Delete section 8 MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
In my opinion, we should no longer have a record in rope skipping as part of a more consistent connection between WRG and the Rulebook. As this is currently the only record under section 8, I think the entire section 8 should be deleted.
Comment
I am strongly against this.
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.
Comment
Okay, maybe the title of the discussion is inappropriate, I don't want to have another discussion about section 1.6, we already have a discussion for that.
This discussion is primarily about deleting the rope skipping record - since that would leave the whole section empty, I thought it would make the most sense to delete it completely (which doesn't mean that it couldn't be added again if necessary). So we should continue to discuss the sense (or nonsense) of keeping records without reference to unicycling as a competitive sports in the discussion ‘New IUF World Record categories’ (https://world-record-2017.committees.unicycling-software.com/discussions/19) and not here.
Since I can't change the title of the discussion, here's a clarification: This discussion is about deleting the record ‘Rope skipping (most skips in one minute)’.
In the discussion ‘New IUF World Record categories’ it has already been made clear that there are numerous different values for this record on the Internet, which is not really beneficial to the credibility of our records. In addition, it is a record that simply has nothing to do with the competitive sport of unicycling and does not contribute to making the sport appear more professional to the public.
I therefore see no reason to keep this record as an official IUF world record and to recognise new records in this ‘discipline’ in the future. As a consequence, I would delete the section ‘Rope skipping (most skips in one minute)’ from the WRG.
Comment
I’ve previously expressed my view that a 'miscellaneous' section would be valuable, and I believe we should consider records beyond just our event-focused achievements.
Most unicyclists around the world aren’t familiar with the IUF or the events we host. When they search for "world record unicycle," they often find a mix of records with inconsistent details. For instance, records like the tallest unicycle or jump rope on a unicycle tend to surface. The attention these types of records generate could serve as a great entry point for people to learn about the sport. Personally, I was inspired by Walter J. Watts, who attempted a world record around the globe and gained exposure on UK television. These stories have potential to attract newcomers to unicycling.
I propose that we establish a section to document and validate these types of records, as long as they meet standards we agree upon. While setting these standards will require effort, I believe it’s worthwhile.
Recently, I spent three days working with Guinness World Records, and believe they are willing to listen to advice from the IUF if we reach out. (I now have direct contacts with both the Managing Editor and Managing Director of GWR.)
Rather than deleting the section, I believe a more extensive discussion is needed on how best to use it and chart a path forward. Which may be it is located else where.
Comment
As I already wrote, we should continue to discussion the sense (or nonsense) of keeping records without reference to unicycling as a competitive sports in the discussion ‘New IUF World Record categories’ (https://world-record-2017.committees.unicycling-software.com/discussions/19) and not here.
This discussion should be exclusively about what is currently listed in this chapter and that is only the record ‘Rope skipping (most skips in one minute)’.
Comment
I don't feel strongly about the rope skipping record. It does seem a rather odd record- probably more a Guinness style record than one we would keep as the IUF. However, I believe it was hotly contested at some point in unicycle history, hence the inclusion. We didn't get around to approving more records for the miscellaneous section.
If we were to remove the rope skipping record, that would be fine with me, but I would not be in favour of removing the 'miscellaneous records' section.
Comment
I understand that the topic of the rope skipping record needs to be treated separately from the topic of miscellaneous records.
As long as I've been active in unicycling, I can't remember rope skipping on a unicycle ever having played a role in the sport, and I don't have the impression that it's something that reflects our sport. Guinness has a record for it and I think it's in very good hands there.
What do the other committee members think?
Comment
I agree that we should separate between records for guiness and records for racing or timetrials.
Comment
I understand that this means that you are in favour of deleting the rope skipping record, right?
Comment
Well, if we want to separate competitive sport and fun sport, then yes. I don't think we sould delete it completely but just have a clear separation between records that relate to the rulebook and others.
Comment
But do you think that we as the IUF should really have a record for rope skipping if it has nothing to do with our competitive sport?
Also, the fact that other organisations hold a similar record and there are numerous different values for this record makes it very unprofessional in my opinion and does not fit into the image of unicycling as a professional competitive sport.
Comment
I just noticed that the rope skipping record is not listed anymore on the IUF record list at https://unicycling.org/unicycling/world-records/iuf-world-records/.
Comment
I believe that rope skipping and similar records shouldn't be included in the "IUF World Records" section, but they still deserve recognition in a separate category. A miscellaneous records section would be a logical place for this.
We need to carefully consider what we define as a sporting achievement. For example, breakdancing and video gaming are recognized as sports by the broader community, and rope jumping aligns even more closely with traditional sporting records than these activities do.
My case for maintaining or even expanding this section is rooted in the value it adds to the IUF’s reputation as an authoritative organization in unicycling. Acknowledging a wider range of unicycling achievements can enhance the IUF's standing as "the expert" organization, reaching people who may not even be aware of its existence. If we are recognized as the definitive reference for unicycling by entities like Guinness, it will likely attract more participants to the sport.
Comment
But we are talking about the IUF World Record Guidelins here, so I would consider all records listed in there as IUF World Records. So if we think that the rope skipping record fit in the IUF World Records, then we should delete it from the IUF World Record Guidelins - and that's the only issue we should be discussing here.
All other aspects of which and how NEW records/record categories should be included should be discussed in the ‘New IUF World Record categories’ discussion (https://world-record-2017.committees.unicycling-software.com/discussions/19) and not here. Unfortunately I can't change the title of the discussion afterwards.
Comment
Point taken, sorry about that. I do think these two topics are inevitably tied together and have highlighted a good points. I will move further comments to other discussion.
From this discussion I would suggest that we are in agreement that Rope Jumping (Skipping) should not be in the section it is currently and hence should be removed. Although I can see that there is a feeling that there should be a category where these records can be "recognised" by the IUF and hence recorded (for other discussion to work out if, how and when).
Comment
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...).
Comment
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
Yes, the discussions about the rope skipping record and new record categories / the miscellaneous section may be related. However, I have the impression that whether the current section 1.6 is changed or everything stays as it is, we would not include the rope skipping record as a IUF World Record anymore. Therefore, I think we can and should consider the removal of this particular record from our Gudelines separately.
I will prepare a proposal to delete this particular record - everything else can then be continued in the discussion about new record categories, which will certainly result in how to proceed with the miscellaneous section. I will copy the general comments on this topic from here to the other discussion.
Comment
Please speak up if you do not agree with the proposal.
The propoal also makes it clear once again that it is exclusively about the rope skipping record - as I said, everything else can then be continued in the other discussion.
Comment
I haven't heard any voices against the proposal, so I assume that everyone agrees with it - theoretically the voting could start, but I'm still waiting for feedback from some committee members who haven't been active for a while as to whether they want to remain voting members. As soon as I get some more feedback here, I would open the voting.
Comment
I agree about deleting section 7.2.1 from WRG.
About the miscellaneous records, how can an achievement be recognised as a IUF record as the discipline/performance is not described in the IUF rulebook?
At a minimum, there should be a framework outlining the conditions.
In my opnion achievements like unicycling around the world should not be classified as a "record", the record here is more "being the first" to do this.
Comment
The proposal is up for voting - everything else regarding new/other record categories can then be discussed further in discussion 19 (https://world-record-2017.committees.unicycling-software.com/discussions/19).