Webbs 1500!

how can someone be so cynical. seriously. it is the beginning of march. this is exactly where i expect him to be, maybe a second faster if he hadn't had his training messed up in january. He has 5 months before he has to peak. If he was in great shape now what would you expect him to be doing for 5 months???

he's in 3:37 shape right now. april he'll be in like 3:34 shape. June 3:31/2? July/August when it matters 3:30. I don't see how you can find a 3:37 at the beginning of the year not encouraging for him when he's coming off 3 years of problems and hardly any racing.

I am one non-moron who is very encouraged! should be in world-beater shape by August!

If Webb had won the race, I could see your point. The only reason you see a 3:30 in July or August is because you want to. It is highly unlikely to happen. Either way, what we have is a mediocre Alan Webb who is now perhaps on the tail end of his prime 1500 years and he is back to high school. Webb will probably never match his pbs from 2007. This is obvious to the intelligent.

Its the beginning of march you idiot. You think he's going to PR in March? You must never have run competitively.

whacker drive wrote:

Kiprop 337? 7 seconds off his pr? dude is washed up - he should call it a day. Mental.

The splits were roughly as follows:

56, 57, 60, 43

The kicking didn't start until 1400m. Hence, the last 300m not being that fast.

Willis ran a terrible race from a tactical point of view as he got caught behind and had to cover a big gap (ie. 20 metres) to get back to Kiprop, Webb & Riseley. Once he covered the 20m there was only about 150m to go and he was obviously spent when the kicking started.

Overall, it looked more like a time trial up front. Webb looked good. He actually looked like he might win with 100m to go but Riseley swung wide and put the hammer down with Kiprop only slightly responding.

g-long wrote:

The splits were roughly as follows:

56, 57, 60, 43

The kicking didn't start until 1400m. Hence, the last 300m not being that fast.

Willis ran a terrible race from a tactical point of view as he got caught behind and had to cover a big gap (ie. 20 metres) to get back to Kiprop, Webb & Riseley. Once he covered the 20m there was only about 150m to go and he was obviously spent when the kicking started.

Overall, it looked more like a time trial up front. Webb looked good. He actually looked like he might win with 100m to go but Riseley swung wide and put the hammer down with Kiprop only slightly responding.

So Webb split 1:53 and continued to run 3:37 after only being able to run a 1:52 the week before???

kent tekulve wrote:

If Webb had won the race, I could see your point. The only reason you see a 3:30 in July or August is because you want to. It is highly unlikely to happen. Either way, what we have is a mediocre Alan Webb who is now perhaps on the tail end of his prime 1500 years and he is back to high school. Webb will probably never match his pbs from 2007. This is obvious to the intelligent.

Perhaps. It's true that us Webb fans read a lot into his race results with what could be considered biased optimism. But we're talking about a guy who has run 1:43/3:30/3:46. Those aren't scrub times. At one point in his career, Webb showed that he was one of the best in the world. And while Webb may very well be on the "tail end" of his prime, he is not yet past his prime as a mid-distance runner. By the time the 2016 games roll around Webb will be over the hill. But not in 2012. This 3:37 wasn't exactly reason to jump up and down. But it was reason enough to remain hopeful that he's moving in the right direction.

kent tekulve wrote:

These morons

Careful with that word. Glass houses and stones, you know.

kent tekulve wrote:

You could argue that it is over 8 seconds off his mile best

What do you mean "argue?" It's a fact. There's nothing to argue. A stupid thing to do, however, would be to compare the best race of his life with a race he ran in early March while coming back from injury and illness.

kent tekulve wrote:

For this to be encouraging, you people must have some really low expectations for Alan Webb.

Or they have a sense of context.

chauncey wrote:

kent tekulve wrote:

[quote]kent tekulve wrote:

You could argue that it is over 8 seconds off his mile best

What do you mean "argue?" It's a fact. There's nothing to argue. A stupid thing to do, however, would be to compare the best race of his life with a race he ran in early March while coming back from injury and illness.

Moron...it is NOT a fact. Webb did not race a mile. He raced a 1500, which might be converted to a 3:55.25, which would then allow one to argue that it is over 8 seconds off his mile best. You really are stupid...

savagesquid wrote:

At MD. Steve Ovett used to intimidate his opponents. So too, Morceli sometimes. El G on the circuit, but interestingly never in the OG. He was even regarded as the underdog in 04, yet won double gold. He found mental toughness at the last moment for a crowning achievement.

Hicham El Guerrouj's analysis of his own Olympic "failure" in 2000 illustrates what I say. He said, I was mentally weak, I overtrained, I was in a state of fear prior to the Olympics that year. This was not the mark of a mature competitor. Webb could take heed of this.

Maybe he did say that, but I disagree about being the underdog. Almost everyone expected him to [finally] win, either him or Bernard.

As far as Webby goes, this is a great result for him and I wish him the best. Alan rocks!

kent tekulve wrote:

Moron...it is NOT a fact. Webb did not race a mile. He raced a 1500, which might be converted to a 3:55.25, which would then allow one to argue that it is over 8 seconds off his mile best. You really are stupid...

First of all, the redundancy of leading off with "moron" every time you post makes you seem like an unimaginative dimwit. I'm sure it doesn't feel that way to you, but trust me, from out here, that's how it looks.

Second, rather than addressing the point of my post, you are splitting hairs about a 1500 to mile conversion. I really don't care if it's 7.43 seconds or 8.36 seconds. It's about 8 seconds; no one, for instance, would argue that it's more like 4 seconds.

At any rate, since my point seems to have flown over your head, I'll be clearer: Anyone with a sense of context (or any sense at all, really) would see this race as encouraging.

NO, you specifically attempted to correct my usage of a word and then I refuted your attempted correction as being erroneous, a double failure on your part, first for having the audacity of a dope in making the attempt, and second in being incorrect in your effort. Further,regarding the point about context, I have made the context perfectly clear: READ THIS SLOWLY: 10 years later, Alan Webb is back to his high school level...and you jock sniffers are encouraged. Take another deep whiff and drown in the pheromones...Webb is back, baby...back to high school.

Wow, I hope this guy doesn't think this post makes him look good:

kent tekulve wrote:

NO, you specifically attempted to correct my usage of a word and then I refuted your attempted correction as being erroneous, a double failure on your part, first for having the audacity of a dope in making the attempt, and second in being incorrect in your effort. Further,regarding the point about context, I have made the context perfectly clear: READ THIS SLOWLY: 10 years later, Alan Webb is back to his high school level...and you jock sniffers are encouraged. Take another deep whiff and drown in the pheromones...Webb is back, baby...back to high school.

kent tekulve wrote:

NO, you specifically attempted to correct my usage of a word and then I refuted your attempted correction as being erroneous, a double failure on your part, first for having the audacity of a dope in making the attempt, and second in being incorrect in your effort.

Yikes.

kent tekulve wrote:

Further,regarding the point about context, I have made the context perfectly clear: READ THIS SLOWLY: 10 years later, Alan Webb is back to his high school level

This is an example of NOT understanding the context of Webb's most recent race. You're proving my point.

kent tekulve wrote:

...and you jock sniffers are encouraged. Take another deep whiff and drown in the pheromones...

What a weird, creepy thing to say. I guess I was partly wrong: you DO have a vivid imagination when it comes to Webb's crotch, it seems.

savagesquid wrote:

Steve Scott and Alan Webb share an unfortunate trait among US MD runners which is a lack of self-confidence. It manifests in different ways.

Scott's achievements were moderate. He won a silver at the Worlds in 83, yes, and his 5th in the 88 final was good. He even beat Aouita in a sub-7:40 indoor 3k at the end of his career.

He _almost_ beat Aouita in that 3000.

Let's see.

May 27, 2001: age 18, 3:53.43 mile

March 3, 2011: age 28: 3:55.25 mile (converted)

Yup, this is encouraging as hell...

what kinda times was wheating running this time of the year last year??? albeit indoors but seriously someone tell me what wheatings SB was in the first week of march in 2010 ... and then remind me what he went on to run that year...

Another way to look at it is Isaac Songok, he of 12:48 legend, just ran 13:38 in Melbourne, a performance about equal to Webb's 3:37.82. While it is true that Songok's 12:48 is superior to anything Webb has done at any distance, it is also true that both have been injured and struggling. Would you call Songok's 13:38 encouraging? If so, you are a fool, and if not, then why is Webb's equally mediocre effort?

whacker drive wrote:

Kiprop 337? 7 seconds off his pr? dude is washed up - he should call it a day. Mental.

xcid replied:

Its the beginning of march you idiot. You think he's going to PR in March? You must never have run competitively.

You obviously failed to see the irony here. It was an OK performance for Kiprop, and a very good run for Webb, especially considering his recent endeavors.

What I don't get is people who post on a forum about running, with apparently no other intention than to trash other runners, whether it's Webb, Ryan Hall, Josh Cox or anyone else. Do you do that for fun? If not, why?

I can understand people complaining about "poor" performance from other people where it matters to them personally, like in politics, business or even academia. But if running, and elite running (where you don't get the health benefits) in particular, invokes some kind of serious negative emotions, you probably should be looking somewhere else.

hahahah wrote:

he's in 3:37 shape right now. april he'll be in like 3:34 shape. June 3:31/2? July/August when it matters 3:30.

How on earth do you come to this conclusion?

Does 3:37 now mean we COULD be at 3:30 in August? Sure. Does it mean we WILL? No, no, no.