Alan Webb Has NO CHANCE At Sub 13:30 On Saturday

"Do you think Albert Einstein ever posted on one of these? Nope, cause he was actually intelligent."

Yes, absolutely. What a fantastically well made point. Maybe it's just me though, but I think there might have been another reason why Albert Einstein never posted on any Internet message boards.

I'm not sure any of this matters because he's going to fail to make the top 3 at the trials and it will be to people who all already have the A standard. He might have a good kick, but it won't be present when the 5k closes with a 4 minute final mile.

I would like to see him run the A, though, just to keep the hope alive and add some more tension to the trials.

The question is, what's next? Both he and Andrews aren't an international threat right now, so what's in store for them in the next four years?

Clifford Y Clavin wrote:

idea guy wrote:

It will be a hollow victory for you.

All victories are hollow to the intelligent, but no, being proven correct is no victory for me, it is as taken for granted as breathing.

Feeling a little light headed these days, huh?

Runners in 3:39 1500 condition usually run about 13:30 - 13:40 in the 5k.

To Webb's defense, he's in 3:37 shape.

Alan has proved that he has way more strength than speed. Look at his 800 (1:52) compared to his 1500. (3:37) No doubt he will hit the olympic A standard if the conditions arent ridiculous. Maybe by the world championships next fall his speed will come back around, but the 5k is by far his best option this year.

Based upon IAAF tables, his 3:37.26 run in LA on May 18 is equivalent to 13:18.27. I would agree with several posters that his strength seems better than his speed at this point. But I also agree that conditions, wind, pace, heat, etc could be a factor. I would certainly say that he does have SOME chance of sub 13:30, and the odds might even be better than 50-50.

Clifford T Clavin wrote:

Let's face the facts, people. Alan can probably run 13:30-35, but there is no way that his fitness will lend itself to anything faster at this point. IF Alan could run 13:20, he'd be running 3:35xx by now. The fanboys can get excited, but the intelligent remain lucid in their appraisals of circumstances which render these jock sniffers Pollyanish or even delusional.

Not sure how you or anyone can say 'NO CHANCE' w/o knowing his training. His current fitness from less than a week ago puts him at 13:30 and it will not take much progress to dip under 13:30. If you said it will be difficult or even unlikely, I could go with that, but it is a bit extreme to say no chance. Anyone who is in shape to run a sub-4 mile can never be said to have no chance.

Clifford N Clavin wrote:Rupp is a 3:34.75 1500m man. He would struggle to run 3:46 back to back. That is his ceiling, and I know more about it than Salazar, Ventolin or anybody else.

he'd struggle to run 3'43 back to back, but 3'46 x2 is no sweat

Clifford T Clavin wrote:

Let's face the facts, people. Alan can probably run 13:30-35, but there is no way that his fitness will lend itself to anything faster at this point. IF Alan could run 13:20, he'd be running 3:35xx by now. The fanboys can get excited, but the intelligent remain lucid in their appraisals of circumstances which render these jock sniffers Pollyanish or even delusional.

Tell that to Bob Kennedy.

doi wrote:

Clifford T Clavin wrote:

Let's face the facts, people. Alan can probably run 13:30-35, but there is no way that his fitness will lend itself to anything faster at this point. IF Alan could run 13:20, he'd be running 3:35xx by now. The fanboys can get excited, but the intelligent remain lucid in their appraisals of circumstances which render these jock sniffers Pollyanish or even delusional.

Tell that to Bob Kennedy.

This has NOTHING to do with Bob Kennedy. Bob Kennedy ran 3:38 when his personal best was 13:22, and Bob Kennedy obviously could have run 3:33 at some point. Bob Kennedy is a different type of runner than Alan Webb. I would have thought this was obvious, even to the unwashed masses.

ventolin^3 wrote:

Clifford N Clavin wrote:Rupp is a 3:34.75 1500m man. He would struggle to run 3:46 back to back. That is his ceiling, and I know more about it than Salazar, Ventolin or anybody else.

he'd struggle to run 3'43 back to back, but 3'46 x2 is no sweat

Lagat has run 7:29, and he is obviously more talented than Galen Rupp, and even more suited to 3000m. While it is true that Lagat in his prime could probably have run 7:25 if he'd made this his goal, Rupp even now cannot match Lagat, who struggles to break 7:30. Rupp's ceiling is 7:32. This is fairly obvious to the intelligent.

Clifford N Clavin wrote:

You needed an editor. That is all you should have written.

It is sad that mental midgets play monkey see, monkey do, but of course, what are their options?

ehh ???

what the hell does this have to do with a near 40y ole guy who's prime was 11y ago ???

bernie has never brought 26'48 endurance to the table & that makes up helluva lot for the better 1500 speed he has had

this concept not comprehensible to you ??

assuming current pb shape, starting point is

3'34.75 / 26'48.00 ->

7'28.9

12'51.8

bernie was probably at his 3k prime in '06, when he coud still go 3'29-flat & ran 51.8 last lap to crush kennster in 12'59 - suggesting close to 12'50 shape ( call it 12'50 - 12'52.5 ), prelim :

3'29.0 / 12'50.0 - 12'52.5 ->

7'23.4 - 7'24.2

No, Ventolin, when Rupp ran his 3:34.75 he was in 27:00 shape, NOT 26:48. You CANNOT plug in personal bests (which are often peak efforts) for extrapolation purposes, at least not if the result is to correspond with reality, but I am cognizant that reality is not of huge concern to you.

Clifford N Clavin wrote:No, Ventolin, when Rupp ran his 3:34.75 he was in 27:00 shape, NOT 26:48. You CANNOT plug in personal bests (which are often peak efforts) for extrapolation purposes, at least not if the result is to correspond with reality, but I am cognizant that reality is not of huge concern to you.

ehh ???

impress me

where do you get rupp as only in 27'00 shape in his 3'34pb ???

lets here the "scoop" !!!

& i doubt 26'48 was his peak, considering uneven race/slow target of 13'25/26'50 & simple fact he was peaking for daegu 10k NOT brussels

he ran that 26'48 of whatever residual he had left after daegu

Clifford N Clavin wrote:

No, Ventolin, when Rupp ran his 3:34.75 he was in 27:00 shape, NOT 26:48. You CANNOT plug in uneducated guesses for extrapolation purposes, at least not if the result is to correspond with reality, but I am cognizant that reality is not of huge concern to you.

fixed your post.

I suppose Rupp wasn't in 12:58 shape when he ran 12:58 at Pre...

So Clifford, how do you go about making your predictions?