Why isn't the 10k champion considered the "Worlds Fastest Man"

The answer was buried in your question when you said "meaningful distance."

There is nothing meaningful about holding a slower pace for a longer amount of time if you are looking for the "fastest" of something.

Fastest is a measure of top-speed. If you want to measure endurance, great. But "fastest" is in the title "world's fastest man" because they are looking for that one trait. The "world's fastest bird is the the peregrine falcon which can hit top-speeds of 200mph." Nobody cares about birds that fly pretty fast for long distances.

Answer this question: which distance at the Olympics is won with the fastest speed measured in miles per hour? 100m? 200m? 400m? 800?

When did we define "fastest man in the world" as "person who hits the highest top speed?" Even in the context of the 100 meters, the person with the highest top speed often doesn't win the race. See Noah Lyles' numerous 100 meter losses as evidence of this. No, saying the 100 meters champion is the fastest man because he has the highest top speed is just begging the question. Why do we need to define fastest man as he who hits the highest top speed, instead of who covers 6 miles the fastest?

Come on. Just admit you are a distance runner who can hold a mediocre pace for a very long time. Nothing in the world wrong with that. But the best 10k runner on earth is nowhere near the worlds fastest man.

Plus, people like watching sprints a lot more than long distance. That doesn’t make sprints inherently any better. But it should be accepted by all.

Sure, go ahead and provide the statistics that suggest people like watching sprints "a lot more" than long distance. I'll wait.

"world's fastest man" was invented by tv broadcasters to sell the otherwise boring AF 100m

where there is 10s of sports action for every hour of warmups, commentary, interviews, etc

No other running event needs that kind of PR crutch. Not that 10,000 is any more exciting, but there is no plausible slogan to hype it with.

So you think a bird such as an Arctic Tern (which can fly 5500 miles year in and year out) is "faster" than a falcon? Honestly, the word we use for terns is "bird with the most stamina."

What does the word "faster" mean to you?

Does this bird deserve to be known as the fastest bird because it flew from Alaska to Tasmania in 11 days? That is the record for that distance. Keep in mind, it was flying slowly the whole time (31 mph). Or do you agree with the bird experts who say it is the peregrine falcon (who can hit speeds of 200mph)?

Yes, a tern is faster than a falcon, specifically at long-distance, due to its endurance. Or if Bekele beats Bolt in a 10k does that not constitute being faster at that distance? Are we only allowed to use the word fast to describe the 100m distance? What about the 200? The 400? What's the cutoff?

100 m are a slow race, the fastest man is the one who wins on the 60 m.

the world's fastest person imo is the human that runs the fastest speed without wind aided and without downhill. typically this will be the same person that runs 100m the fastest i.e Bolt. if it occurs that the fastest speed is not the same person as the fastest 100m runner, then I would still have the fastest speed record as the fastest person on earth.

isn't the fastest average speed in the 100m, not the 60m? because you lose time with the start and 60m is less distance to get the average up compared to the 100.

60m WR 6.34 = 1m every 0.1056 seconds

100m WR 9.58 = 1m every 0.0958 seconds

so 100m runners have a faster average speed than 60m runners

anyway this is a futile point because we all know that Mattlondon's 10 yard dashes are the pinnacle of sprinting prowess

It is irrelevant, only peak velocity matters, not the useless average.

The best 100m sprinters don't reach their max velocity by 60m. They typically reach it around 80m. So, either way, you're wrong.

i agree, but you said who wins, not who hits the highest speed:

"100 m are a slow race, the fastest man is the one who wins on the 60 m."

Ask and ye shall receive.

sportsbusinessjournal.com

Bolt's 100m Dash Turns Into TV Ratings Gold Worldwide

Link:www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Global/I...

“Usain Bolt's 100m final win was watched by more than 20 million BBC viewers on Sunday night -- the London Games' "biggest U.K. audience to date outside of the Opening Ceremony," according to John Plunkett of the London GUARDIAN.”

“A total of 19.4 million viewers watched Bolt win his second 100 metres gold on BBC1 in the five minutes from 9.50pm on Sunday, a 64.5% share of the audience…

…This topped the games' previous highest peak audience for live sporting action, the 17.1 million who watched Mo Farah win the 10,000m on Saturday, and the 16.3 million who saw Jessica Ennis secure heptathlon gold with her victory in the 800m earlier that night.”

Similarly, if I need to empty my bowels rapidly coz an Uber has already arrived and is waiting outside, I’d probably want to be the fastest pooper in the world. When did we decide to define the 100m finish time as the measure of the fastest man? How quickly you can poop is so much useful and a time saver in the real world. Just like committing a crime and running away.

So a track and field superstar known for having won triple Gold in the Olympics prior (in 2008) and breaking three world records in the process, and then repeating this feat at a subsequent World Championships, could only beat Mo Farah's 10,000m viewership by a couple of million? And a female heptathete by three million? Based on this information I would expect the sprints to be watched CONSIDERABLY LESS than distance events with Bolt out of the picture.

Bolt isn't British though, Farah is. If Farah weren't British that race would have had half the audience. it wasn't the best example to use but 100m is definitely more watched than 10k.