Performance equals an existing World Record
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
Any performance in a record list will be rouned because we never have the possibility to measure something excactly.
Therefore I think we should add a paragraph that says, when a performance equals an existing World Record this performance shall have the same status as the existing World Record.
Comment
I agree that world records (times, distances etc) have limited accuracy. If a current record is, say, 12.473 seconds, it might "actually" be 12.4732 seconds. Now if someone equals the official time of 12.473, it might "actually" be 12.4731 seconds, and hence marginally faster. Note that these times in four decimal places are theoretical. We cannot measure that accurate.
We simply have to accept the limited accuracy of measurements. If someone equals the current world record of 12.473, we consider him or her to be equally fast. (Although he might theoretically have been slightly faster - or slower.)
So far Jan would agree, I think.
I disagree with Jan's second statement. In my opinion, someone who sets or breaks a world record, in other words the first person to achieve that, deserves the honour. Someone "only" equalling the records gets less honour. He/she should not become a world record holder together with the first person. Only the first person has the world record, until someone else (or the person him/herself) exceeds it.
Comment
And precisely because of the limited measuring accuracy, in other sports, the same procedure is used. Everyone who equals the performance of an existing record is recognized as the record holder, too.
I think the inaccuracy in the measurement should not be to the disadvantage of the athletes.
Comment
Is this really done in other sports? Are there e.g. several world records holders for 100m sprint (male)?
Well, from a look at Wikipedia (granted, not the most reliable source) it seems that you are right. Currently only one person holds the record, but in the past even up to four individuals have been world record holder simultaneously.
And by the way, from the same list it is clear that while the 'auto' times are nowadays published to three decimal places, the official WR times are only given in two decimal places. I must say this 'discrepancy' is a bit uneasy for me: the rounded times are equal, but as published times in 3 decimal places they are not equal.
Comment
As far as I know, yes it is done like this in other sports. So if for example a person runs as fast as Usain Bolt in 100m, he would just be record holder with Bolt together.
I think we should handle it the same in unicycling.
Comment
In athletics and swimming this is definitely the way it is done, but I think that it is also the way it is with other sports - only I don't know other rules as well as the rules in athletics and swimming.
(For comparison the excerpts from the IAAF and FINA rules and regulations:
IAAF Competition Rules: Rule 260 "5. The submitted performance shall be better than or equal to the existing World Record for that event, as accepted by the IAAF. If a World Record is equalled it shall have the same status as the existing World Record."
FINA Swimming Rules: SW 12.10 "Times which are equal to 1/100 of a second will be recognised as equal records and swimmers achieving these equal times will be called "Joint Holders"."
Both rules describe the fact that on 1/100 equal times are recognized as equivalent world records.)
The 'auto' times are times from the timing system and therefore have a resolution of 1/1000 second.
In athletics these times are not published on result lists! (Certainly also for the reasons already mentioned in the other discussion)
The IAAF requires that the times for official results be rounded to 1/100 second.
(IAAF Competition Rules: Rule 165: 23. Times shall be read and recorded from the Photo Finish image as follows:
(a) For all races up to and including 10,000m, unless the time is an exact 0.01 second, the time shall be converted and recorded to the next longer 0.01 second, e.g. 26:17.533 shall be recorded as 26:17.54. [...]).
Comment
In general, I think, it is good to copy 'best practice' from other sports. Or if we don't, we should have a good reason not to do so, e.g. if unicycling requires another rule due to its different nature. But I am not so familiar with rules in other sports.
I was under the impression that setting or breaking a world record (be it in unicycling or e.g. athletics) was recognised as more of an achievement than 'merely' equalling it. I admit this was a wrong impression, at least for athletics.
For our unicycling records, the IUF website doesn't list any 'double' records now, and our Record guidelines aren't explicit on whether this is done or not (see section 1.1 IUF WORLD RECORD). So maybe it is our practice already to recognise equalling a world record as having the same value as setting/breaking a record? Or it has never been thought of? I can't tell.
Comment
I guess we never had a situation where somebody equalled a record. This can however always happen and therefore I suggest we add a small part where we say how we deal with such a situation, e.g:
A rider who equals an existing record will be accepted as an equal record holder. Both riders names will be added to the record list.
Comment
I agree that we should do something like this. To Mirjam's text suggestion I would add the phrase "within the required accuracy" to explicitly exclude that we decide on the basis of e.g. 0.001 seconds for track races or 0.5 cm in the case of jumps (in case these data might be known). Also I'm not sure if "an equal record holder" is correct English.
The sentence might read like:
A rider who equals an existing record within the required accuracy, will be accepted as an additional record holder on the same footing. Both rider's names will be added to the record list.
Maybe a native speaker can improve the English?
Comment
I think, if a native speaker has had another look at the formulation, we can prepare a proposal here.
Comment
I always think that the Dutch have the best English of anyone. ;-)
Here would be my pitch.
If a rider equals an existing record (within its required accuracy) it will be accepted on equal standing. Riders names will be listed in ascending date order.
How does that sound?
Comment
Looks perfect to this Dutchman (and thank you).
Comment
sounds good to Swiss ears too :-)
Comment
I agree with Roger's comment- they were not the first, but they equalled the record, they should be recognised as world record holders (of equal standing). However, I also agree with Klaas- the first record holder gets greater honour, because they 'broke' a previous record. I am making a distinction here between 'honour' and 'standing'.
It's often harder to do it something the first time- technology advances (even within our rulebook restrictions). A 36'' ungeared unlimited record in 2000 would use a much heavier wheel than the same unicycle in 2018.
Comment
Roger's formulation captures this. Because of the "ascending date", the rider that broke or set the record first, has the honour to be at the top of the list.
Comment
I also think Roger's formulation is good and listing the names in descending order of date is a good idea to pay more honour to the first record holder.
Later on I will prepare a proposal with Roger's formulation.
Comment
It's actually ASCENDING order, which means from small numbers at the top and larger numbers at the bottom. That way, the oldest entry will be on top.
One other thing: we have not stated it explicitly, but I think that we should only add names that equal the current record. So once a record is broken, the list (containing one or more riders) pertaining to the old record won't receive new additions.
Comment
Agree with Klaas, adding more riders doesn't make sense.
Comment
For me it's absolutely clear that it's all about the current records and I wouldn't have come up with the idea that this might have to be mentioned separately.
An additional list with records from the past / a record of the development of the records is something completely different for me, the world record is always just the current record. Does anyone think that this should actually be mentioned again?
Comment
Our ambition, I think, is to not only publish the current world records, but also the history/development of each world record. So we list the old data, and of course make it clear that these are historic records, not current ones.
If in the historic list several people are listed with one specific record, that means that they have all achieved that performance while it was the world record. Anyone achieving the same performance after it has been surpassed by the current the world record, does not receive any recognition (at least not from us).
The comments so far agree on the above, I think. But it is not completely obvious, and it is not mentioned anywhere.
Comment
Rule 1.1 says:
"An IUF (International Unicycling Federation) world record is a unicycle world record recognised by the IUF as the best ever performance by a male and female in a recognised unicycling category, set in accordance with IUF World Record Guidelines."
So if we list the old data, the times/weidths/heights in this list can not be the best erver performance - because the times/weidths/heights of the current WR will be better - and therefore it is also quite clear to me that if we add a regulation about the equaling with a WR only the current WR can be meant.
But to make it even more clear, lets replace existing record with current world record in the proposed formulation. I think current world record includes that the world record is existing but makes clear that the rule does not refer to any published historical records.
"If a rider equals an current IUF wolrd record (within its required accuracy) it will be accepted on equal standing. Riders names will be listed in ascending date order."
Comment
I think the submitted proposal is fine and covers what we discussed.
A few spelling and grammar details though.
The added rule has a few typos in it:
* an current should be a current
* wolrd should be world
* Riders names should be Riders' names
Also, to avoid confusion i would add a phrase at the end:
listed in ascending date order, i.e. oldest date at the top.
And to top it all off, I think it is better to insert a comma after (within its required accuracy).
Comment
Also, to avoid confusion i would add a phrase at the end:
listed in ascending date order, i.e. oldest date at the top.
I agree that because even if the new rider is the same as the previous record, it is possible that the new record may have used more advanced equipment.
Comment
The edited proposal (3 days ago) looks good to me.
Comment
As there were no further comments, I will call for the vote.