Why are the Men's 100m times so SLOW?

I remember many World's and Olympics and there used to always be at least 3 sprinters under 10 seconds. Yesterday's winner was clocked at 10.07 ??? Not many have been running under 10 this year at all.

What's going on all of a sudden?

[tafnut]

Re: Why are the Men's 100m times so SLOW?

gh said the track was soft (slow for sprinters, helps distance). Soft tracks never seem to slow the women down (less force put into the track?) The 400 times were nothing special. We'll see in the 200.

Re: Why are the Men's 100m times so SLOW?

The answer could be fairly simple. It could be the track. The distance runners have been complaining for some time now that the nature of the surface at the recent major championship while it aids the sprinters and produces fast times that it is detrimental to their efforts.

I distinctly remember Geb advancing that as a reason why did not attempt to double in Edmonton. Maybe the French have opted for a more spongy surface which would appease the distance runners and slow the sprint times.

Re: Why are the Men's 100m times so SLOW?

Just one of those days we were looking at the times for this 100m just to see who would have won. Because the men that were running the fast times weren't there.

Re: Why are the Men's 100m times so SLOW?

>The answer could be fairly simple. It could be
>the track. The distance runners have been
>complaining for some time now that the nature of
>the surface at the recent major championship
>while it aids the sprinters and produces fast
>times that it is detrimental to their efforts.
>

I distinctly remember Geb advancing that as a
>reason why did not attempt to double in Edmonton.
>Maybe the French have opted for a more spongy
>surface which would appease the distance runners
>and slow the sprint times.

Yes, that was also the reason Geb didn't double in Atlanta.