ok it was obvious that willis had flawless form and made gestures in the race that indicated he was running with ease. the look on his face in the final 400 indicated he was pushing himself pretty hard. i dont think his form/running style told the whole story.
DO YOUR RESEARCH!!!
Willis 3:32.17
Webb 3:32.52
Who is faster over 1500????
QC or meaty is the question
Agree Jacko.
Willis = Tactics
Webb = No hair and power
Webb has run 3:49 for the mile. He is definitely the faster runner. He has had trouble in the big races though, and he has not planned his seasons 100% as evidenced by that 10,000 stunt last year.
ummm, no. wrote:
faster 800--willis
faster 1500--willis
faster mile--webb
faster 3k--willis
faster 5k--webb
faster 8k--NAfaster 10k--NA
most accomplished--Willis
best tactician--Willis
most consistant--Willis
all true, but it ignores the fact that webb has run a better 2mi than willis' 3k. also, until willis wins a medal at a WCs or an OGs, it's hard to definitely say that he's a master tactician. commonwealths was pretty weak, especially after mottram (and fountain, too?) fell. that weak competition is also his only major laurel that one could list as an "accomplishment" over webb.
Webb has been to a major championship final (worlds 2005).
Webb has beat Willis every time they have raced.
Webb has clearly shown greater range.
Willis' slightly better PRs at 800m and 1500m (Webb's 5ks and 10ks more than negate the 800) aren't as impressive as Webb's head-to-head wins, 3:48 mile, and making the Finals at the World Championships.
[quote]Willis < Webb wrote:
Webb has beat Willis every time they have raced.
quote]
Webb was beaten by Willis in '04 olympics heats. The mile webb got his pr in is the only other race I can recall them having?
I don't think range really matters, they are 1500m runners. Who is the best at 1500m? Hard to say. Maybe this season will sort it out.
Nick Willis Well On The Way To Recovery
9:40 am, 19 Mar 2007
Nick Willis returns to the States today after spending the last month in New Zealand.
The stress fracture of the shin bone has recovered and Willis has been back light running for the past four weeks.
"I have been able to add 10 per cent to the amount of mileage I did the previous week, each week and I am now up to running 30 miles a week," said Willis.
"But it will take me another six weeks to be up to 100 per cent," he added.
Willis was on hand at the Mayoral Miles meeting in Wanganui on Saturday, the scene of his great victory over Craig Mottram in 3m 52.75s last year, helping Mayor Michael Laws present the prizes.
Willis hopes to be back racing in mid-May.
"It will only be small racing to start with, to get back into the feel of racing.
"I am going to stay in the States up to going on to the world championships in Japan," he said.
The Melbourne Commonwealth Games 1500m gold medalist wants to improve his finishing kick.
"I need to improve my kick and speed for the world champs. I will take part in 800m races and some slower paced 1500m races in order to practice my kick," he said.
Willis will go on to the European circuit after the world championships.
He had a month in New Zealand over Christmas and has just completed a further months stay.
"My coach wants me back and I want to go back," he said.
ENDS
Why dont you just accept that in athletics you cant say say with any proof that Webb is better than willis and vice versa. They are both great athletes and both look set for very good seasons which combied with the recent performances of hall, ritz mottram and farah is very exciting in seeing the africans being challenged.
Webb run a very impressive 3.51 but we all know he is capable of hammering out fast times in paced races and then not be at his best for when it DOES really matter in chamionship finals.
Meanwhile Willis has run 3.35 in a pretty low standard race and won comfortably, and lets not forget that he hasnt been back from a stress fracture for long enough to be at anywhere near his best yet.
So both look set to have great seasons and whoever does best when it matters- in Osaka will have a legitimate claim to being the best irrelative of who runs what at any other stage of the season. IF webb has a faster pb then he should be able to beat willis and vice versa- having a faster pb is a poor claim of being better than somebody unless you actually beat them.
i'm with you. Willis has won gold at a major championships. Until Webb does that I'd say Willis is better.
I do beleive that the USA championships do count as a major championship. and the only reason why willis one is because mottram fell down. so don't act like he won n e thing special. his biggest competition was brannen. big whoop. same thing with the race this weekend, where was the real competition. so they both won a championship with real runners in it. webb won in europe beating almost every top athlete in the world in that race and running a pb.
I agree with HRE, Willis is better. I know many Americans that say that John Elway was a better qb than Marino. Yes, Marino has the records but Elway has the Superbowl rings. Willis is better because he is better when it counts.
WHO IS BETTER: ALAN WEBB OR NICK WILLIS?
At what? Bingo?
I should have said something like "international championship." The Commonwealth Games aren't what they once were, but they still are a focal point for a lot of countries. The US champs are just the focal point of one country.
Nicks New Zealand track profile and compared to webb's USATF page it looks like this...
800
willis-1:45.54
webb -1:46.53
1500
willis-3:32.17
webb -3:32.52
mile
webb -3:48.92
willis-3:53.43
3k
webb -7:39.28
willis-7:44.90
5k
webb -13:10.86
willis-13:27.54
at this point in their careers the answer is undoubtedly webb
you can scream all you want about how willis is a better tactician and will medal one day at a major championship, but until he actually does it that is irreleant
what is relevant is the fact that webb has more impressie prs across the board except at 800, has made a wrold championship final (that willis failed to make), and has beaten willis every time they raced
prs
800-willis
1500/mile-webb
3000/2mile-webb
5000-webb
10000-na but theres no was willis is running 27:33
etc...
there is more competition at every US championship than at the "international championship" that willis won and when willis "beat" webb in Athens...they were in different heats
willis may very well end up with a more successful career than webb and they are both immensely talented but right now the more accomplished runner is Webb
runsc wrote:
Willis is better because he is better when it counts.
i'm not convinced this is true. webb has had, what, 2 bad races at international championships?
1) 2004 olympics - easy to understand that, going into the season, he'd been running poorly for two straight years, so he was peaking for the US Trials (it's pretty presumptuous to train through the Trials when you had trouble going sub-4 for the mile the year before). he was past his peak at the olympics and it showed when he got eliminated early.
2) 2005 WCs - made it to the finals, overextended himself midway through the race with a poorly executed sprint.
really only the WCs was due to tactics and, even there, it wasn't a bad idea... he just wasn't strong enough to drop the field. he didn't have the fastest PR and he didn't have the best kick; a mid-race surge is all that's left.
so, if it can't be definitely said that webb is a BAD tactician, can it be said that willis is definitely a GOOD one? he has never made a world or olympic final. commonwealths was a good win but, after mottram fell, he was the heavy favorite anyway. he always looks calm in races, and definitely looks like he's running relaxed, but he looked calm and relaxed when he was eliminated at the 2005 WCs.
it's basically a wash. they're about equally fast; Willis, more so below 1500m and Webb above 1500m. Willis has a commonwealth gold, Webb made a WC final. i figure that 2007 and 2008 will decide who's better, both in PRs and championship racing.
good luck wrote:
3k
webb -7:39.28
willis-7:44.90
not that the time you listed is wrong, but webb's 2mi is superior to his 3k. the equivalent would be around 7:35. just an addendum.
why would mottram have beaten willis, to that point why is willis's win at commonwealths worthless because Mottram fell. Mottram and Willis went head to head that year in the mile and Willis's blew Mottram to pieces over the final 200m...just the way he would have done at commonwealths had mottram not fallen.