Equalling a round WR in road race ?
Comments about this discussion:
Started
I'd like to open a discussion on the application of rounding to the second for road racing records "4.1.2 Time measurement for road racing records
The world record is rounded up to the closest 1s." with the approved proposal 1 “Equalling a current IUF world record” (https://world-record-2017.committees.unicycling-software.com/proposals/1).
I have a concrete example:
In the 10km at the last CFM, I came 2nd (17:28.582) behind Timo (17:28.177).
Timo's WR (currently being validated) is therefore 17min29sec. The French record is also 17min29sec (well, there are discussions to create and validate the list of French records, and no decision has been made to round up to the second).
Can the world record of 17min29sec be equalled during another race? Can it be equalled during the same race? The rules don't specify.
In fact, there are many possible ways of resolving the situation:
- break down the times with greater precision
- accept ties : in 2 different races (only for the 1st in the race) or within the same race (if the gap to the first is less than 1 second).
In fact, I find it odd to have ties, but if we keep rounding to the second, we could end up with several competitors who have a performance equal to the WR, as in the unlimited 10k (and if the list of French records isn't rounded to the second, then the French record could be a higher performance than the world record, which is rounded to the second, which would be problematic).
Comment
You are absolutely right that the current rule does not specify in more detail in which context an equal performance can be set and accepted as an equal world record. If we look at other sports, the rule often is that
1. world records can only be attributed to the winner of a race.
2. equal performances in different events are equally recognized as world records.
I created Proposal 1 in order to address the second point - the first point is currently governed in part by other sections (e.g. section 4.1.2 “Where there is a bunch finish, the winner of the sprint is the new world record holder”). But I agree with you that we should make this clearer elsewhere.
> (and if the list of French records isn't rounded to the second, then the French record could be a higher performance than the world record, which is rounded to the second, which would be problematic).
That would indeed be a big problem - but we cannot solve this problem and we have this problem everywhere where the publication of results does not adhere to the IUF Rulebook and thus a higher accuracy is feigned than is reasonable for a cross-competition comparison. As long as results are published somewhere that do not comply with the IUF Rulebook, it can unfortunately happen that a “better” result appears in some result list than in the official world record list.
Comment
I remember the discussion related to proposal 1.
Initially, I was against "throwing away" significant digits. As I viewed it, time measurement can be done to a 0.1 of a second, even if the duration is several hours.
However, in the course of the discussion, I became convinced that the time measurement accuracy is not the only factor to consider, and hence I agreed with the proposal to round up to the next second. This approach has already been implemented in the IUF Rulebook (3D.16). It is not yet implemented in the WRG, but since the proposal has been voted and agreed upon, that is mostly an administrative matter. One could say it is de facto fully accepted as IUF requirement.
I wonder why the French would want to deviate from IUF? Since the rounding approach is as yet undecided as Simon writes, here is an opportunity to adhere to IUF rules and prevent compatibility problems between records.
Comment
>I wonder why the French would want to deviate from IUF? Since the rounding approach is as yet undecided as Simon writes, here is an opportunity to adhere to IUF rules and prevent compatibility problems between records.
It was just an example to say that at best the French record and the world record were equal and at worst (if the precision of the time was not the same) the French record could even be higher. Of course there is no reason not to choose the same time precision.
I think rounding to the nearest second is not a bad thing, but this discussion could allow for some arguments to be expressed.
I don't think adding a mention to take into account the race ranking makes 2 performances no longer equal. I think that only the time precision can separate two performances.
Comment
> this discussion could allow for some arguments to be expressed.
I think Jan is best positioned to express the arguments for the rounding up approach. He convinced me long ago when we discussed Proposal 1.
Comment
When discussing the accuracy with which results are published, we must always separate two things:
1. the absolute time difference between two riders who started the same race at the same time and
2. the performance achieved, as a combination of distance and time, which can be compared across different competitions.
The times that we publish on results lists must always meet the criterion of cross-competition comparability. Otherwise, records based on these times would not be comparable.
In track races, it is very easy to draw a sensible accuracy limit here - the absolute length inaccuracy of an athletics track is specified very precisely and can therefore simply be converted into a resulting inaccuracy of an athlete's performance. This is of course much more difficult in road races, as the measurement itself has a much greater absolute inaccuracy. If this inaccuracy were to be completely translated into the athlete's performance, the results would probably only be rounded to 10 seconds. I think what is therefore done in other sports such as athletics (where the rule of rounding to 1 second comes from) is that it is assumed that the measured distance corresponds to the nominal distance. If it is then assumed that the start and finish can always be positioned to within 1m of this measured distance - which in principle corresponds to our current requirement under 4.1.1 “The measurement must be accurate to the closest 1m.” - then the resulting inaccuracy in relation to an athlete's performance corresponds to around 1/10 of a second. By rounding the results to 1 second, this inaccuracy is now taken into account. It can therefore be assumed that a reading rounded to 1 second is always comparable with other performances from other competitions.
Within a single race, where the athletes have started at the same time in the same race, an absolute time difference between two athletes at the finish can of course be determined with a finish camera (or with chips, but with a much lower resolution), which has a higher resolution than 1 second. Since both have run exactly the same course, this time difference is of course significant and can differentiate between placings. It is also no problem to indicate this time difference on result lists. However, it cannot be concluded from this time measurement that the performance can be compared with the same accuracy with performances from other competitions. For this reason, the time should never be published with the high resolution, but should always be rounded as specified in the IUF Rulebook.
Comment
I agree that there are good reasons to round times to the second:
- The differences between 2 different courses will have more impact than the form of the competitors on the day
- The main issue of a race is the ranking more than the time
- The numbers after the decimal point are not interesting for the general public
In addition, I dug into this question to understand why the official times of road races in athletics were rounded to the second. One of the reasons is to be able to compare times throughout the history of the sport, because in the past the timing was much less precise. Today, the timing methods allow to have a precision of 1/100 but the official times are always rounded to the second. In fact, this is not questioned because there are rarely ties, so it does not pose a problem.
Moreover, whether it is World Athletics or other international sports federations, there is the possibility of a shared record, but it is very rare due to the precision of official timing.
If we maintain a precision round to the next second, we expose ourselves to a high risk of a shared record due to the nature of the road race competitions: flat racing where the importance of drafting is correlated with speed (the fastest ride in a group, the slowest are all alone).
I am not aware of any sports federation that distinguishes 2 performances that have the same official time. In this regard, today, road race WR times are rounded to the second, but the times displayed in the race results are 1/100 or 1/1000 while section 3D.16 of the rulebook indicates that official times must be rounded to the next second.
If we want to keep this precision to the second and the official times are displayed to the second, I think we should not try to separate the performances in any other way, even if the race ranking leaves no doubt. WR have to live, without having to refer to a race ranking. Alternatively, an official time accurate to 1/10 of a second would reduce the risk of a shared record. I think this would be a good accuracy, given that it's a difference of 1/10 that requires the use of photofinish to decide between competitors.
Comment
I have already explained in my comment above why it does not make sense to compare results across competitions with the full resolution and accuracy that timing systems have today. The resolution and accuracy of the timekeeping is not the only decisive factor for the performance that is to be compared in the end. So I think there is a good reason why in other sports results are not published with the full resolution / accuracy that timing systems provide.
>I am not aware of any sports federation that distinguishes 2 performances that have the same official time. In this regard, today, road race WR times are rounded to the second, but the times displayed in the race results are 1/100 or 1/1000
The rule of rounding the times to one second comes from athletics and there is definitely no result list from a discipline outside the stadium published with 1/100 seconds or 1/1000 seconds. In all disciplines outside the stadium, times are rounded to one second. Nevertheless, results within a competition are differentiated there - the rule in athletics is also identical to what 3D.16 of the Rulebook currently says. It is completely transparent and comprehensible if there is a corresponding indication (Photo Finish: +0.456) on the results list when the times are the same and the ranking order is made clear this way.
Placings are awarded on the basis of the photo finish, official times are published as rounded times and world records are awarded exclusively to the winner of a race.
And if the same performances are achieved in different events, then both performances count as a equal record - but honestly, how likely is it that the same performances will be achieved in different events to the second? I don't think we will end up with an endlessly long list of shared records.
Comment
"And if the same performances are achieved in different events, then both performances count as a equal record - but honestly, how likely is it that the same performances will be achieved in different events to the second? I don't think we will end up with an endlessly long list of shared records."
The longer the race, the less likely there will be same performances. Is it not be more problematic for the track racing than road racing?
In road racing, really only the 10km is at risk of multiple shared records.
Comment
That's why my question was about 2 performances achieved during the same race.
Today, in running, if a road race world record is broken in the same race in a sprint and the first 2 have the same official time (rounded to the second), they will be separated on the race by the most precise time or by a photofinish system but they will share the record (the official time).
Comment
> Today, in running, if a road race world record is broken in the same race in a sprint and the first 2 have the same official time (rounded to the second), they will be separated on the race by the most precise time or by a photofinish system but they will share the record (the official time).
I wasn't aware of that, I only knew the rule from swimming that only the winner of a race can claim the world record. Which also corresponds to the current rule 4.1.2 of the WRG.
But if the majority is in favor of dropping this rule and instead proceeding as in athletics, then that's okay for me too.
Comment
Honestly I had completely forgotten the 2nd paragraph of section 4.1.2 when I created this discussion. I don't think that's a good rule.
I went to consult the World Aquatics rules and I interpret them differently.
For World Athletics: the official time is rounded to the second and the most precise time is used to separate 2 competitors in the race ranking.
For World Aquatics: the most precise time is the official time, that is to say 1/100, if 2 competitors have the same time at 1/100, they have the same ranking in the race and if this time is a world record, they are co-holders of the record.
Here is the paragraph of World Aquatics (that is not very simple):
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». Only the time of the winner of a race may be submitted for a World
Record – except for World Juniors Records. In the event of a tie in a record-setting race, each swimmer who tied
shall be considered a winner
You can find this paragraph on page 79, section 12.10 of this document (https://resources.fina.org/fina/document/2025/01/24/0608e6b9-4a56-46d8-bcfa-41cd1bed0131/Competition-Regulations_January-2025_Clean_240125.pdf)
In fact, the sentence about the winner's time is there to say that a junior can claim a record even if he is not the winner of the race (if seniors are ranked before him). But in any case, 2 participants who have the same time at 1/100 will not be separated.
Overall, for running or swimming, it is very rare to have ties in the official time. But if there is a tie, there is no tiebreaker. That is why I think the precision of the official time is important.
Comment
> Overall, for running or swimming, it is very rare to have ties in the official time. But if there is a tie, there is no tiebreaker. That is why I think the precision of the official time is important.
There are tiebreakers for the ranking of a competition - but you are right that there are obviously no tiebreakers for the records in athletics. In swimming, the rule could indeed be interpreted as you wrote above. But if there is a tie there, there is probably nothing that could be used as a tiebreaker anyway - there is no photo finish there.
As I said, we can delete rule 4.1.2 from the WRG and recognize both performances as world records if the official times within a race are the same.
Comment
What do the others think?
As I said, both options would be good for me:
Option 1: Keep the rules as they currently are - i.e. the same performances from different races are recognized as equal records. Within a race, only the winner can claim a world record.
Option 2: We delete the part of 4.1.2 that only the winner can claim a world record and add the following sentence in section 1.1: “This also applies if the performances are set up in the same race.” - This would mean that performances from one race would also be recognized as equal records.
Comment
We might decide to adhere to what World Athletics does in this regard. They are probably the closest comparison to our sport that recognises world records (on fixed distances). They honour only the winner of a race as possible world record, right?
On the other hand, I think we agree that equal results (rounded to whole seconds) from different races qualify for an "ex aequo" world record, even though the actual times may differ by (almost) a second. Then it would only be fair to recognise the same times (rounded) from a single race also as "ex aequo" records as well.
In summary, I see arguments for both options, and I'm undecided. But I'm non-voting member anyway.
Comment
What about all the other committee members? Is there a preferred option, or any comments on this?
Comment
I'm undecided as well.
In general I'm in favour of having one world record holder (the fastest person in a specific discipline who is also the winner of the race). On the other hand I can understand the problematic of having a world record rounded to 1s and then having a national record which is faster but not the world record.
However, if I had to decide I'd choose Option 1.
Comment
Let me copy paste the message I posted in the discussion about road race record documents.
I don't think the rule that only the winner of a race is the world record holder is a good one, because :
1/ In all sports there is no tiebreaker on a world record in its official unit of measurement. It is an absolute performance and if several competitors have achieved this performance, they share the record.
2/ This adds a further constraint to the homologation of a record (photofinish), which will in any case be published rounded to the second. If the organizers of a local road race are unable to separate 2 competitors, it's not the problem of the IUF.
3/ World records are a showcase for competitive unicycling. From the federation's point of view, I don't see the problem in displaying that the best performance was achieved by 2 or more competitors, quite the contrary.
I am sorry to always come back to the precision of the official time of the races and the record. But the reality is that since the publication of the 2019 rulebook, to my knowledge, there is only at UNICON20 where the results were published rounded to the second. In reality very few competitors are aware that the official unit of measurement is the second.
I totally understand that for a world record, rounding to the second makes sense because road race courses are very variable. But a time rounded to 1/10th of a second would limit the risk of a shared record (if you think that's not a good thing) without the need for technology like photofinish.
Comment
> On the other hand I can understand the problematic of having a world record rounded to 1s and then having a national record which is faster but not the world record.
This would never happen if the national records were based on the IUF rules - then a national record and a world record could at most be the same, but the national record could never be better.
The 2. point would only be relevant, if there is a photo finisch system as tiebreaker for placings of a competition. If no such technique is used and there are two official winners within the race, then under the current rules both would be entitled to claim the world record. There is currently nothing in the WRG that requires a tiebreaker. If it is not possible to differentiate between the first participants and they are therefore regarded as equal winners, so they are both winners in the sense of the WRG and can claim the record. That would only change if we would require a photo finish system to determine the winners - but I don't think that's what we want.