Just a pity they were short ... but I guess that's a whole other issue
On the contrary, it's probably the same issue. If naps are short then awake time wants to be even less.
Good sleep results in even better sleep
Poor sleep results in even worse sleep.
You are, a baby getting plenty of sleep (over 24 hours) if likely to be much easier to get to sleep, will find it easier getting into the deep sleep phase and will be much less likely to wake. So you end up with an increasing cycle of better and better quality sleep.
Unfortunately the opposite is also true. A baby not getting enough sleep will find it much harder to get to sleep. Then once asleep is likely to stay in the light sleeping phase for more time and so while light sleeping, is much more likely to be woken by something. So you end up in an over tiredness cycle where poor sleep is giving rise to worse quality sleep.
I did try him at 60 mins ish and he was wide awake still
He might have been wide awake. But it is also worth bearing in mind that an over-tired child takes on a "wired" look - wide eyed, a bit hyper, squeely and in preverbal babies some frantic movements.
An untrained eye could easily assume the over-tired baby is full of energy and wide awake with no chance of sleep. I'm actual fact, while getting baby to sleep when at this wired stage is very difficult, it is exactly what is needed.
It depends on your child though. He may well not be tired after 60 minutes awake time. Maybe he had a good solid block of sleep at night and lots of long naps previously. In which case absolutely 60mins awake time is too short.
But if you've had a baby with a significantly broken nights sleep, maybe a period of awake time in the night, short (30m or less) nap and extended awake times - the balance of probability would be that baby is in fact sleep deprived and exhausted and while might be difficult to get to sleep after 60m awake time, probably needs it.