New IUF World Record categories

Comments about this discussion:

Started 06 Dec 08:46

Section 1.6 of the WRG deals about adding new IUF World Record categories.

I'm not sure if new records have ever been added, in between review-and-update exercises like the one we're doing now.
To my knowledge, the only thing that has been done, is adding new records to the list of "Additional records that are from commonly-held disciplines, but are however not yet included in the official IUF World Record Guidelines". But this is precisely the list that we want to get rid of, isn't it.

So, do we want to maintain this section 1.6 in the WRG? Then I think we need to have a mechanism to ensure that the WRG (and its list of recognised records) stays aligned with the list of current records on the IUF website.

Alternatively, we could say in section 1.6 that new records can only be added in an review-and-update round, but it may take five years or so until the next one.

Thoughts?

Comment 06 Dec 14:20

In my opinion we should just accept records that are in the IUF rulebook (track, road, jumps) plus time trials.

All other records can be accepted by Guiness or whatever but in the end you can come up with any stupid idea like baking the most cookies on a unicycle :-P

Comment 06 Dec 15:43

Your opinion almost corresponds to the current situation, if we add the records that have discussed elsewhere, such as 4 x 100m Relay.

The exception is the chapter of Miscellaneous records, which currently contains only Rope Skipping.
Are you suggesting that we should scrap this record from the list (and leave such records to Guinness or whoever likes to maintain them?

Comment 07 Dec 01:20

Yes, because as we had in another discussion it is not even clear who many jumps the record is because there are 3 different ones!

Comment 07 Dec 02:27

I think it makes sense indeed to scrap the rope skipping record. The fact that Guinness and World Record Association each have their "own" record, shows that people tend to go to other organisations that IUF for such records that have little to do with our sport (this is subjective).

See also my comment in the discussion "Consideration of setting criteria for external record accrediation".

Comment 07 Dec 06:22

I would prefer it if only WR categories would be included in the WRG that have an ambiguous reference to unicycling as a competitive sport. Ideally, the disciplines should also be described in the IUF Rulebook. (I think my point of view concerning this issue has already been heard in other discussions.)
And so I think we don't need rule 1.6, because if ther is a new discipline to integrate, this process can take place internally in the Word Record Committee - if necessary even without a complete update of the WRG.

Section 1.6, in contrast, gives the impression that anything that meets the requirements mentioned in 1.6 can potentially be recognized as a WR by the IUF. And in my opinion this should not be the case.
I would rather leave the category "Miscellaneous records" to Guiness or whoever and concentrate in the IUF WRG on the disciplines of competitive unicycling (including Time Trials).

Comment 24 Dec 06:57

I do not agree, I think there is good reason to seek to becoming accrediting body for records that are outside IUF. It is a way of promoting unicycling to the public while also making it more professional.

I am certain when you look at the unicycle records in the Guinness of records there are some that we feel should not be there and that they are just stunts. These records are not positive to unicycling as the public can even see through these. How can we make these more professional without being actually involved? We should be the one place where these external organisations seek advice in what is our expertise. There could be 2 levels here, we could put ourselves forward as consultant or go whole hog and offer to become the accrediting body that sets the rules and accepts the record if achieved.

The miscellaneous record leaves this open for change where I would hope things would go.

Comment 25 Dec 08:28

For rope skipping we have already found three different records for most skips in a minute, by three different organisations. I just found another silly (my personal opinion) rope skipping record at RecordSetter. And who knows what else is out there...

I don't see how the involvement of the IUF makes unicycling seem more professional to the general public. If anything, it detracts from the IUF's credibility.

And there is a practical issue. We cannot force all the organisations in the world who (would want to) publish records in which a unicycle is involved, to do this only with our approval.

We don't even know who they are. They might be websites, printed press, radio or tv stations, youtubers...

Comment 26 Dec 05:51

I'm with Roger on this- the rulebook isn't the only thing that is important to unicyclists. We should recognise certain records that fall outside of the rulebook. For instance, ultra marathon records/expedition records.

Addressing Mirjam's point, we can easily exclude records like 'most-cookies-baked-on-a-unicycle' on our current criteria:

- is it different to an existing record? yes- until we start baking cakes on a unicycle

- the record is something other unicyclists want? no- we only want to eat them

- it is in the best interest of the sport. no- it is gimmicky and a publicity stunt, rather than a sporting endeavour

- it has relevance to the sport- no- we don't usually bake cookies when unicycling

- it can be quantified- yes

It fails on 3 out of 5 measures. Remember, we have discretion on whether to grant a new record category.

If we remove Section 1.6, I think we should retain the flexibility to add new records, and we MUST have a guideline on how we go about this.

My preference would be to reword Section 1.6, so it is not an 'invitation' to attempt or submit new record categories to the WR committee. Instead, it should just list the criteria in which new record categories are considered:

eg:

Record categories are based on competitions sanctioned in the IUF Rulebook. Non-IUF Rulebook records are considered based on 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

Comment 26 Dec 10:41

I think Roger and Ken talk about different things.

Roger, if I understand correctly, wants the IUF to be the (only) organisation to accredit records that IUF does not itself have in its list of records. This would be in addition the the list of records that IUF recognises and maintains on its website.

Ken wants to keep the possibility to add new records to the list of IUF's "own" records.

Either way, there will be silly records (like baking cookies on a unicycle) that IUF doesn't want to be associated with.

Comment 27 Dec 03:14

I actually mentioned both options:

1. I believe ken's option is what I called this becoming the accrediting body. This would where we accept the record and record it in detail and show that we have accepted the record. We would then record the achievement.

2. Becoming consultant for other record accreditation bodies. This I think has the most benefit for unicycling as it helps to educate the larger world about unicycling. We would not record these records as they are not ours.

Both option would allow us to not be associated with the records if they are not appropriate. On option 2 we would not offer advice on the baking of the cake but on the unicycle skill required to do this.

I think it is appropriate that we do offer this service to help increase the credibility of unicycling and to increases the profile of the IUF as the experts in unicycling. The IUF should be the first point of contact for Guinness when they get a request for a record that includes a unicycle. We could then respond appropriately with maybe "that has nothing do with unicycling", "the criteria for that trick/competition are outlined in IUF rule X", "that record is a variant of the IUF record X and should not be accepted".

An example of Guinness not understanding unicycling is when Sam and myself went for the 100 mile record. One of the criteria they set was that no gearbox could be used.

Comment 20 Jan 16:40

Are Guinness (and others listing unicycle records) interested in having an accrediting body in the first place? What do they do if we would not "approve" a record - would they refrain from listing it? Could we demand that? I doubt it. I still feel that we should not get ourselves involved in the type of records that Guinness and their likes are interested in but we as IUF are not, based on our WR guidelines.

You write "I think it is appropriate that we do offer this service to help increase the credibility of unicycling". I don't see how offering advice on the unicycle skill to bake cookies while unicyling, does anything to increase the credibility of our sport - in fact, quite the opposite is true.

As to the 100 mile record with a geared unicycle: Guinness might not accept it, but IUF does (section 5.2.5. of WRG), be it only as a time trial record which implies no drafting (amongs other implications). Indeed, setting a time-trial-like record with two riders does not fit with our guidelines.

Meanwhile, I'm still unsure what we should do with section 1.6 - which was the original topic of this discussion. Or in other words: do we allow addition of new records and if so, under what rules?

Comment 24 Jan 03:08

My opinion on the topic has not changed significantly as a result of the further discussions, so I will simply repeat my view of things once again:

Of course we need the possibility to include new disciplines in the WRG in the future, because the unicycle sport will develop further and that is good. But I still think we don't need rule 1.6 for that, because if ther is a new discipline to integrate, this process can take place internally in the Word Record Committee - if necessary even without a complete update of the WRG. The disciplines in which the IUF recognizes world records should be determined exclusively by the IUF WR Committee and this should not be put under pressure by requests from organizers or athletes, but of course it has to consider the wishes of the athletes and the developments in sport.

Section 1.6 gives impression that anything that meets the requirements set out in Section 1.6 is generally recognised by the IUF as a WR when requested.

Comment 25 Jan 07:38

The topic of becoming the accrediting body for records kept by Guinness and their likes is covered in Discussion #14. It seems though that apart from Roger, there is hardly any interest to do this.

As to section 1.6.: the way this is phrased now, is that you can ask the IUF to consider adding a new WR category. Both "ask" and "consider" indicated that it is not automatically recognised.
Also it says "Your records is more likely to be approved if..." Again, this indicates that IUF has the freedom to accept a new record or not.

So I'm not so afraid that the current 1.6 raises too high expectations.

That said, we could follow Ken's idea to reword 1.6, so that it is less of an 'invitation' to submit requests.

Ken, could you write a text to give us a starting point?

Comment 03 May 10:05

Ken, are you willing to write a text for 1.6, as per the above (including your own suggestion)?

Comment 11 Apr 07:42

If Ken is not interested to rewrite 1.6, I think we can leave it as it is. In my opinion, the current text has enough disclaimers to avoid the impression of "automatic" additions to the list of possible World Records, once anyone asks to add a specific record.

Comment 11 Apr 10:44

I agree to keep it. In any case, it should be discussed together if a new record could fit the eligibility criteria.

Comment 11 Apr 12:13

You wrote "...it should be discussed together ..."

Once the review and update of the World Record Guidelines is completed, the wider committee has completed its assignment and will be dismissed.
From that time onwards, we only have the core committee that verifies and possibly approves new records. Current members are you (Simon), Scott, Mirjam and myself. If your "together" refers to this core committee, then I agree.

Comment 12 Apr 04:07

Yes, it's true, I hadn't thought of that... but if it's discussed in the core committee it's good for me.

Comment 12 Apr 06:01

In my oppinion Ken already proposed a new text for 1.6 in the discussion above. If section 1.6 is to remain, I would favour also rewrite it (or remove it completely and place it elsewhere as a general introduction to the IUF World record categories). My suggestion ( following what Ken had already written) would be:

(1.6 NEW) IUF WORLD RECORD CATEGORIES
IUF world record categories are based on competitions sanctioned in the IUF Rulebook.
Non-IUF Rulebook records may be considered by the IUF World Record Committee based on 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

Comment 31 Oct 03:15

To be honest, I'm still not really happy with the idea that we should recognise records that have no connection to the competitive sport of unicycling. Ken's comment in the discussion about deleting the rope skipping record showed me once again how big the ‘potential for conflicts’ is here when it comes to the question of what we recognise as a record and what not.
Since I would like to keep the discussion about ‘miscellaneous records’ and thus new IUF world records outside of competition disciplines together, I have copied Ken's comment here:

"I am strongly against this. (Remark Jan: Delete the section MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS)

The idea for the rulebook is to have guidelines for records to be set outside of, as well as within competition. That's why it's important to link the two when we have competition related records.

Not every record is related to competition. The original WR committee felt it was important to recognise records that have nothing to do with the IUF Rulebook. For instance, we may want to add a record for tallest unicycle, longest distance ridden without dismounts, or expedition distance records- eg Lands End to John O'Groats etc.

The reason there is only one record under 'miscellaneous' is because the committee is a work in progress. The initial guidelines were a starting point. We have Section 1.6 which allows us to add record categories. Many of these are held by Guinness, but we wanted to host them ourselves. They are very important to many unicyclists who are not interested in competition records."

I totally agree with Ken that the World Record Committee is still a work in progress, but I don't see it as goal of the IUF World Record Committee to host Guinness-approved records ourselves. If we want to present unicycling credibly to the public as a professional sport, then we should/need to focus on disciplines of our sport and not make everything that has anything to do with a unicycle into an IUF World Record. This has nothing to do with the representation of a professional sport - other sports federations such as the UCI also do not keep world record lists with anything that involves a bicycle.

I think it makes sense and is right that there are organisations like Guinness that earn their money by recognising and presenting records. We should distinguish ourselves from this - Mirjam had already given the example at the beginning of this discussion, which I thought was very appropriate, that otherwise we would end up with silly records like baking the most cookies on a unicycle.
Ken argued that such a record would fail three of the five points in section 1.6 - but this judgement is absolutely subjective. Someone else could just as easily argue that all five points can be answered with ‘yes’.

The three aspects:
– the record is something other unicyclists want
– it is in the best interests of the sport
– it has relevance to the sport
all three are not really objectively measurable without defining them in more detail.

One could go and ask for every ‘new discipline’ in which a record is to be set and which is therefore to be included as a new record category (but for which there is no competition discipline) why is there no competition discipline if the ‘discipline‘ is really relevant to the sport? Isn't it perhaps the case that there is no competitive discipline because it is not relevant to the sport?
If relevance to the sport is linked to the fact that there are competitions, then this point can suddenly be judged subjectively - namely by whether a corresponding competition discipline is included in the rulebook.

I think I have already made this clear elsewhere, but I would like to emphasise it again: For me, Time Trials are competition disciplines and therefore, in my opinion, belong in the Rulebook in more detail than they currently do - by this the relevance to the sport would be more clear and the fact that this is something that othe runicyclists want. Time Trail competitions are of course somewhat different in nature to Road Races, but I would still clearly regard a Time Trial as a competition, even if only a single athlete is competing there.

Comment 31 Oct 07:47

While I agree we should not include all (or even most) Guinness records relating to unicycles, we shouldn't restrict ourselves to the IUF competition rulebook either.

Remember- there is no 24 hour unicycle time trial competition. Nor is there a 100 mile time-trial in the IUF rulebook. From an organiser's perspective, it is difficult enough to run these as a race, let alone a time trial competition. Do we want to exclude these records? Also exclude expedition records in future?

The goal is to showcase athletic achievements of our sport. Baking cookies on a unicycle is more in line with Guinness than IUF, but I don't think it requires a deletion of Section 1.6. We can add an athletic requirement- eg needs to test of physical ability in terms of speed/strength/balance/endurance. Alternatively, a stronger rewording of 'in the best interest of the sport'. This line was intended to rule out 'silly' record categories.

As long as the WR committee has people committed to advancing unicycling as a sport, we are not in danger of adding a baking cookies on unicycle record.

Comment 31 Oct 11:02

> Remember- there is no 24 hour unicycle time trial competition. Nor is there a 100 mile time-trial in the IUF rulebook.

Yes, I am fully aware of that. And I believe that if these two disciplines are something that
1. something other unicyclists want,
2. is in the best interests of the sport and
3. has relevance to the sport,
then we should include it in the rulebook. If, on the other hand, one of these three points is not fulfilled, then it is justified that there is no corresponding discipline in the rulebook - but then we should also no longer have a world record in the respective discipline.

> From an organiser's perspective, it is difficult enough to run these as a race, let alone a time trial competition.

For records to exist, the disciplines have to be organised somewhere. And a time trial competition is certainly not easy to organise, but regardless of the number of participants - its totaly fine if it's only one - it is a competition if the aim is to compete with an existing record and thus with other performances. So indeet there are time trail competitions taking place, because otherwise there wouldn't be time trail records.

> Also exclude expedition records in future?

Yes, I definitely would, because what do they have to do with our competitive sport?

> The goal is to showcase athletic achievements of our sport.

I would indeed subscribe to that, at least conditionally - for me, the definition of an athletic achievement in our sport would be precisely that there is also a corresponding competitive discipline, as otherwise I would assume that the achievement has nothing to do with our sport. It may involve a unicycle, but not everything that has to do with a unicycle automatically has something to do with our sport.
Rope skipping on a unicycle, juggling with balls, sticks, whatever on a unicycle, etc. could also be described as athletic - but I still think that these things have nothing to do with our competitive sport and are therefore in good hands with Guinness, for example, but not with the IUF world records.

Comment 01 Nov 16:27

I see where you're coming from, and the objective of the WR committee is to showcase unicycling as a competitive sport, which I think it does.

However, there are unicyclists (probably not represented on the committee) who want non-competition records recognised by the IUF. This would slot into the 'miscellaneous' section without detriment to 'competition' unicycle record categories. We don't have to include ones we deem to be 'silly' like baking cookies on a unicycle. We do not need to include 'juggling balls on a unicycle', if we think it is 'not in the best interest of the sport' to associate with circus and juggling- these records can be held by juggling organisations rather than unicycling...the skill difficulty is the juggling component, not the unicycling.

Tallest unicycle? I think it would be a pretty cool thing to have in the record book.

Additionally, there are disciplines which do not slot neatly into the competition sections. For instance, unicycle basketball and unicycle freestyle. Records can be kept for, say, most points scored by a basketball player at unicon, or the highest score in freestyle etc.

Expedition records should be included- they are athletic achievements and showcase endurance, speed, adventure- elements that are inspirational and good for our sport. Guinness do hold some of these, but their database is so large, and their guidelines made up by non-unicyclists. I do not think they are the best gatekeepers and guardians of these records.

Comment 04 Nov 02:30

I don't think our views are as fundamentally different as they might seem...

> However, there are unicyclists (probably not represented on the committee) who want non-competition records recognised by the IUF.

That might be - but we should ask ourselves whether we as the IUF World Record Committee are really representing unicycling as a competitive sport with such records. As I said, I believe that an assessment of what is relevant to unicycling as a sport and what other unicyclists really want to have in the sport is much more objective when a connection to the competitive disciplines is checked, otherwise, the judgement is rather subjective.

> Tallest unicycle? I think it would be a pretty cool thing to have in the record book.

But what does the tallest unicycle have to do with our sport? Our sport is not about riding unicycles that are as tall as possible... For me, records like this are something for Guinness - such records are about show and not about unicycling as a competitive sport.

> Additionally, there are disciplines which do not slot neatly into the competition sections. For instance, unicycle basketball and unicycle freestyle. Records can be kept for, say, most points scored by a basketball player at unicon, or the highest score in freestyle etc.

But the two examples you mentioned are perfectly related to our competitive disciplines. There are rules in the rulebook for both disciplines, and if records can be derived from these disciplines, then that is precisely the connection to our competitive sport which, in my opinion, should be decisive as to whether we recognise a record or not.
Of course, you can ask whether a world record is necessary for the most points scored by a basketball player at unicon, for example, or whether this is not rather something for a ‘list of the best’, such as exists in football with the ‘goalscorers of all time’ - but that's another question.

> Expedition records should be included- they are athletic achievements and showcase endurance, speed, adventure- elements that are inspirational and good for our sport.

To be honest, I don't know exactly what an expedition record is supposed to be. I am also not aware of any other sports organisations holding such records to serve as an example. When it comes to travelling certain routes, who decides which routes are worthy of a world record? Do we really want to make such an ‘arbitrary’ decision the basis of our official world records? Or should every distance over X km be recognised in the end? Then we might end up with countless different world records over a wide variety of routes... I don't know how that would be positive for our sport. I would think it would be more consistent to leave such records to Guinness, for example, and concentrate on the records of our competitive sport. This could also be communicated clearly and unambiguously to the outside world without giving the impression of arbitrariness.

Comment 05 Nov 11:34

As I wrote in the other thread, I agree with Jan in the big ligns.

Expedition records could be posted in a different section as an inspirational sporting performance and not as a quantified WR validated by the IUF.

On the other hand, I don't think that just because something can be quantified, like the size of a unicycle, that it should be a record.

For team sports, there could be WR, but points don't have the same value depending on the level of the opponents. I'd be more inclined to see a WR like "the greatest number of unibasketball world championship titles".

Comment 05 Nov 16:22

"But what does the tallest unicycle have to do with our sport? Our sport is not about riding unicycles that are as tall as possible... For me, records like this are something for Guinness - such records are about show and not about unicycling as a competitive sport."

Fair enough, I agree

"But the two examples you mentioned are perfectly related to our competitive disciplines. There are rules in the rulebook for both disciplines, and if records can be derived from these disciplines, then that is precisely the connection to our competitive sport which, in my opinion, should be decisive as to whether we recognise a record or not."

That would expand the main body of the guidelines quite a lot. Some disciplines are not measured by speed or distance, so harder to quantify.

Everything is arbitrary until you set the rules. Your example shows why rules are needed.

The question is, do we want a non-unicycling organision like Guinness making it up (and usually changing it each time it is attempted), or done by unicyclists, for unicyclists.

For expedition records like LEJOG and Everesting- there are organisations that set the guidelines for bicyclists- it's easy enough to adapt to unicycling.

For ones that haven't been attempted- that's where Section 1.6 comes in, and we decide what parameters we want to set.

Comment 06 Nov 01:41

To keep the discussion about further/new IUF world record categories together, I would like to copy the comments of Simon and Ken from the other discussion here:

"I think the three discussions (rope skipping, miscellaneous record and new record category) are related.

I agree with Jan about deleting the rope skipping record. I agree with Mirjam about making a clear separation between some records and others.

I agree with Jan that there should be a link between IUF world records and the IUF rulebook. I think it's only these records that need to be validated by the IUF WR committee. It's complicated enough to validate world records for which the rules are clearly defined.

Other records shouldn't be called "world records", they could be posted on another page of the IUF website. And the selection process should be different. Inspiring sporting achievements don't always have to be quantified. Does it really matter how long it took someone to unicycle around the world? It's having done it that counts.

The example that comes to mind is Ben Soja's everesting. For me, it's a sporting achievement that could be included in any category (WR for vertical elevation in 24 hours, unicyclists to have completed an everesting...)."

"The point of a record that is kept by the IUF is that it is recognised and regulated by the IUF, and should be held to the same standards. You can move them into a section called 'miscellaneous', which is I feel enough to separate from competition records.

"Other records shouldn't be called "world records", they could be posted on another page of the IUF website. And the selection process should be different. Inspiring sporting achievements don't always have to be quantified. Does it really matter how long it took someone to unicycle around the world? It's having done it that counts."

Yes it does. If it's a record, people will want to be beat it.

Riding around the world is an 'achievement'. An Everesting attempt is also an 'achievement'. However, the 'record' is how fast it can be done. We don't need a database of everyone who has 'Everested' on a unicycle, we just need to keep the records. That means there are certain rules and criteria to be followed (eg what counts as round-the-world?)"

Comment 06 Nov 02:56

I would like to take this opportunity to emphasize once again why this discussion is so important to me and why I am extremely pleased when many of you actively participate in this discussion:
I am not interested in not allowing any new record categories in the future and freezing everything at the status quo - quite the opposite. I want world records to be able to develop further with the development of our sport. However, I want to ensure that we present a serious and professional image of a competitive sport with the world records and that our world records are also perceived and valued accordingly.

Therefore, two points are particularly important to me:
1. a relevance and connection to our sport (which is already included in the current rule 1.6) and
2. that records and record categories do not seem arbitrary.

In my opinion, the second point in particular is not guaranteed with the current rule, because there are no subjective assessment criteria for relevance and connection to our sport. But in my opinion, the second point is the most important one for records - because what is a record worth if record categories seem to be arbitrarily added and you can set a record in "anything"?

My idea to require a connection to the IUF Rulebook for an official IUF World Record is based precisely on the 2nd point and the associated objective assessability of whether something has a relevance and connection to our sport - because in the end this is exactly what prevents records or record categories from seeming arbitrary.
I think it would be understandable and logical for all athletes if official IUF World Records could only be set in official IUF disciplines. No one would assume “arbitrariness” if under these conditions no IUF World Record would be recognized for a performance over 1500m or 3000m, for example. Without this clear link to the rulebook, it may be difficult for athletes to understand why there can be an IUF World Record for LEJOG and Everesting but not for 1500m or 3000m. I would feel very uncomfortable having to explain to athletes based on subjective judging criteria why one thing is worth an IUF World Record and the other is not.

Back to what you have already written here:
Above all, I see the wish to allow expedition records, which logically have no connection to the rulebook. At the same time, however, I see a particularly great risk here that the records will appear arbitrary.

> Everything is arbitrary until you set the rules. Your example shows why rules are needed.

And that is precisely the point that I would consider impossible with this type of records. It is not the rules for a very specific record itself, but the objective criteria for determining what is accepted as a record that will (presumably) not be found here. So it will always remain a subjective decision that can/will end up looking arbitrary.
So the question for me is not so much whether rules can be found for a specific record, but rather whether rules can be found for including something specific as a official IUF world record without this decision already being arbitrary.

> The question is, do we want a non-unicycling organision like Guinness making it up (and usually changing it each time it is attempted), or done by unicyclists, for unicyclists.

To be completely honest - if Guinness records appear to have been chosen arbitrarily, then I personally don't mind that much, because it's not my decision and I don't have to defend that decision to anyone. I would therefore leave records that have no clear connection to our competitive sport and where the selection may seem arbitrary to the organizations that don't mind that.

I can understand that there is a desire to recognize these sporting achievements, but I don't know if an IUF World Record is really the right thing to do.

>>Does it really matter how long it took someone to unicycle around the world? It's having done it that counts."
>
>Yes it does. If it's a record, people will want to be beat it.
>
>Riding around the world is an 'achievement'. An Everesting attempt is also an 'achievement'. However, the 'record' is how fast it can be done. We don't need a database of everyone who has 'Everested' on a unicycle, we just need to keep the records.

I think it makes a difference how many people have ever attempted something - especially from the perspective of a sports federation. As a sports federation, having an official world record requires, in my opinion, a certain level of interest from the athletes in that discipline. If only a handful of people have ever attempted something, then that can undoubtedly be an outstanding sporting achievement that can be acknowledged. But in the end, I would attach more importance to the fact that someone has done it than, for example, the time it took. Of course, it's different with things that many athletes do all the time and where there is constant competition - in the case of 100m, it's the time someone completed it in competition that counts, not the fact that they completed it.

Comment 06 Nov 09:40

We all agree that WR is a great showcase for unicycling as a sport. If it can make young and old dream and want to progress, that's great!

Expeditions can be done in autonomy or with support, which is totally different. We don't have the means to control the circumstances in which the expedition took place. Are we allowed to sleep in hotels or people's homes?
Personally, I don't think the IUF should keep a list of records that would encourage an expedition to be carried out with a following car or to take unnecessary risks (if there's a natural disaster and the rules don't allow outside help....), and so on. I don't think defining all these rules belongs in the IUF rulebook.

If there are rules that are restrictive and dangerous, and they are the cause of a tragedy, on a personal level, I would no longer want to have any connection with an organization that set this kind of rule.

Highlighting top-level sporting performances achieved by individuals who have established their own rules seems to me to be sufficient. But in this case, we're talking about something other than the world record.

Comment 09 Nov 03:32

"Expeditions can be done in autonomy or with support, which is totally different. We don't have the means to control the circumstances in which the expedition took place. Are we allowed to sleep in hotels or people's homes?"

There are rules for this. That's the point of having world record guidelines.

Personally, I don't think the IUF should keep a list of records that would encourage an expedition to be carried out with a following car or to take unnecessary risks (if there's a natural disaster and the rules don't allow outside help....), and so on. I don't think defining all these rules belongs in the IUF rulebook.

It won't belong in the rulebook, because it's not a competition record. It will sit within IUF WR guidelines. Safety is one parameter that can be easily accommodated. The amount of support allowed is another.

This is how the World Sailing Record Record Council does it for their round the world attempts:

https://www.sailspeedrecords.com/the-courses-offshore

I disagree. The people who push themselves in non-competition 'sporting performances' are also interested in setting world records. Here is a recent one:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-05/nsw-cyclist-lachlan-morton-sets-around-australia-record-30-days/104426998

Anybody can ride around Australia. Not everyone can do it in 30 days. A record requires rules. It is better that this is regulated by the IUF than by a non-unicycling organisation.

Comment 09 Nov 03:42

However, I want to ensure that we present a serious and professional image of a competitive sport with the world records and that our world records are also perceived and valued accordingly.

I couldn't agree more. We need to think about how we improve Section 1.6, so future committee members have a framework to work with.

If the rulebook is the authority of what is worthy of inclusion, then there is no need for IUF WR guidelines. Everything will be in the IUF Rulebook (measurement, rules, documentation etc), and the only records we keep are competition records.

I think that would be very disappointing for the wider unicycling community.

Comment 12 Nov 03:37

> If the rulebook is the authority of what is worthy of inclusion, then there is no need for IUF WR guidelines. Everything will be in the IUF Rulebook (measurement, rules, documentation etc), and the only records we keep are competition records.

You are absolutely right that basically the rules for the world records could also be part of the rulebook - as it is the case in athletics and swimming, for example. We still need rules for world records - and for us these are in the IUF WR Guidelines.
It is unlikely that all disciplines will ever be suitable for world records, so there has to be a definition somewhere of the disciplines in which world records can be set. There must also be a definition somewhere of how world records must be documented, etc. In any case, a few rules specific to world records are always needed. The IUF WR Guidelines provide these rules and therefore have a proper right to exist.
And I would not find it disappointing at all if the connection between world records and rulebook is so close that the WR Guidelines only cover a few but essential paragraphs for the documentation of world records and the rest results from the rules of the respective discipline. In my oppinion that makes the World Records look professional in the end.

>> "Expeditions can be done in autonomy or with support, which is totally different. We don't have the means to control the circumstances in which the expedition took place. Are we allowed to sleep in hotels or people's homes?"
>
>There are rules for this. That's the point of having world record guidelines.
>
>>Personally, I don't think the IUF should keep a list of records that would encourage an expedition to be carried out with a following car or to take unnecessary risks (if there's a natural disaster and the rules don't allow outside help....), and so on. I don't think defining all these rules belongs in the IUF rulebook.
>
>It won't belong in the rulebook, because it's not a competition record. It will sit within IUF WR guidelines. Safety is one parameter that can be easily accommodated. The amount of support allowed is another.

Again, I think the question is not so much whether rules can be found for a specific record - I'm quite sure that's perfectly possible - but rather whether rules can be found for including something specific as a official IUF world record without this decision already being arbitrary.
I still think that even the impression of arbitrariness in the selection of record categories is contrary to the image of a serious and professional competitive sport - and I think we all agree in this point. Perhaps this is the reason why other sports federations only keep records in their competition disciplines?

> Here is a recent one: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-05/nsw-cyclist-lachlan-morton-sets-around-australia-record-30-days/104426998

These kinds of records are certainly justified, and I don't want to dispute that at all, but I think there is a reason why these records are usually not set by international sports federations, but by other organizations.