not necessarily translate well to marathon ability. A hypothetical question can be answered with whatever answer anyone would like to pull out of their own a$$. I've reached in mind and found 2:25, assuming a decent semblance of marathon training, which is unlikely to have ever happened or ever happen.

not so sure wrote:

Mile talent does not necessarily translate well to marathon ability. A hypothetical question can be answered with whatever answer anyone would like to pull out of their own a$$. I've reached in mind and found 2:25, assuming a decent semblance of marathon training, which is unlikely to have ever happened or ever happen.

Man, people forget how good Webb's range was. In his 5km professional debut he ran a 13:10 (!!), and back in college a 27:38 ACR in his first 10km.

Oddly enough, he would only ever run one more 5k after his 13:10, a 13:37 during his attempted comeback 8 years later.

If 3:46 is 3:29-3:30ish, the case could be made that he would have run faster in the 5km than the mile/1500.

Regardless, throw in his 1:43 800m, and he's a once-in-a-lifetime talent.

2:14

Sand Dunes wrote:

Discuss.

My guess is easily sub 2:08. Maybe 2:05.

HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAH WHY DO YOU THINK THIS???

2:18. He could have gone faster though if he actually became a marathoner and was willing to lose 15 pounds.

2:15-16

22twos wrote:

not so sure wrote:

Mile talent does not necessarily translate well to marathon ability. A hypothetical question can be answered with whatever answer anyone would like to pull out of their own a$$. I've reached in mind and found 2:25, assuming a decent semblance of marathon training, which is unlikely to have ever happened or ever happen.

Man, people forget how good Webb's range was. In his 5km professional debut he ran a 13:10 (!!), and back in college a 27:38 ACR in his first 10km.

Oddly enough, he would only ever run one more 5k after his 13:10, a 13:37 during his attempted comeback 8 years later.

If 3:46 is 3:29-3:30ish, the case could be made that he would have run faster in the 5km than the mile/1500.

Regardless, throw in his 1:43 800m, and he's a once-in-a-lifetime talent.

Did Webb actually run a 10k during his one year in college? I thought his only 10k was the one he ran against Ritz, I think in 2006 or so, when he ran 27:34 and won. A 27:38 as a freshman in college would have been insane, but I'm pretty sure it didn't happen.

With that 10K time, At least under 2:12.

Paul Bunyan wrote:

22twos wrote:

Man, people forget how good Webb's range was. In his 5km professional debut he ran a 13:10 (!!), and back in college a 27:38 ACR in his first 10km.

Oddly enough, he would only ever run one more 5k after his 13:10, a 13:37 during his attempted comeback 8 years later.

If 3:46 is 3:29-3:30ish, the case could be made that he would have run faster in the 5km than the mile/1500.

Regardless, throw in his 1:43 800m, and he's a once-in-a-lifetime talent.

Did Webb actually run a 10k during his one year in college? I thought his only 10k was the one he ran against Ritz, I think in 2006 or so, when he ran 27:34 and won. A 27:38 as a freshman in college would have been insane, but I'm pretty sure it didn't happen.

Weird, I've been parroting that time for years (maybe I read it on here back in the day?) and after a google search have to agree with you. That would make his debut the 27:38 win against Ritz.

2:20 clean, 2:15 juiced

As Paul Bunyan noted, don't think that 10K was in college but, as 22twos notes, anyone who says 2:(double digits) is smoking crack. C'mon folks, the guy ran 27:30's on base/strength training, if he actually gave a sh** and trained specifically for it (talking about in his prime), 2:0x is a guarantee, and I'd put a years pay on that. Matter of fact, he prob could have jogged a 2:0X.

22twos wrote:

not so sure wrote:

Mile talent does not necessarily translate well to marathon ability. A hypothetical question can be answered with whatever answer anyone would like to pull out of their own a$$. I've reached in mind and found 2:25, assuming a decent semblance of marathon training, which is unlikely to have ever happened or ever happen.

Man, people forget how good Webb's range was. In his 5km professional debut he ran a 13:10 (!!), and back in college a 27:38 ACR in his first 10km.

Oddly enough, he would only ever run one more 5k after his 13:10, a 13:37 during his attempted comeback 8 years later.

If 3:46 is 3:29-3:30ish, the case could be made that he would have run faster in the 5km than the mile/1500.

Regardless, throw in his 1:43 800m, and he's a once-in-a-lifetime talent.

Sand Dunes wrote:

Discuss.

My guess is easily sub 2:08. Maybe 2:05.

And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle!!!

WTFC!!!!!!

Most likely sub-2:10 (2:07-2:08?) based on comparison with Rod Dixon's PRs:

800 - 1:47.6

1500 - 3:33.89

Mile - 3:53.62

3000 - 7:43.46

2 Miles - 8:14.4

5000 - 13:17.27

10000 - 28:11.0

Half Marathon - 1:02:12

Marathon - 2:08:59

eltjim wrote:

Most likely sub-2:10 (2:07-2:08?) based on comparison with Rod Dixon's PRs:

800 - 1:47.6

1500 - 3:33.89

Mile - 3:53.62

3000 - 7:43.46

2 Miles - 8:14.4

5000 - 13:17.27

10000 - 28:11.0

Half Marathon - 1:02:12

Marathon - 2:08:59

Rod Dixon and Alan Webb is a great comparison for the Letsrun crew who think fast times/WR's are more important than winning races and a good career.

Webb was significantly faster, but I'd take Dixon's career 100 out of 100 times if given a choice.

(also, Dixon was pretty fast)

round and round wrote:

eltjim wrote:

Most likely sub-2:10 (2:07-2:08?) based on comparison with Rod Dixon's PRs:

800 - 1:47.6

1500 - 3:33.89

Mile - 3:53.62

3000 - 7:43.46

2 Miles - 8:14.4

5000 - 13:17.27

10000 - 28:11.0

Half Marathon - 1:02:12

Marathon - 2:08:59

Rod Dixon and Alan Webb is a great comparison for the Letsrun crew who think fast times/WR's are more important than winning races and a good career.

Webb was significantly faster, but I'd take Dixon's career 100 out of 100 times if given a choice.

(also, Dixon was pretty fast)

+1

I thought he ran a 61 half?

His two miles is the equivalent of 7:38 3k or better.

All Dixon's bests were with no or rubbish pacing.