Validation of not claimed records
Comments about this discussion:
Started
The normal procedure for validation is that there is a WR claim by a rider by filling in the submission form.
Now it can happen that there is a performance that has the potential to be a WR, without nor the rider neither the event organizer realizes this, so no one is claiming the record.
2 examples where this can happen:
- the performance happens on a minor event and the rider has the idea that the timing measurement is not appropriate for record validation (I remember a case during Dutch nationals - also one during Einradcup Munsterland Oelde).
- the performance happens in a region where people are not familiar with IUF WR (eg results of All Japan Unicycle Championships) - in the current WR list all Asian record holders performed their record on a Unicon, it is likely that their are excellent Asian performances done outside Unicons, without a WR claim.
How do we handle this?
Comment
If we happen to know about such a case and we think that the requirements (for timing, distance measurement, witnesses etc) have been met, I think we should (try and) contact the rider or the event organisation about it. If it turns out that all the requirements are indeed fulfilled, we should recognise the result as a World Record.
In this scenario, I don't think we need the consent of the rider involved, because (s)he simply IS the record holder. Or do some of you think otherwise?
If we do NOT know about such a case, that seems end of story for me. In my opinion, we cannot be expected to go around the world looking for records.
Comment
In my opinion the responsibility lies in the hands of the athletes and the organisers of the competitions. We really shouldn't be running around looking for possible WR.
I think it makes sense to limit the time for a WR claim. On the one hand, in order to make witnesses/judges/referees remember and to make it possible to submit missing evidence, and on the other hand, to make the whole process clear and comprehensible.
If a claim is submitted within this time, no matter by whom, it will be examined. If the time has elapsed and a claim is submitted, it is rejected.
Comment
Jan, I very much disagree with you about setting a time limit for a WR claim. A world record is a world record. It is not up to us to decree a time to submit the record. We should not be imposing conditions on the achievement that has nothing to do with it.
It is easy in some countries to get all the criteria together for a record; this includes knowledge of how to submit records etc. It is considerably harder in other countries to meet those criteria, we should not be putting boundaries in place for people in those countries.
Comment
I agree that the responsibility lies in the handy of the athletes and also the organisers. We can not be expected to check every day if a new record has been made.
For the timelimit I also disagree. As long as the documentation is good, the world record should be the world record. And I assume the record will be broken anyway if the documentation is not sent in for too long.
Comment
I agree with Mirjam and Jan.
The committee is run by volunteers- it is the responsibility of the athlete/organisers to retrospectively get the evidence together (ie measurement, witness statements etc) to satisfy the WR committee.
If you set a 100m sprint record at a local athletics club event, the IAAF is not going to come looking for evidence that it happened, and they are much better resourced than unicycling.
Roger- I think the time limit is unnecessary also. However, with the passage of time, it becomes harder to gather the evidence required to satisfy the committee that a world record is up to the IUF standard.
Comment
So far we seem to agree that the WR committee doesn't need to "chase" for records. The current WRG don't mention this issue at all, and so they effectively don't require us to do so. Would we need to make this explicit in the WRG?
I too would be against a time limit. If an "old" record is claimed and can be verified, and hasn't been surpassed since then, it IS the record and should be recognised as such. Jan's first argument for a time limit is unnecessary: if witnesses/judges don't remember or the required evidence cannot be pieced together, then a claim cannot be succesful anyway. We don't need a time limit for that.
I don't understand Jan's second argument, i.e. "to make the whole process clear and comprehensible".
Jan, if you still stand by your idea of a time limit, can you clarify this?
Comment
Maybe you are right and the time limit is in a way really set by itself, because at some point it is no longer possible to document the required evidence according to the specifications.
Nevertheless, I could imagine that it would be difficult for the WR Committee to verify the credibility of a documented record - even if it obviously meets all the criteria - if it is submitted, for example, after a few years. And I think this should always be done, even when records are well documented. A judge may have put a note underneath, but after a few years he will probably not be able to remember the exact circumstances and so it becomes difficult for the committee to evaluate the documentation.
By "to make the whole process clear and comprehensible" I mean that our approach is always the same and comprehensible.
So e.g. that we check every WR and its documentation for credibility, that we always check the same things and that we always do it the same way.
A further advantage of a time limit would be that we could wait for exactly this time limit with the acknowledgment of a WR and thus ensure that an older achievement is not better and is simply submitted later. But perhaps this problem is also quite insignificant overall.
But a recommendation to submit the documentation of a WR at the latest X days after the record I would pronounce anyhow.
Comment
So far, all of us seem to agree that it is not a task of the WR Committee to "chase for" records.
Firstly, I'm not sure about Erik - he asked the original question but did not give his opinion.
Secondly, if we would agree on this principle, should we make it explicit in the WRG?
About a time limit to submit a claim, most of us agree that this should not be imposed.
Since the WRG don't mention a time limit, this corresponds to current practice. No change would be necessary.
Does Jan agree?
Comment
I agree that we should not chase for records, it is simply not possible.
The main reason I opened this discussion is that I am convinced that there are WR worth performances that are not recognized as a such.
And that's a pity because it devaluates the official world records. See my example of the Asian WR holders, all their performances are done at a Unicon. The results of the All Japan Open track championships you can find on the website of JUA (with a lot of patience and google translate :). Here you can find performances better than some WR. Question is are they performed under the right conditions. We don't know.
Also at Unicon19 in Ansan there were extremely strong performances in wheelwalk and onefoot, unfortunately not recognized as WR because of the poor timing system. But these guys can easily break the WR that are listed now.
My point is how can we reach out to Japan, Korea, ... to be aware of the IUF WR list and to communicate their results. Is the IUF WR list known in Asia?
Comment
You are right that the official world records have less value if we know (or at least presume) that they are not the world's best results.
It is a challenge to engage people from Eastern Asia.
I have not been able to find someone in Japan to join the WR committee.
However, we do have Jason Ahn from Korea as a committee member. Jason was the main director of Unicon 19 in Ansan.
He has let me know that writing in English is very time-consuming for him, which is the main reason that he is not very active in here.
I would welcome it if we can increase awareness of, and the willingness to contribute to, the official World Record list in Eastern Asia and in other areas that are now more or less disconnected from what we do.
Comment
I think if we should agree to make an official record submission form, we could mention in the WRG that a record claim must be submitted on that official form.
For me, this means indirectly that it is not the job of the WR Committee to look for records.
I would agree not to include a time limit, but I still think that it would not be a disadvantage if the WR committee receives the documentation as soon as possible and therefore I would give a recommendation to submit the documentation of a WR at the latest X days after the record.
Comment
I agree with that, except that I would change "at the latest X days after the record" into "as soon as possible after the record attempt".
(Note that I also added "attempt" - it's not a record until we have confirmed it.)
Comment
I also agree with this wording.
Comment
I think this discussion is ready for a text proposal. There seem to be no conflicting opinions.
Shall I create a proposal, or would Erik as the discussion starter, prefer to do this?
Comment
Klaas, I think you can go ahead and start a proposal.
Comment
We agree that we don't need to chase for records. This does not need text in the WRG, I think.
We also agree that the WRG should state something like
It is recommended that the IUF World Record committee receives the required documentation of a World Record claim as soon a possible after the record attempt.
Such a text would fit in Chapter 2 DOCUMENTATION CRITERIA.
However, this Chapter will change considerably, if we are going to work with a World Record Claim Submission form.
I believe Jan is working on a list of items to be included in such a form.
I think it's better to wait with an actual text proposal on the above, until we have more clarity about the form and the consequences for the text in Chapter 2.
Comment
I have another situation in mind.
That of a record not claimed because it does not exist in the IUF WR list. I have a specific example in mind:
I think that a record for cumulative positive elevation gain over 24 hours would have a place in the IUF WR list. Not everyone may agree, this is obviously a question to be asked.
If I wanted to attempt that kind of performance, maybe I would do 5000m (this is an example, I would do much less than 9000m for sure...), but I would be embarrassed to ask an IUF homologation because I know that Ben Soja has done better in 2018.
I would think it's a shame if this record never existed because Ben set the bar too high without claiming the record (but everyone knows his performance).
I think it's part of the IUF committee to be aware of performances that deserve to be IUF WR.
Comment
I think I have already contributed my view on the topic: Which records should the IUF recognize? in various places.
I am of the opinion that the IUF represents the competitive sport of unicycling and should therefore recognize records in its competitive disciplines. Of course, there may be other sporting feats with a unicycle that are also worthy of records - but these may also exist in other sports, and in addition to the IUF or the sports federations, there are also other organizations that keep records for these.
Comment
To tell the truth I didn't really think about what the IUF represents. And after thinking about it, I would say that for me the IUF represents unicycling as a sport.
I understand your point of view. To me the track and field disciplines are the most competitive.
For the other disciplines, I believe that it is more complicated.
Concerning the road races, in my opinion the TT records make more sense than the racing records.
Today, the requirements of the WR committee make it difficult to homologate a road race WR.
The example of the UNICON20 is illustrative. I won't go into all the details, in short: The 10 km => "it's all flat, but with bridges and curves, good luck to beat your record!" / The marathon => "it's too complicated to measure".
And that's without counting that in unlimited class the speeds are such that the drafting allows a significant gain of energy.
I totally slipped on the subject I opened on the meaning of road race WR, for me these subjects are linked. Maybe we should keep road races WR for the standard class, a discipline closer to unicycle and foot track races. And keep TT WR for the unlimited class. However, I would consider it a pity that the IUF no longer homologates the TT WR (1 hour, 100km, 100 miles and 24h).
In my opinion, an interesting evolution that would go in this direction is to modify the 10 km to propose a TT race for the unlimited class, and a classic race in confrontation for the standard class. If drafting is banned, individual starts should also be organized.
All this to say that I considered it a pity that we had to create a new organization to homologate unicycle TT WR and possible new similar unicycle WR.
Comment
As per the current WR Guidelines, it is possible to add new types of records. The text under 1.6 reads in full:
If you wish to attempt a world record in a category that is not recognised by the IUF, you may ask the IUF World
Record Committee to consider adding the new record. This must be done at least 8 weeks in advance of your attempt.
Your record is more likely to be approved if it meets the following criteria:
– the record is sufficiently different to an existing record
– the record is something other unicyclists want.
– it is in the best interests of the sport
– it has relevance to the sport
– it can be quantified
Simon's example of cumulative positive elevation gain over 24 hours would fit these criteria, I think. However, I would agree that it's not fair to recognise a WR that is less than someone (Ben Soja) has done already. Maybe we should nudge Ben to claim a World Record after all (but of course then we would need rigorous proof to accept it).
Finally, Jan wrote
"I am of the opinion that the IUF represents the competitive sport of unicycling"
whereas Simon wrote
"I would say that for me the IUF represents unicycling as a sport"
I think the two of you largely agree.
Comment
I think the difference between Simon's view and mine is that I would focus more on the competitive disciplines of unicycling (and thus the disciplines that are also described in the Rulebook), than on sportive activities in general. Of course, there are a lot sportive activities that can be done with a unicycle besides the competitive disciplines. However, I see a bit of a danger in having records that don't correspond to any competitive discipline, to have records that are very specific and thus only relevant to a relatively small fraction of unicyclists.
For me the question arises, if a record fulfills all conditions of the current rule 1.6, why is there no corresponding competition discipline? Especially if other athletes are also interested in it? In such cases, wouldn't it be the task of the Rulebook Committee to create a corresponding competition discipline or something similar, which can be represented in a competiton discipline?
Comment
For me competition does not necessarily mean competitive disciplines at UNICON. The competition is also done with historical records like the hour record and more recently the competition has become digital (strava, zwift...).
For example, the hour record, the 24-hour record and the 24-hour cumulative elevation gain record are records that exist in cycling and running. These 3 records are only attempted during solo events outside of a classic competition.
For the 100km and 100 miles, it's different... in running there are dedicated races and sometimes a solo attempt. In cycling, these are solo events that are much less prestigious than the others records. The 100 km record is on a velodrome and is mainly disputed between French and Italian). While the 100 miles record is on the road and is more for the Anglo-Saxons...
For me the most debatable records are those of 100 km and 100 miles, but I believe that these distances are symbolic (respectively for the Europeans and the Anglo-Saxons) and at the same time they tempt me a lot...
Anyway, I think that the list of this kind of record is already long compared to the number of people who practice (unlimited) road unicycling. And I am opposed to the idea of adding records of 200 km, 48 hours, 10 days, 1 year and cumulative altitude difference over 1 hour...
I think that a short time trial would fit in a UNICON, whether it is exactly 10 km or not. It could allow to have a TT competition in a UNICON. In a way, it could make a link with the existing time records. The goal is not to create a new record in the list.
Comment
For me, to add a new type of record to the list of possible records, it is not a necessary condition that the discipline is described/regulated in the IUF Competition Rulebook. We have already some of those, like hour records.
Jan sees a danger in having records that are only relevant to a relatively small number of riders. This is in agreement to the current 1.6 in the WR Guidelines, that a new record must be "something other unicyclists want". But think of Rulebook-regulated competitive disciplines like high jump and 100km road racing. A relatively small percentage of unicyclists is interested in those, but they are still valid as a record type.
Some types of records, such as hour records, don't lend themselves to a Rulebook-regulated competition format anyway, but again, these are valid types of records.
I would agree that we must not have too many types of records - Simon mentions some examples like a 10-days record. But also this is neatly regulated in 1.6 of the WR Guidelines: the 10 days-example would IMO fail on 4 of the 5 criteria in 1.6.
Whether a Time Trial would fit in Unicon, would be mostly a Rulebook discussion. If it is not exactly 10 km, 100 km or 100 miles, it would not result in a WR anyway. Also, it would be difficult to accommmodate many riders on a relatively short circuit (needed for permanent witnessing) while making sure to exclude drafting at all times. A Time Trial might be a viable unicycling competition format, but not so much for WRs, I think.