The essential problem with the decathlon is that being great at it doesn't mean being great at anything in particular.

In 2004, the best time in the 100 m was 10.44. Faster than I could run? Sure. Elite? God, no.

Clay also won the long jump at 7.96m. The actual event was won at 8.59 m

Shot put: 16.36 m in decathlon, 21.16 in real event

High Jump 2.15 m -v- 2.36 m

400m: 46.81 -v- 44.01

110 m hurdles: 13.97 -v- 12.91

Discus: 51.65 m -v- 69.89 m

Pole Vault: 5.4 m -v- 5.95 m

Javelin: 70.52 m -v- 86.50 m

1500 m: 4:23.08 -v- 3:34.19

Now, things like fatigue make the events hard, but basically decathletes aren't great athlete's they're utility infielders... Being great at something is much more significant than being good at a mish-mash of things, and so being better than anyone else at that combination.

The real question is why on earth anyone ever thought the decathlon was prestigious (yes, even before one crapped the bed at trials the "worlds greatest athlete" decathlon thing was nonsense).

hmmm, I bet you think swimming is an exciting sport? Come on admit it, I know you do!

10.44 in the 100 is really, really fast. No, its not going to medal. But it's faster than 99 percent of all the humans in the history of the world have ever run, I'd wager.

Foobs, you are way wrong. Multi-event competitors embody the (really) original Olympic goal of well-roundedness, which is very different from being a "utility infielder."

I love multi because the competitors seem both more human (as opposed to the near-freakish body types needed to excel as specialists) and more superhuman because of what they do with what they have. Anyone who can train to run a 10.44 100m while training to be competitive in nine (or six) other events has my respect.

"World's greatest athlete" rubs me the wrong way too, but only because it makes me wonder what that makes the heptathlon gold medalist. "World's greatest female athlete" makes it sound like women athletes are not quite the same thing as regular athletes.

Consider this:

A professional tour starts in which the athletes play 4 holes of golf, a set of tennis, and drive 100 miles of a Nascar-type race (or pick some other driving or individual competition, it doesn't matter). Now, would being great at that be impressive? Sure.

But would you rather watch the best at that do all three things well, or Roger Federer / Rafael Nadal play tennis, Tiger Woods play golf (when he's healthy), and whoever the heck is a good race car driver drive? Would many people be interested in the sport I proposed?

Or suppose you had teams that played a quarter of football, 3 innings of baseball, and a quarter of basketball. Would people have any interest in this except as a novelty? Of course not. Popular interest in a sport comes either from the athletes being the best or inherent interest (university or national loyalty).

Anyone who can run a 100 in 10.44 is impressive, but they are far from elite. While they're versatility may make you respect them more, it is virtuosity that the public prizes.

That you disagree doesnt make me wrong, it makes you atypical.

A 10.44 is really fast, I don't deny that. Minor league baseball players are really good, too. They play baseball better than 99.several more nines of people. But the Atlanta Braves have about 30,000 people attend their games while tickets go from $6 to $75. The Montgomery Biscuits play in a stadium that seats 7,000 with tickets topping out at $11 (they start higher ($7), but consider the quality of bad seats in a big stadium verse a small one).

The original question was "Why don't people care about the decathlon?" The answer is that the participants may do an arbitrary combination of thing collectively well, but they do nothing individually at an elite level. It is seeing something done as well as it can be done (Michael Phelps, Usain Bolt, Tom Brady, Lebron James, Tiger Woods, etc) that most people are interested in. That's why most people don't care about the decathlon.