New IUF World Record categories
Comments about this discussion:
Started
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Ken, are you willing to write a text for 1.6, as per the above (including your own suggestion)?
Comment
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
I agree to keep it. In any case, it should be discussed together if a new record could fit the eligibility criteria.
Comment
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
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
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