WEBB VS RITZ AT STANFORD 10k SUNDAY

what proof do you have of this, how many track races has he done while fit (or not fit) above 5k

got it wrote:

but 5k is his upper limit for real world class range.

Zat0pek wrote:

Very interesting. They always seem to have a good gauge of his current fitness, and I believe he boosted his mileage again this year into the 85/week range. Not "high" by "distance" runner standards, but certainly higher than what produced 8:11 and 13:10.

I think what is most interesting about Webb is that his 1500, 2 mile, and 5000 PRs all match up pretty well but his training was always geared towards the mile when he ran those times. He set the 2 mile AR in his 1st attempt, and he ran 13:10 in only his 3rd 5000, but it was really the first with serious competition.

I think all of this points to tremendous upside in the longer races if he trained a little more specifically for those events....and from the looks of things, that's exactly what he's doing now.

you got my prediction right Mr. Dew. 30 seconds. I definitely think Ritz can play some strategic games with Webb to take away the kick. And I strongly disagree that gaps of 30 seconds are "rare" in 10ks on the track, in the US. FAST is a relative term. In Europe, you are correct because its mostly a 200m sprint among Ethiopians and Kenyans. When was the last time you saw that on US soil?

Flagpole- I will bet you $1,000 right now that Riz will not run under 13 minutes for a legitimate 5k. Put your money where your mouth is.

I kind of hope Webb drops a 12sec 100m around 8k. You can't buy comedy like that.

Brutus the Barber Beefcake wrote:

Flagpole- I will bet you $1,000 right now that Riz will not run under 13 minutes for a legitimate 5k. Put your money where your mouth is.

Couple things:

1) I don't bet money -- seeing how it's a sin and all.

2) Too many things that could prevent him from doing it. If I bet you, you could go do a Tonya Harding on his leg, and I'd have to pay up. He could step in a hole tomorrow and tear a tendon beyond perfect repair. Betting is not a smart thing to do, and since I am smart, I don't bet.

3) I'm not saying things have to go perfectly for him to do it. With the normal ups and downs in running (injuries, illness, bad races and all) he will easily break 13 minutes.

The "debate" thread is now page 4, so....

Is racing a track 10000m in late April a really smart move for a guy who wants a 3:46 Mile?

He's young. He jumped to 3:48 last year. The AR is 24 years old now.

Or, is Webb not going to concentrate on the Mile/1500m this year?

I'm confused by this decision. Maybe he knows this is not a 10000m from hell. It will be 28ish with a kick.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

What is "easily" mean? He'll run 12:50? 12:55? 12:58? 12:59.99?

I would consider it a success for Ritz to run under 13:10. I would be amazed if he could run under 13:00 and think the chances of that happening are lower than than the chances of Webb breaking the WR in the mile.

Mtn Dew wrote:

What is "easily" mean? He'll run 12:50? 12:55? 12:58? 12:59.99?

I would consider it a success for Ritz to run under 13:10. I would be amazed if he could run under 13:00 and think the chances of that happening are lower than than the chances of Webb breaking the WR in the mile.

I would say that "easily" running a time means that you are much fitter than that. So for anybody to run easily 12:58, you would have to be in 12:40 shape. So no, he will not run sub 13 easily, or ever in my opinion.

Mtn Dew wrote:

What is "easily" mean? He'll run 12:50? 12:55? 12:58? 12:59.99?

I would consider it a success for Ritz to run under 13:10. I would be amazed if he could run under 13:00 and think the chances of that happening are lower than than the chances of Webb breaking the WR in the mile.

He won't just skate under 13:00 (although as soon as he does, expect the I TOLD YOU SOs to start from me).

He's good enough to run 12:50...as I've said before. I keep his 10,000 at 26:50 even though I think he could actually go even faster than that some day. Of the two predictions, the 26:50 is the safer one. I think 12:50 is his absolute limit there, and that he'll have to have the perfect all around situation to get it, but it could happen. In any event, under the current AR is assured.

12:50? You are indeed insane.

no he is just stupid... i wonder if someone asked ritz himself if he thought he would ever be capable of a 12:50 if he would say yes - i doubt it

Mtn Dew wrote:

12:50? You are indeed insane.

Flagpole Willy wrote:

He's good enough to run 12:50...as I've said before. I keep his 10,000 at 26:50 even though I think he could actually go even faster than that some day. Of the two predictions, the 26:50 is the safer one. I think 12:50 is his absolute limit there, and that he'll have to have the perfect all around situation to get it, but it could happen. In any event, under the current AR is assured.

The liklihood that Ritz breaks 13:00 is pretty low. Could he do it? Yeah. There's an outside chance.

Will he do it? Not likely.

I don't know why I'm jumping into this conversation, but oh well.

No human being can "easily" break 13 minutes in a 5k. If Ritz does (and he might very well down the road) break 13, it would be done with years of hard work and a ton of talent. "Easily" is when I walk down the street. It doesn't take any real effort. By calling it easy, you take away so much from the runners who have done so or will do so in the future.

There is nothing easy about it. Change your wording b/c it makes you look like an uneducated observer.

Although I wish Flagpole would take the bet mentioned above I do not think predicting a 12.50 for Ritz qualifies him as insane. A lot of people on here think that after Goucher's performances so far a sub 13 is likely. I agree. Why then is it so hard to believe that Ritz could go a little faster. I know performance at an early age is no definite indicator of an athletes ultimate performance but I think Ritz was way faster than Goucher as an 18,19,20 year old.

However, I think that Ritz will have moved up in a few years anyway (marathon in Bejiing) and will not be running the ultimately competitive 5k's that he otherwise might have been. Completely agree that the 26.50 is much more likely than the 12.50 and think looking even further ahead a sub 2.07 marathon is not out of the question.

Flagpole Willy wrote:

Mtn Dew wrote:

What is "easily" mean? He'll run 12:50? 12:55? 12:58? 12:59.99?

I would consider it a success for Ritz to run under 13:10. I would be amazed if he could run under 13:00 and think the chances of that happening are lower than than the chances of Webb breaking the WR in the mile.

He won't just skate under 13:00 (although as soon as he does, expect the I TOLD YOU SOs to start from me).

He's good enough to run 12:50...as I've said before. I keep his 10,000 at 26:50 even though I think he could actually go even faster than that some day. Of the two predictions, the 26:50 is the safer one. I think 12:50 is his absolute limit there, and that he'll have to have the perfect all around situation to get it, but it could happen. In any event, under the current AR is assured.

Question:

Who's AR did he brake for 2 miles and how much was it by? What did that person run for 5k? Just for thought.

Going back to the subject, Webb was pacing with some fast company in his Europe XC races. Will Ritz' 12K troubles surface more in a 10K than a 5K? (Cragg struggled in some longer races, but PR'd in 3:55). I do think Webb will run approximately what Ritz debuted in, unless he's too aggressive early.

Ironically, I think a normal Ritz will have the better kick in a fast 10K. We're talking almost 30 minutes of threshold work here.

Funny, when they were younger, Ritz was seen as the "ballsy" one and Webb the "talented" one. Now Webb has is showing he has Cast-Iron Nads taking on everyone and anyone, including Ritz at his best distance.

i heard once the european season was over webb was thinking about running the usatf 20k champs in new haven with an eye for the AR. or at least blast out all those mara weaklings.