Transparency in terms of the list of world records
Comments about this discussion:
Started
...It tooks a lot of time but now I have reviewed all result lists (as far as they are available online) of the listed world records. I think this detailed overview is very important for us to take decisions about the number of attempts in/outside of competitions.... and as Jan wrote in the other discussion, to make the WR list transparent and comprehensible.
The following differences between the official result lists and the WR list can be found:
Records, which were set up by an additional attempt (or more additional attempts) and therefore can not be found in the official result list:
IUF Slalom male: In the WR list you can find the record from Mathias Bracke of 17.32s. However, the result list says that he has achieved the second place with a result of 18.84s.That means, if a rule had been applied, which allows an additional attempt only for the winner, Mathias wouldn't has gotten the additional attempt at this competition.
IUF Slalom female: The WR list shows the record from Mirjam of 17.90s. The result list is not available online anymore. But Mirjam told is in another discussion that she has set up this record by an additional attempt.
High Jump on Platform male: The WR list shows the record from Mike Tailor of 1.48m. But according to the result list he achieved 138cm in the age group competition and 139cm in the final.
4x100 Meter Relay: In the WR list we can find the record from Niklas Wojtek, Noah Leber, Simon Rodler, Andreas Richter of 50.71s. According to the official result list they performed 0:52.279 in the age group competition and 0:52.258 in the final.
Records, in disciplines which were not applied as official competitions in framework of the event in which the records were set up. Therefore, the records can not be found in an official result list.
Stillstand male: In the WR list we can find the record from Mael Robert of 1h3min7.0s. This record was set up at the event "Tous 1 Mono". However, Stillstand was not an official competition at this event and therefore the result can not be found in an official result list.
In this category also the 100 mile unlimited female record from Mirjam can be mentioned: This record was set up during a 24h competition, but I think time trial disciplines are a separate subject.
Records, which are not up do date because the following better results can be found in official result lists:
50m 1 foot male: WR list: Misaki Uchida, 7.22 at Unicon20 (age group competition)
Official result list with a better result: Misaki Uchida, 7.21s at Unicon20 (final)
10km unlimited male: WR list: Simon Jan, 18min.17s. at CFM 2019
Official result list with a better result: Timo Hirschmann, 17:28.177min at CFM 2024
Marathon unlimited female: WR list: Jana Tenambergen, 1hr,29min37s at Unicon18
Official result list with a better result: Jana Tenambergen, 1:25:07.660 at Lausitz-Marathon 2024; That is the same event, in which the current WR in marathon unlimited male was set up. The male record appears in the WR list, but not the female record.
Marathon standard male: WR list: Gert-Jan De Vleeschouwer, 1hr34min32s at CFM 2023
Official result list with a better result: Gert-Jan De Vleeschouwer, 1:32:18.523 at CFM 2024
Long Jump on Platform male: This record is unclaimed. Why? There are a lot of male competitors in this discipline.
Slow Backward male: WR list: York Beese, 60.0s at EC Unicycling 2017
Official result list with a better result: Yunsung Park, 1:35.4min. at Unicon19 (Final); After Unicon19 I contacted Mirjam and informed her that Yunsung Park has broken the record. Mirjam told me that this record will be listed soon, but until now it can not be found in the WR list.
Slow Backward female: WR list: Ana Schrödinger, 189.7s at Unicon18
Official result list with a better result: Ana Schrödinger, 3:26.78 at CFM 2024
Track Gliding female: WR list: Alina Czimek, 111.3m. in Germany 2011
I am not sure but if I remember well, Lisa Hanny broke this record at UNIOEC 2015. However the result list of Unioec is not available online anymore.
If we compare the results, we can see that records which were set up by an additional attempt are significantly better than the competition result from the corresponding rider. 9 cm in high jump on platform, more than 1 second in IUF slalom... that's a lot!
So, it's not possible to allow an additional attempt to one rider, but say to another rider that a record can only be acknowledged if it exists on the result list.
As I have already mentioned in the other discussion, for me both would be ok: To allow additional attempts or to allow records only in official competitions. But we need a transparent list of world records and therefore the rules must be the same for all riders.
Comment
Thank you for the detailed review of the current record list. I think the records that cannot be found in official results lists pose a real problem for the transparency of our records. For outsiders, it will not really be possible to understand why the results lists of the respective competitions show different performances than the world record list.
In addition, the sometimes significant differences between the results in the competition and the attempts outside the competition show that the framework in which a record is attempted has a considerable (psychological?) influence and that the framework conditions between inside and outside a competition are obviously very different.
For me, these are clear reasons for only allowing records from official competitions in the future and completely eliminating additional attempts (except for TIme Trials).
Regarding the Records, which are not up do date:
50m 1 foot male record: I think is a rounding error of the UDA - unfortunately, the UDA does not support 100% rule-compliant rounding, which can lead to problems if this is not intercepted by the timekeeper - but I will check that, maybe its also an error in the world record list.
10km unlimited male and Marathon standard male: Witness statements are still missing for both records, which should have been available long ago, as the relevant witnesses said immediately after the competition that they would issue them.
Marathon unlimited female: I contacted Jana immediately after the competition and asked why she didn't claim this record - unfortunately I never heard back from her. I can't say why.
Comment
I think we need to be careful about records which were already acknowledged by the official world record committee. Result lists will not always be available online but as I can say from our work in the committee, Klaas has always documented everything from every single record very carefully and I'm sure that if there are doubts about anything, he can still send us all the documentation.
Just a side note for the male IUF Slalom: there are several results which are under 18s not only ridden by Mathias but also by other riders, so if you make a list (which is really appreciated) then please correctly. The statement that the difference to the "official" best result, which can be found, is more than a second is completely wrong. I'm just thinking about some competitions we had in Nottwil, Switzerland or Zuffenhausen a couple of years ago. I don't have the time to look for all the result lists but if you check Nottwil 2019 you can find two official times under 18s by two different riders.
Comment
So, it's not possible to allow an additional attempt to one rider, but say to another rider that a record can only be acknowledged if it exists on the result list.
I don't think that this is happening, we are just asking for correct and detailed documentation for every claimed record. I don't know about a record, which was claimed that way, which has not been acknowledged if it was documented accurately.
Comment
> 50m 1 foot male record: I think is a rounding error of the UDA - unfortunately, the UDA does not support 100% rule-compliant rounding, which can lead to problems if this is not intercepted by the timekeeper - but I will check that, maybe its also an error in the world record list.
The time in the results list available online is not rounded according to the IUF Rulebook due to the rounding problem of the UDA. The official record time is correct and rounded according to the rules.
Rgearding the Track Gliding record: It is true that Lisa-Hanny glided 173.9 m at the UNIOEC 2015 (btw. I also glided further than the current record there) - at that time, however, it was allowed to coast in gliding, so the distances would definitely not be comparable with current distances. However, it was actually already etiquette at that time not to coast in a gliding competition - but the track at the UNIOEC was so perfect for coasting that we decided to simply try to get as far as possible in the competition and once used the fact that coasting was allowed in gliding. However, nobody claimed the world record because it felt wrong somehow. But of course no one knows whether any of the previous world records were also set with coasting.
> As I have already mentioned in the other discussion, for me both would be ok: To allow additional attempts or to allow records only in official competitions. But we need a transparent list of world records and therefore the rules must be the same for all riders.
I completely agree with you here - and no matter what the final new World Record Guidelines will look like in the end, we will definitely have to check which records will still comply with the new rules and which we may have to move to the historical records section because they were set under different conditions. A long-term transparent and comprehensible record list should in any case be the aim of the new WRG.
Comment
> I completely agree with you here - and no matter what the final new World Record Guidelines will look like in the end, we will definitely have to check which records will still comply with the new rules and which we may have to move to the historical records section because they were set under different conditions. A long-term transparent and comprehensible record list should in any case be the aim of the new WRG.
Before the creation of the historical records section, there was just an asterisk that referred to a note that specified that the record did not correspond to the WRG 2011.
I am of the opinion that with the publication of the WRG 2025, it will be necessary to update the note and point out theses records with an asterisk.
If certain records seem difficult or impossible to beat with the new guidelines, they should certainly be set aside (I don't know if the historical records section is the right one, because for the long jump on platform, it's a change in the rulebook and not the WR guidelines), but otherwise, they could be kept and wait for them to be beaten according to the new WRG 2025.
> Marathon unlimited female: I contacted Jana immediately after the competition and asked why she didn't claim this record - unfortunately I never heard back from her. I can't say why.
This is a revelation of a problem. Should the organizers be responsible for the process of claiming the record? For official competitions, should the organizers contact the WR committee several weeks before the race? This could also solve problems like we have with the last CFM records.
Comment
> If certain records seem difficult or impossible to beat with the new guidelines, they should certainly be set aside (I don't know if the historical records section is the right one, because for the long jump on platform, it's a change in the rulebook and not the WR guidelines), but otherwise, they could be kept and wait for them to be beaten according to the new WRG 2025.
I think it all depends on the record - the rulebook has also changed for many disciplines - e.g. with regard to wind measurement in track races. The existing records may be difficult to break and as long as they are still listed as current world records on the website, nobody will claim a lower performance as a new world record. And even if the documentation criteria were to change fundamentally, I think it would be difficult to continue to list previous records that have been documented differently as current records. But I think that needs to be discussed when it is really clear in which disciplines something has changed.
> Should the organizers be responsible for the process of claiming the record? For official competitions, should the organizers contact the WR committee several weeks before the race? This could also solve problems like we have with the last CFM records.
I think it would be good if organizers were recommended to have world record forms ready and to have necessary documentation regarding technical equipment or course measurements etc. available. However, I would not require organizers to claim records and I would not make a recognition dependent on whether an organizer has contacted the WRC beforehand.