My name is URL wrote: » I don't get the whole buzz about the 100Ms tbh. Why is it the biggest and most prestigious gold medal in the Olympics? It's not even overly exciting in my opinion. In the real world, if you ever needed to run 100M very quickly it wouldn't really matter if you were 2/100s of a second later in doing it. The 10,000M should be the more prestigious race, again just imo.
Hercule Poirot wrote: » Yeah but in the 10,000M you don't see 4/5 fellas cross the line within half a second of each other!
phasers wrote: » I must admit that is part of the reason I love the 100m
robinph wrote: » But most people can't be bothered to wait 30 minutes for a result.
the groutch wrote: » love Colin Jackson's going mad versus Johnson's zero reaction during the race
robinph wrote: » leahyl wrote: » I reckon the main reason is Bolt tbh - before he came along I would have thought the 10,000m was the more prestigious race as well. It's just Bolt generates such publicity so therefore the race is more popular perhaps? Nope, always been the 100m.
leahyl wrote: » I reckon the main reason is Bolt tbh - before he came along I would have thought the 10,000m was the more prestigious race as well. It's just Bolt generates such publicity so therefore the race is more popular perhaps?
Anyone wrote: » He ran under 12 seconds, so no, you wouldnt
leahyl wrote: » Is that gospel? It is actually the most prestigious athletic event? I would have thought it's a matter of personal opinion?
Deleted User wrote: » You can't make a mistake in the 100m whereas you could in the 10000m and still win it!
take everything wrote: » That was hyperbole.
ascanbe wrote: » 100m is the most prestigious because it's the most elemental of all races. It answers, plain and simple, the question of who is the fastest athlete.
Brain Stroking wrote: » You call a man on hyperbole whilst believing you could have beaten Asafa Powell tonight. Nice
robinph wrote: » leahyl wrote: » Is that gospel? It is actually the most prestigious athletic event? I would have thought it's a matter of personal opinion? Without wikipeda how many previous 10km winners can you name? What about 100m? Unless you are a running geek you'll not have heard of most of the distance runners, the 100m Olympic champions are instant household names every time.
Guy:Incognito wrote: » Yeah, no way you can make a poor ish start then come through to win in a new OR time.
robinph wrote: » Without wikipeda how many previous 10km winners can you name? What about 100m? Unless you are a running geek you'll not have heard of most of the distance runners, the 100m Olympic champions are instant household names every time.
Guy:Incognito wrote: » In the same way as saying Lionel Messi is the best footballer in the world maybe. But not in reality. Hes the best in his position, not much cop as a goalkeeper compared to Buffon though.
BetterCallSaul wrote: » You sure? :cool:http://www.soccershouts.com/forum/uploads/gallery/album_4/gallery_91_4_23444.jpg
Pdoghue wrote: » I'd say Borzoz in 72 was fairly well known at the time - won the 100-200 double I think.
ascanbe wrote: » But athletics is different. No matter what distance the race is, the purpose is to cover that distance in as fast a time as possible. So it's all about covering a distance at the greatest speed possible. What sets the 100m apart is that the winner is, without question, running much faster their top speed than any other athlete is. So it's the most elemental and clear; who is the fastest runner on earth? I can understand why people may find other races more fascinating, but there's a reason the 100m is the most prestigious.
Guy:Incognito wrote: » Why not the indoor 50 or 60m so?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/24615175400ae675a1f589d8e5bd3285.svg)
