WHO IS BETTER: ALAN WEBB OR NICK WILLIS?

I think that Webb is faster but Willis has shown that he is a more efficient and consistent runner and has won an international competition. That said I believe that Willis is the superior runner (but I would like to see Webb prove me wrong).

Didnt he beat Mottram in January? I know a win is a win, but January is a little iffy for comparison sake.

kjewhnd wrote:

Willis made the final at the olympics.

actually, he was eliminated (albeit as the fastest non-qualifier) in the semifinals; Webb was eliminated in the prelims. Webb made the finals in the '05 WCs; Willis was eliminated in the semifinals.

monkey runner wrote:

why would mottram have beaten willis, to that point why is willis's win at commonwealths worthless because Mottram fell.

no one said Mottram would have won, nor that Willis' win was worthless. it is a fact, however, that Mottram was the only one in that field who could have challenged Willis for the win and, with him out of the race, it was a LESS significant (not INsignificant) win.

also, you can't say for sure that Willis would have beaten Mottram, as it was a championship race (as opposed to their other race, which was a head-to-head affair) and Mottram has definitely shown more savvy and better peaking in such events.

They are both fat and need to lose about 20 lbs.

Clearly what matters is how good one LOOKS not how fast one runs. When Willis beats Webb, there might be an argument for who is better. So far, though, none exists. Webb -- hands down -- has a better track record, pun intended.

I've seen Webb absolutely kick Willis' ass. Has Willis ever really kicked Webb's ass?

Not yet.

And someone pointed out, after much misinformation, if one combines 1500/mile and 3k/2mile conversions, Webb is faster in both, and faster at 5000, and of course 10k. So.....

Webb has:

* more head-to-head victories

* faster PR's overall

* and has advanced just as far as Willis in a WORLD or OLYMPIC championship.

Overall edge: slightly, but clearly to Webb.

(oh, but Willis looks easier when he runs. WHO THE F' CARES! This is not a stride beauty contest. Webb is more muscular. Does he get points for that?)

Both these runners are predominantly middle distance runners and considering that Willis has never run 5000m or over seriously we should look not only at their pb's in the lower distances but also how many times they have run fast at those middle distances. Willis has run 3.32 four times! How many times has Webb gone that fast? Also Willis's 1.45 is far beyond Webb’s 1.47!

The reason that Webb is so dominant over the mile is because compared to the 1500m nobody really cares about the mile anymore. In New Zealand I have never once ran a mile race and I am now 3 years out of high school. That distance is rarely run outside of the US. Going by class and poise Willis is far better than Webb. Need we remind you of the tactics commonly employed by Webb in major races?

Whoever thinks the commonwealth games are major champs anymore you are a clown. Willis had to beat Mottram doubling and a bunch of 3:53 milers. Willis' 15 is worth 3:49 ish.

Willis has run faster than webb by 1 second in the 8 which is a real lot. but has also run some serious 5k's and got beat real bad by hall and dobson.

3k, clearly goes to webb. 5k webb a couple of years ago well past his peak, 10k NO WAY he challenges 27:30.

Webb has awful tactics, everyone knows this. Willis seems to have a solid kick but you guys are giving him WAY WAY too much credit, he beat Cragg who is NOT a 15 guy, Myers who is a 2nd level guy, Goucher and Chris luckezic who isnt near a peak yet and it shows big time.

3:35 is a solid time for this early and he looked good from 250 out-50 out but then tied up some. He is fluent, this is decieving. Webb runs like a truck and is better off of even paces to positive splits.

Webbs Mile PR is equal to slightly faster than willis' 15 so we can just throw those out.

It just depends what kind of race webb and willis are in. If you hammer from the gun webb is gonna finish higher, he can finish top 5, 6 in the world off a killer pace. Willis probably cant, if the race is slow at all, Willis' probably beats webb right now.

Webbs mile is over a second faster and it was done weeks ago, completly alone with an erratic pacer. Webb so far this season HAS LOOKED better. Willis looks easy, doesnt mean he is running easy. Coe looked very easy everytime he ran, good form is good form, nothing more.

If webb has done well with his trianing and peaks smart he can do some damage in the WC's and hopefully Olympics next year. Willis hopefully can hold his peak long enough off limited training to be effective at WC's.

Willis can hang with webb in anything above 4 laps...Webb is VERY VERY strong. Webb is a low 7:30's type guy and a 13 flat type of guy. Willis wont get down there.

Whoever thinks the commonwealth games are major champs anymore you are a clown. Willis had to beat Mottram doubling and a bunch of 3:53 milers. Willis' 15 is worth 3:49 ish.

Willis has run faster than webb by 1 second in the 8 which is a real lot. but has also run some serious 5k's and got beat real bad by hall and dobson.

3k, clearly goes to webb. 5k webb a couple of years ago well past his peak, 10k NO WAY he challenges 27:30.

Webb has awful tactics, everyone knows this. Willis seems to have a solid kick but you guys are giving him WAY WAY too much credit, he beat Cragg who is NOT a 15 guy, Myers who is a 2nd level guy, Goucher and Chris luckezic who isnt near a peak yet and it shows big time.

3:35 is a solid time for this early and he looked good from 250 out-50 out but then tied up some. He is fluent, this is decieving. Webb runs like a truck and is better off of even paces to positive splits.

Webbs Mile PR is equal to slightly faster than willis' 15 so we can just throw those out.

It just depends what kind of race webb and willis are in. If you hammer from the gun webb is gonna finish higher, he can finish top 5, 6 in the world off a killer pace. Willis probably cant, if the race is slow at all, Willis' probably beats webb right now.

Webbs mile is over a second faster and it was done weeks ago, completly alone with an erratic pacer. Webb so far this season HAS LOOKED better. Willis looks easy, doesnt mean he is running easy. Coe looked very easy everytime he ran, good form is good form, nothing more.

If webb has done well with his trianing and peaks smart he can do some damage in the WC's and hopefully Olympics next year. Willis hopefully can hold his peak long enough off limited training to be effective at WC's.

Willis cant hang with webb in anything above 4 laps...Webb is VERY VERY strong. Webb is a low 7:30's type guy and a 13 flat type of guy. Willis wont get down there.

Webb owns Willis in head to head races. So how can anybody say Willis is better, when he clearly has trouble beating Webb in any race or even coming close to him in some races?

Cant,

Willis raced 5000m ONLY AS A BUILD UP to his 1500's later that season. I’m sorry but in the world of elite and semi-professional running the NCAA means absolutely zero, especially to a foreign athlete about to take his first steps under a professional contract. As a 1500m runner completing his base phase (with NO 5000m specific workouts and NO real 5000m experience) Willis ran 13.27! Who’s not to say that had he even put the slightest emphasis on the 5k he could have run 10-15 seconds faster?

I also think you are wrong regarding Willis’s form not necessarily meaning that much. Immaculate form does not mean little, rather it represents a lot toward the ability of an athlete, especially at the level of Willis and Webb. A minor flaw can not only promote injury but can also make an athlete slightly inefficient and in a sport where .XX of a second can represent a medal I would say the perfection of Willis’s form it integral to this argument. You mention Coe having phenomenal form, is it not a coincidence also that Coe was arguably the greatest middle distance runner of all time? Do the names Kipketer, Geb, Bekele, Morcelli, Aouita and Elg ring a bell? What do these guys have in common aside from being some of the greatest athletes to have walked the face of the earth? Answer, they all have immaculate form.

Right now I would say it is SO close between these two. We know that Webb is strong, motivated and has balls like King Kong, we also know his tactics illustrate a brain like Kong too. I can’t wait for the next ‘real’ match up between these young guys. ‘Real’ meaning a championship or Olympics, such that neither athlete is at a different point in their season when they go head-to-head as has been the case until now. These two have rekindled the interest of many lost viewers with their different traits but comparable performances and times. I haven’t seen rivalries such as those that potentially exist between these guys since the 1980’s (at least in westernized countries)!

???????????? wrote:

I think Webb has the faster 1500 pr.

He's also made a world final. But I think Willis will definitely be in it this year.

This question is hauntingly similar in many ways to "Who was better? Steve Prefontaine or Ian Stewart?"

Webb has been a great talent since high school, but seems like Prefontaine in that he tends to get impatient in his preparation (at least in past years) and he reflects this with a lack of restraint in some races, although he does appear to be getting better at controlling that amped-up nervousness. In contrast, Willis has become more patient and methodical in his entire approach and more poised in competition, more often able to establish and guard the position he wants and move on his terms. Of course, this looks easier in a rabbited race in the U.S. than it would against the best in the world in the Olympics, but all-in-all Willis does seem to be a better tactician. Webb may have more raw talent, though, capable of faster flat-out times, and if he can run in a more relaxed, mature fashion in those international championships, he could score a medal.

monkey runner wrote:

I also think you are wrong regarding Willis’s form not necessarily meaning that much. Immaculate form does not mean little, rather it represents a lot toward the ability of an athlete, especially at the level of Willis and Webb. A minor flaw can not only promote injury but can also make an athlete slightly inefficient and in a sport where .XX of a second can represent a medal I would say the perfection of Willis’s form it integral to this argument.

look closer at Willis when he runs- what exactly are people praising about his form? when it comes down to it, all that differentiates his form from that of most other athletes at his level is his arm carriage. he doesn't swing his arms as much as other guys. this gives the impression that he is exerting himself less than others, even when the opposite is the case. his understated arm swing doesn't represent anything about his ability, his resistance to injury (in fact, he is just coming off a stress fracture), or his efficiency (as it pertains to race results).

watch webb run- his form is different, yes, but no less efficient. his footstrike and knee drive are just about perfect, in fact very much like bekele's, and his noticably upright stance is a result of all the extra core and upper-body strength work that he's known to do.

dr robotnic wrote:

Both these runners are predominantly middle distance runners and considering that Willis has never run 5000m or over seriously we should look not only at their pb's in the lower distances but also how many times they have run fast at those middle distances. Willis has run 3.32 four times! How many times has Webb gone that fast? Also Willis's 1.45 is far beyond Webb’s 1.47!

far be it from me to tell you not to argue for your countryman, but your first argument is weak. Webb puts about as much emphasis on the 800 as Willis does on the 5k. if you arbitrarily decide that 800 times are more relevant to the 1500 than 5000 times are, then yes, Willis has the edge. there are MANY 1500/5000 guys out there that would dispute your claim, however. in fact, the top 3 times ever run in the 1500m were by 1500/5000m guys (well, i guess Morceli was more of a 1500/3000 guy, but Webb's no slouch at the 3k, either).

i guess, in short, i would say: it's silly to say that Webb's weaker 800m is significant, but that Willis' weaker 5000m isn't, when both are off-events for the runner in question.

also, Webb has run 1:46.53 for the 800m.

thats all good, but how many times has willis run the 2mile and 3k?

and conversions are worthless.

and so is comparing 5k and up, since willis isnt a 5k/10k guy.

willis=webb

both their positives and negatives equal out

nc runner wrote:

there really isn't much to discuss. the answer is nick willis. perhaps alan webb will change that this season (if his 3:51 in April was a sign of good things to come), but as things stand now, willis has the edge on webb.

What is Willis's record against Webb. Doesn't Webb have the edge in head to head competition?