in Webb we trust wrote: wrote:
I mean...Webb was technically slower than Willis and has zero medals, in his primary event or others.
But yeah, Webb wouldn't been pretty great in like a running events-only pentathlon or something. 100, 400, 1500, 5k, marathon or 110HH. Maybe we should start it up!
Nope Willis never ran a 3:46:91.
Willis is a better competitor, better medalist. Webb better overall runner. It's not that even close. He ran actual great times in races. nothing to make up[/quote]
Bro that entire statement is ret@rded. So what exactly is your "weighting" for attributes of a runner in the measure of greatness? 80% based of best time, 10% each for competitor and medal winning?
So longevity of career (Willis is arguably the greatest of ALL TIME when it comes to this having run 3.32 in 2004 and 3.34 in 2017) isn't really comparable between the two, neither is consistency or honors (Olympic/WC finals and medals). Alan Webb was a phenomenal talent but the only metric he beats Willis on is time and at their key event (1500m/mile) they split the honors (Willis with a better 1500m PR, Webb a better mile)
The correct statement is "Webb has a better portfolio of PR's from 800-5000m. Willis the better overall runner"