Are you guys for real? I have a hard time believing that you know ANYTHING about distance running...
Are you guys for real? I have a hard time believing that you know ANYTHING about distance running...
You're right, aside from being paced through 1200.
Running the last lap in 56 by yourself on AR pace is pretty baller. Alan was a stud.
It's a good thing the stadium announcer wasn't that dipshit from flotrack... man that video, all of their videos for that matter, is just difficult to watch with him yelling "boom goes the dynamite" esque dialogue the entire time. . It's like reading a Let's Run original article, painful.
You raise a decent point.
In fact, we meant to put in a () of (It should be pointed out Webb's race was largely a solo affair with rabbits so we're sure Webb fans will argue he'd run faster with competition).
But what we wrote is 100% accurate. People can speculate that Webb would run faster with the competition but we don't know that. Some people run better alone.
The facts are he never ran faster in any other race. With competition, you have to run extra ground, you might get out too hard and blow up, you might get discouraged you're running 3:46 pace and only in 8th,etc.
I don't necessarily think he could have run faster, just that it is more impressive given the points the OP makes.
The math on this one is almost as solid as before Boston when you guys gave Meb a 0.0051% chance of victory.
Buuut...You guys are obviously right that Leo and Centro and probably a couple others, would be capable of a mile record if they got the chance to run it more frequently, maybe even in this race. Why would you write a story with a negative spin on how Alan Webb would only be 8th in Monaco though? Why not write a more positive story about how Leo could set a new record? You could even maybe get him to comment on it. Maybe a story like that would actually do a little good for the Bring Back the Mile people instead of just making you guys seem like jerks. It's called journalism.
I don't think it's a negative spin, they're putting the effort into a perspective that shows how great that race was.
The only difference I would add would be that if you can't say Alan could have run faster in that field, because maybe he runs better solo... you're basically saying it's not comparable, thus, apples to oranges and the OP would be right.
But, I don't think the main point of the article was to discredit Alan's AR, more as reference showcasing how great it ended up being.
The only thing I found disappointing in that race was Centro.
Well we now know that Webb couldn't have managed a faster time because he didn't.
It's like a Ryun argument at this point.
Remember what happened when Webb DIDN'T run races solo?
First, even to this day, no one has run as fast as Webb's mile in ten years or more. You have to keep that pace all the way to the end of the mile and both mentally and physically, 1500m is easier for these guys (remember what Makloufi said--he can handle 1500 much easier than the mile). They've had plenty of chances to do it. Pre this year had guys who had already run 3:28/29 earlier in the year. There was Bislett. There were a few others. And every year the same guys run 3:48-50 who run 3:27-30. Willis broke 3:30 after just breaking 3:50 earlier.
Second, Webb was shooting simply for the American record. His entire race was devoted to that and he had no one to push him or reason to push beyond that goal. After the race, he said that he could run faster, but he got injured a bit at the end of his 800m after that and then was sick at world's, and never fit and healthy again in his career.
peak webb would have been battling it out in the stretch in that monico race.
webb had the talent for 1500 WR.
he knew it, people in the know knew it.
he did well but left money on the table.
such is life.
Webb's 346 and 330 both came in WINS. Yes, the 346 was in a low profile meet, but the 330 was a win in a golden league meet! Both performances eneded up being world leading times.
Agreed. As our AR and a 3:46 miler Webb was great.
Captain Oblivious wrote:
Well we now know that Webb couldn't have managed a faster time because he didn't.
It's like a Ryun argument at this point.
what a stupid post
jjjjjjjjj wrote:
First, even to this day, no one has run as fast as Webb's mile in ten years or more. You have to keep that pace all the way to the end of the mile and both mentally and physically, 1500m is easier for these guys (remember what Makloufi said--he can handle 1500 much easier than the mile). They've had plenty of chances to do it. Pre this year had guys who had already run 3:28/29 earlier in the year. There was Bislett. There were a few others. And every year the same guys run 3:48-50 who run 3:27-30. Willis broke 3:30 after just breaking 3:50 earlier.
Second, Webb was shooting simply for the American record. His entire race was devoted to that and he had no one to push him or reason to push beyond that goal. After the race, he said that he could run faster, but he got injured a bit at the end of his 800m after that and then was sick at world's, and never fit and healthy again in his career.
I agree. Though the 1.08 conversation is standard, it's far and away not the same. When you run a 1500, you are gunning for the finishing line. You wouldn't keep that pace an extra 100+ meters, so you'd have to think if this was the "MYTHICAL MILE," these guys would be coming through the 1500 about 1-2 seconds slower and then closing.
You guys should know this, especially if you patronize us readers in your article by saying: "Now, despite the fact most of you are big-time track and field fans (why else would you be on LetsRun?), we know most of you have no idea that what means. Even die-hard track and field fans can’t really relate to the 1,500."
Except he didn't run solo until the last lap. I have a hard time believing that you know ANYTHING about using your eyes.
I agree that in a (characteristic) bid for some sensationalism, the Brojo's loaded the deck, as it were, by comparing Webb's NR mile (essentially no competition) to the Monaco 1500 (greatest competition of the season). For a proper analysis, why not compare Webb's 3:30.54 Golden League win to Monaco? Wouldn't this make much more sense?
Well, what's interesting is when you do that, the results remain the same: that 3:30.54 run against strong, Golden League-level competition still would have netted Webb 8th place in the Monaco race. Which suggests some minimal basis to the Brojo's analysis.
What clearly has less basis is that "most of [us] have no idea that what [sic--7 sub-3:30 1500s] means." About 15 threads on any given day suggest quite a lot of people who visit this website know what that means.
longjack wrote:
peak webb would have been battling it out in the stretch in that monico race.
webb had the talent for 1500 WR.
he knew it, people in the know knew it.
he did well but left money on the table.
such is life.
I don't think Webb was capable of breaking EL G's WR of 3:26, which I believe was PED enhanced anyway.
Like most greats from the past he probably could have run faster given ideal conditions. This means not only even pace, but decent competition pushing you from behind or pulling you from in front. There were several guys who finished with sensational times behind EL G in the EPO 90's that were not as talented as some of the greats which came before or proceeded after.
Although Webb's AR was fairly evenly paced (56.1, 57.4, 56.8, 56.2), that last lap would have been faster still with someone ahead to chase or close behind to keep the pressure on.
Certainly his 3:46.91 Mile is worth 3:30.10 using the standard conversion of /1.08, and it is a better performance than his 3:30.54. Not only because it was slightly faster using the conversion, but because it was a time trial and Webb had no competition in the last 2 laps of the race. That is a psychological disadvantage. Kiplagat practically had Kiprop pacing him up to the last 100m, and that is the reason (that Kiprop was a target in front for him to aim at) why Kiplagat ran the last 300 in 39.5 rather than 41.*
Given similar circumstances as the Monaco race (which is also an exceptionally fast track) when running that 3:46 AR, and I have no doubt Webb would have been faster. How much, is impossible to answer, but I'd say 3:45 mid, which would have equated to around 3:28.8 for 1500m.
That would have gotten him 3rd in Monaco.
Just to add, I know the above quarter splits add up to 3:46.5 not 3:46.9, but that's what I got using a stop watch and subtracting 0.9, 0.6, 0.3 from intermediate times at the finish line. Not exact, but in the absence of any 'official' splits at the time and the lack of an onscreen clock, about the best I could do.
I make those splits add up to 3:46.5!!
DMVarea wrote:
I agree. Though the 1.08 conversation is standard, it's far and away not the same. When you run a 1500, you are gunning for the finishing line. You wouldn't keep that pace an extra 100+ meters, so you'd have to think if this was the "MYTHICAL MILE," these guys would be coming through the 1500 about 1-2 seconds slower and then closing.
You guys should know this, especially if you patronize us readers in your article by saying: "Now, despite the fact most of you are big-time track and field fans (why else would you be on LetsRun?), we know most of you have no idea that what means. Even die-hard track and field fans can’t really relate to the 1,500."
The 1.08 conversion incorporates a slowdown, it does not take one's 1500 time and stretch it out to 1609 meters at the same pace. If it did the conversion would be 1609/1500, which is 1.0726.
Using both factors, 3:30 1500 x 1.08 = 3:46.8 mile. This is the proper conversion. Using the incorrect one 3:30*1609/1500 = 3:45.3 mile. This is too fast for exactly the reasons you mention. If you're all out at 1500 meters, you would not be able to hold that same pace for another 109 meters.