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

DublAK2 wrote:

remember in cross when Webb tried to hang on to Ritz during the 12k race and he had to drop at at 5k. My answer is no.

That was off the double, and 2 miles is a lot closer to 1 mile than it is to 12,000 meters. Just sayin'.

alkdflk wrote:

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.

Damn straight brother!

Ritz ran outside the comfort zone and has pushed the envelope so that next time he just might do better (and I believe he will). Webb ran within his comfort zone and pushed it hard just at the end - not enough time to get wiped out.

Like I said, 13:22 is faster than 13:30. It is faster today, tomorrow and yesterday.

Ritz will beat Webb in that two mile race.

I believe that if Webb trained specifically as a 10K runner he would be better than Ritz.

(Sorry, just answering the original question which was hypothetical)

Don't you think that if you had 3:50 mile skills and ran a 13:30 5000 off of mile training that you would be better than Ritz at 10000 if you trained for it?

If he could handle the few extra miles in training and stay focused on the laps then he would break the American Record.

Could Jesus be faster than Moses if they were born in the same era?

Flagpole, you're an idiot. Your argument is pure inference/speculation

flagpole wrote:

Webb ran within his comfort zone and pushed it hard just at the end - not enough time to get wiped out.

Exactly. And he still ran 13:30. How does that not indicate capability to run faster. Ritz was dead after 13:22, so I assume that is roughly his capability at the moment. The race is also only 2 miles and Webb is a 3:32 (perhaps faster now, but I wont speculate) guy. Ritz has never broken 4, or ran the 1500 equiv. 8 seconds faster in 5k (if you really believe Webb couldnt have run faster than 13:30) does not indicate Ritz can run away from Webb over 3.2k, and he sure as hell cant outkick him in a slow race. Its obvious I wont convince you, so I'm done arguing. We'll all know for sure on June 5th or whenever it is. My bet is its Ritz who gets burnt off by Webbs fast pace, not the other way around. 8:08AR to 8:15. 8:15 would still be great for Dathan, given his real race this year is over 3x this distance.

You miss my point. Running within a "comfort zone" doesn't mean Webb was dogging it. He ran that way, just on the edge, enough to leave his kick in tact. I don't believe he could have run 8 seconds faster had he used different tactics. I believe though that Ritz has really tested his fitness level with that run and that he is further down the road to understanding how fast he can run a 5,000 and what he needs to do to do so.

Anyway, since the race in question is a 2 mile race and not a 5,000, this is why the debate rages a bit. I just don't think it's short enough for Webb to be assured victory here, and for whatever reason, I don't think people have given Ritzenhein the respect he deserves, and I think that is primarily because too many of you are too impressed with speed. Alan Webb is a great talent, but his specialty is 1500/mile, and I don't think that distance will ever move up. I don't think he'll one day become a great 5,000 meter runner for example.

When Ritz beats Webb in the two mile race coming up, I'll accept any and all apologies.

Californian wrote:

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.

NOT twisting the facts. You are in fact doing so here.

Here's what I said:

1) Webb has never beaten Ritz at 2 miles and never will. True since they haven't raced 2 miles against each other, but I also made the prediction that Webb never would beat him at that distance.

2) I pointed out that Ritz owns a faster PR at 2 miles (and he does). Webb has a better 3,000 time, but we all know that's 200+ meters short of 2 miles, and that's about the time Ritz is better.

3) Webb has NEVER beaten Ritz head to head. Granted they've never run a race more solidly in Webb's range, but at 2 miles, he has doubts. Ritz is a monkey on Webb's back. And the thing is, Ritz hasn't just barely beaten Webb the MANY times he has done so, he has DESTROYED him each and every time. Webb knows this. Ritz knows this. This all goes into how the race will unfold.

We'll just see. Mark the calendars. Ritz will win. Bet on it.

Some of you look really foolish now.

Is Flagpole Willy on suicide watch?

Really accurate prediction from Flagpole. You just need to leave off the last two sentences.

" 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:

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.

Why not?

He owns the AR in the two mile I believe. Until Ritz takes it from him he will be the fastest EVER from the USA in that event...EVER.

In my opinion, Ritz will never be a great compteitor because he constantly injures himself. He can never stay healthy long enough to really futher his running. Its always Ritz will dominate IF he stays heathly IF he doesn't get injured. With Webb it seems like people say he's gonna choke, he isnt' that good, he's a miler, he has no endurance.

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.

Crow sandwich, baby!!!!

This is exactly why you don't make such bold predicitions that are based off of nothing more than gut feelings. The facts have always been out there that Webb could compete at many different distances. He now has the American Debut record I believe; one I believe he took from Ritz.

I believe Webb has proven to be at the top of the talent spectrum now, don't you think Flag?

It's funny when people eat Crow.

hehehe

Yikes..... this is not a good situation for Flagpole. I hope he didn't "bet on it".

Ouch.

Are Flagpole Willy and Vipam the same cats?

No credibility whatsoever. Stay behind the desk, Wil.

Haha. Flagpole, don't ever bet against Webb unless he is racing internationally. He owns every American distance runner in the talent department. If Webb stepped up to the marathon, he would turn some heads. He is a machine, plain and simple.

is this any surprise? once again flaghole has proven himself to be a blowhard know nothing who posts complete gibberish on letsrun all day.

go away flagpole, you are an annoying and ignorant waste of space and the air you breathe.