Accuracy of the world records

This discussion has an associated proposal but it has not been approved yet.

Comments about this discussion:

Started

As I mentioned in the other discussion we are never abel to mesure something excactly. For this reason we should consider for each discipline the accuracy with which the record lists are kept.

For the standard track races I would suggest: The record lists are kept with 1/100-second times.

Comment

About 10 years ago, we used to measure track racing with 1/100 second resolution, because that was the best available at reasonable expense. The last few years we have gotten used to 1/1000 second resolution.

Personally, I welcome the higher resolution, assuming it is real. By that I mean that e.g. the exactness of the placement of the light beam must correspond to that claimed accuracy. I would not want to make a time expressed in 1/1000 seconds less "accurate" by rounding to 2 decimal places only, for the sake of world records. Especially not if Unicon (or whatever event) publishes the time in 1/1000 seconds. Because then someone might have beaten the time by a few thousandths of a second (slightly but measurable faster than the world record), but not be recognised as a new world record holder because it is the same time in 1/100 seconds.

But this brings up another issue. Suppose that at the next Unicon, times can be measured to 4 decimal places. I would not want to discard any accuracy that is real.  But what do you do with old times, when the measurement resolution increases? I think the most practical is to add a zero to the current time. E.g. if the current world record is 12.473 seconds and at the next Unicon someone comes in at 12.4729, he has a new record because we assume that 12.473 actually is 12.4730 (although it's probably not).

In short: I think we should publish all available decimal places in the record lists.

Comment

In my opinion 1/100 accuracy is enough.

I know that timing systems are nowadays as accurate as 1/1000 or even more. However, I just had a look at the official world records list of athletics and these are also in 1/100 accuracy, so e.g. 9.58s for 100m men and the same with cm, e.g. 2.45m for high jump men.

I assume it is difficult to have the records more accurate than 1/100 because: What, if a timing system used for Unicon is only 1/100 accurate? I'm not sure we can demand systems with 1/1000 all around the world.

Comment

You will have noticed that I have used Niklas Wojtek's current 100m record as an example. His official time is 12.473 seconds, both in the results list from the Nottwil competition, and on the IUF world record list.

You and Jan suggest that we round that time for the purpose of World Records to 12.47 seconds.

Now suppose that some other rider, let's call him Noah, gets to 12.472 seconds in some future competition where there is also a 1/1000 time system, and all decimals are in the results list. Noah is then (in my view) faster than Niklas's world record. But if for world records we only recognise Noah's time as 12.47 s, he only equals the world record, and Niklas remains the WR holder.

Not only is this not fair to Noah, but it might undermine our authority as world record committee. There might be the notion that Noah is 'actually' the WR holder, although not officially.

Comment

I agree with your arguments, but:

Timing system used for IUF slalom for example is still only accurate to 1/100. In my opinion it would be strange to have some records accurate to 1/100 and others to 1/1000. In slalom it would not be possible to beat it by 1/1000, because the current record is for female 17.90s. To be beaten it would have to be 17.89s. In 100m it is as you say 12.473s. But does it make sense to beat 100m by 1/1000 and slalom for example only by 1/100?

Comment

I don't see the different number of decimal places as a problem. Marathon unlimited male is accurate to 1/100 seconds, female is accurate to 1/1000 seconds. No-one complains.

I say: use all the accuracy that is available and realistic.

In my opinion, if slalom timing would become available in 1/1000 accuracy at some point in the future, then a time of 17.90 seconds is considered to equal 17.900 seconds. It would then be beaten if someone achieves 17.899.

I do realise now that there is a pitfall. Say that at some point, the female slalom record is 17.892 seconds. Would it be beaten if someone rides 17.89 at an event where only 1/100 seconds is available? That 17.89 might "really" be 17.893 if it would have been measured to 1/1000 seconds.

Comment

Of course, nowadays time measurement systems with a resolution of 1/1000 second are available.
But more important than the resolution should be the accuracy and that's where the problems start when we publish times with 1/1000 seconds.
The times are certainly not accurate to 1/1000, even if the resolution of the measuring system is that high.

Why?
1. The time delay between the acoustic/optical start signal and the automatic triggering of the timing system.
IAAF certified systems must therefore also prove that this delay is constant and equal to or less than 0.001 second.
If the result list is given with 1/1000 values, this delay is in the same order of magnitude.

2. The accuracy with which the competition facility is measured.
IAAF certified facilities may be 400 m + 0.04 m long, 100 m may be 100 m + 0.02 m long.
Here, too, there is a possible inaccuracy of approx. 0.004 seconds ( for 20 seconds at 100 m, for faster times the error becomes even greater).
If the result list is given with 1/1000 values, this is again in the same order of magnitude.

It is therefore not realistic to achieve an accuracy of 1/1000 second with a timing system - even if a resolution of 1/1000 second is no problem!
The IAAF therefore also requires that results for runs on the track up to and including 10000m must be converted into 0.01 seconds and recorded. As long as the time does not end exactly at 0.01 second, it must be rounded up to the next higher 0.01 second.
According to the IAAF, in competitions that take place partly or completely outside an athletics facility, the times achieved must even be rounded up to the next whole second and thus recorded!

There are very good reasons why in a sport like athletics it is done this way and I think if unicycling is to become more professional, then we should also take this step.
Not only for our world records but obligatory for all competitions.
Unfortunately, as far as I know, there is still no subcommittee for the track at the Rulebook Committee. Otherwise I would have already addressed this point there.

Comment

Jan, I was going to make the same point as you and agree with your logic.  Having more accurate timing is good but we need to understand the problem as a whole.  Rounding to 2dp appears to be sensible from what you are saying.

Comment

Jan, I agree to your points.

I would add something you didn't explicitly mention: sound travels only some 34 cm (in air) in 0.001 seconds. If the start beeps are from a loudspeaker on one side of the track, the farthest rider hears the sound with a delay of about 0.02 seconds, compared to the rider closest to the loudspeaker. It might be that this is compensated for in the triggering of the timer start for each rider separately, but I very much doubt it. I think there is only one timer running for all riders. A possible solution would be to have a separate loudspeaker behind each rider, as is done in professional athletics.

But then unicycling event organisers, at least the ones that comply to IUF rules, should stop publishing 0.001 second values. They may be recorded 'internally', but need to be rounded up to the nearest 0.01 s before publishing. Indeed, this is something to address in the upcoming Rulebook discussions (in which I hope to take part).

Comment

The speed of sound is in fact another point why results cannot be given sensibly with 1/1000 seconds.
With my start system I have the possibility to connect a separate loudspeaker for each lane, but in very few unicycle competitions this is the case.
To start the time individually for each lane is not possible with normal timing systems. This also has something to do with the (certainly very well thought-out) specifications of the IAAF and the fact that normally time measurement systems from athletics are used for unicycling.
Luckily, loudspeakers for every track can help in this respect.

And yes, unicycling event organisers should definitely stop publishing results with 1/1000 second values. And I realy hope that this issue can be addressed in the Rulebook discussions. I think there are realy enought and good reasons for using only 1/100 second values for the offical results.

Comment

One detail: Jan states in the "Performance equals an existing World Record" discussion that the events themselves haven't published 'auto' times having 0.001 s resolution. How did Wikipedia obtain these values then?

Comment

Sometimes in athletics the photo finish data were also published on the IAAF website (e.g. for the IAAF World Chapionships 2017 the offical results and the photo finish data can be found here https://www.iaaf.org/results/iaaf-world-championships-in-athletics/2017/iaaf-world-championships-london-2017-5151 ). Maybe the Wiki 'auto' times are from this photo finish data - but fore sure not from an official athletics result list.

Comment

Hello, I didn't have any opinion before reading, or was a bit on the side of taking as many digits as were available. But after reading I find more logical to take 1/100.

Comment

Agree with Jan's argumentation. Results with 1/1000 make currently no sense (scientifically). We should define the accuracy for unicycling track racing WR to 1/100. As a result almost all existing standard track records should be rounded to the nearest 1/100 digit. What to do with 57.625 (400m - female)?

Preferably organizers should publish the results with 1/100 accuracy, encouraged by Rulebook recommendations.

For road races, slow races, stillstand, we need to do the same brainstorming to see what accuracy is acceptable. Same for jumps.

 

Comment

In fact, "we" (the IUF, or the old WR committee, I don't know) haven't lived up to our own standards (WRG version 2011).

The WRG state (in section 3.1.2) that times for track records should be rounded UP to the nearest 0.01 seconds, except when they are an exact multiple of 0.01 seconds.

Similarly, the times for road records should be rounded UP to the nearest whole second (section 4.1.2).

And for jumping records, distances or heights must be rounded DOWN to the nearest whole centimeter. (6.2.1, 6.2.2 and 6.2.3).

In the World Records list on the IUF website, there are too many decimals in quite a few records. We just need to follow our own rules :-)
And try to get similar rules in the IUF Rulebook.

Comment

Ok, so then the discussion is more or less solved. Just want to add two points:

1. As stillstand and slow races are in the same category as track races, I think we should handle the same with them and also round up to 1/100 accuracy.

 

2. In my opinion 1 second for road races is too inaccurate. It is possible that two riders ride the whole 10k together and have a sprint finish and finish the race within 1 second. Timing systems for road races are accurate enough to also take times accurate to 1/100 and I assume we should handle that the same. I had a chat with a friend yesterday and he told me example from cross country skiing: There used to be the "rule" that distances longer than 10km were timed with 1/10 accuracy. Then they had the case that on a 30k or 50k two racers were in the exact same 1/10 and from then on they changed that rule. Of course it is less likely that two riders finish within 1 second in 10k than in 100m but as times are already taken like this I suggest we use that accuracy.

Comment

1. Stillstand and slow races are now in the "additional records" list. If we recognise these as official records (and discussion #10 is going in this direction) they could be grouped under "Standard Track Records". Then they would automatically fall under the 1/100 second rule.

2. I agree. Why is it in the current rules to round to 1 whole second? Time per se is one of the easiest "things" to measure accurately. Especially when originating from the same race, a time difference of 10 or 20 milliseconds is still significant, and may indeed be required to discriminate between close finishers.

Comment

Concerning stillstand and slow races, I agree with 1/100 accuracy as long as the time measurement is done electronically. In case of timing with stopwatch 1/100 is not correct (analog discussion as 1/1000 accuracy for track races).

Comment

Yes. And I think it is a discussion for the rulebook that timing in slow races should always be electronically (or at least if the time is claimed to be a world record). It's not hard to set up and much more accurate than handstopped times.

In stillstand it is more difficult but that's another discussion.

Comment

Electronic timing may not be hard to set up for slow races. But I think it won't achieve 0.01 s accuracy, because of the slow speed involved. The light beam should be set at the height of the wheel axle, so that the tyre deformation near the contact patch, as well as the wheel diameter, don't influence the results. Then still, 0.01 second at World Record speeds in slow race corresponds to only about 0.5 mm. Almost impossible to achieve reliably - just the irregularities in the tyre tread are easily bigger than that.

In stillstand, you would need two sensors to lift your hands from, and put them back on when you loose balance. Those sensors may be more difficult to implement in a technical sense. But intrinsically, I think stillstand is easier to measure accurately than slow race. But this indeed a different discussion.

Comment

@Klaas: you might be right, but as I wrote in "discussion 10", every rider is free to use the unicycle he wants with it´s advantages and disadvantages. 

We should keep staying close to reality:

An IUF world record should represent the best result ever performed in an IUF discipline at an IUF championship. Therefore, we should stay oriented to the reality of IUF competitions. That means for slow races we should use the same light beams for every wheel size as for unlimited long distance races also the same light beams are used for different wheel sizes.

We should not create such special conditions that a current host will not be able to realize and the special conditions become a handicap for the riders because their results will not be recognized. We should promote our sport and not create handicaps.

 

 

Comment

I think we agree that the already existing rule that times should be rounded UP to the nearest 0.01 seconds, except when they are an exact multiple of 0.01 seconds, makes sense for all standard track races.

So we should revise our record list and make sure that only times with 1/100 second values are registered in the future.

In addition, a corresponding rule for the publication of competition results should be included in the Rulebook.


The question remains, which accuracy we can achieve in the other disciplines...

Stillstand:

I think with experienced judges an accuracy of 1/100 is realistic even if the time is taken with Sop watches.
In swimming, three stopwatches are generally required in this case, whereby the median of these three times is used as the official time. Since it would be harder to find good and experienced judges at all competitions on a unicycle, it might be more reasonable to limit the accuracy at standstill to 1/10 second.


Slow races:

Here I do not consider an accuracy of 1/100 second to be realistic. As Klaas has already mentioned, the distance would have to be measured exactly to about 1 mm. I consider a measurement of the distance and an alignment of the photoelectric sensors to 10 to a maximum of 5 mm to be realistic and would therefore recommend an accuracy of 1/10 second.
The other things mentioned by Klaas (tyre deformation near the contact patch, as well as the wheel diameter) do not influence the results in my opinion, as long as the photoelectric sensors at the start and at the finish are identical, especially at the same height.
Of course different wheel sizes/wheels trigger a photoelectric sensor differently, but if this always happens the same for one wheel at the start and at the finish, the distance ridden in between is always identical.


Road races:

I completely agree that within a race some 1/100 seconds can decide about the placements and that these differences can be definitely determined. The problem I see, however, is that this accuracy must also be achieved between different competitions, so that an indication of the times with this accuracy is meaningful. If we really want to give the times with 1/10 of a second values for road races, we have to make sure that the distance is measured precisely to 50 cm. Is this really realistically practicable, respectively do we want to prescribe this to the organizers?
With the specification of rounding UP the times to whole seconds for road races, larger tolerances are possible when measuring the track.


Jumps:

I think the current rule that distances or heights must be rounded DOWN to the nearest whole centimeter makes sense. With this we are in an range which is not within the tolerances of usual measuring tapes and a comparison of the results of different competitions is possible without problems.


Coasting, Gliding:

When measuring the distances with measuring tapes of the accuracy class II (in Germany it's caled "Genauigkeitsklasse II", but i think there are also international standards), a possible error of about 4 cm results at a distance of 180 m. I would therefore have to give the results in these disciplines only with an accuracy of 0.1 m in order not to be in the same order of magnitude as the possible error.

Comment

Track racing: I agree.

Stillstand: I tend to agree, but hand sensors have been used in the past (for sure in Unicon in Canada). Then accuracy of 0.01 second is probably realistic. But if we cannot require such sensors for World Records, how do we mix such results with hand-stopped results?

Slow races: I see your point with the similar sensors at start and finish. Still, if the sensor is placed low, height of the light beam above the riding surface is very critical. 1/100 second is not realistic, I think.

Road races: there are discrepancies in the course distance requirements between Rulebook and WRG.
For instance, Rulebook requires quite precise marathon distance, while WRG state that 43 km is OK.
On the other hand, 100 km in the Rulebook may be 3% off. (As we know, 100 km Road Race is not in the WRG yet.)
So in that respect, even a 1 second accuracy is much "too accurate". I tend to think that we should still use 1/100 second. With that we can discriminate within a single race. Comparisons between races are very hard anyway, there are so many variables.

Jumps: I agree.

Coasting, Glding: I agree.

Comment

Jan, I misread your comment about Slow Races. I do agree with 1/10 second.

Comment

For the road races, yes, I think the ideal would be to have 1/100 accuracy.  At Unicon 17, Rolf Leonhardt and myself sprinted for the line in the standard marathon and we were within 1/10s for 1st/2nd place, but it could have been a lot less.

Jan- the distance measurement is not the determinant- even athletics events don't prescribe 50cm accuracy for their measurement of the Marathon/half-marathon courses- they use the 'shortest possible route' method and add a 'short course prevention factor' of 0.1%. So that works out a lot more than 50cm. It doesn't matter that the course is longer- when racing, if a world record is broken, it is broken by the winner.

https://aims-worldrunning.org/measurement/MeasurementOfRoadRaceCourses.pdf

The main problem I see for organisers is that not all of them will have photo-timing equipment for the long events. They rely on timing chips, which do not correlate with our front of wheel measurement crossing the line.  We didn't have it in South Korea (thankfully there were no photo-finishes). I don't know if they did in Montreal, where it was down to tenths of a second in the Standard Marathon.

 

Comment

All in all there seems to be no contradictory opinions for track racing, coasting, glinding and jumps and we agree on that. Since there has been no contradiction to the 1/10 seconds at the Slow Races so far, I conclude that we are also in agreement here.

For stillstand, Klaas raised the question of how we deal with differently stopped times (manually and electronically).
I think we should agree on an accuracy that we consider acceptable for both - hand and electronically stopped - and treat both variants equally. In my opinion, we should definitely prescribe at least two or better three judges for the hand timing and then use the median of the times or, if two times are identical, this time.

There is still disagreement on the road races.
In any case, I agree that a comparison between different races is very difficult because of the many variables.
I know about the width measurement in athletics - but I also think the +0.1% allowed deviation in the width measurement and the requirement to publish results in only 1 second of accuracy have been set, at least in part, as a compromise between practicability, realistically achievable accuracy and comparability between different competitions.
The problem with chip timing mentioned by Ken is another reason, which in my opinion speaks against a publication of WR with 1/100 second vaues. Just a slightly different chip position can quickly make a difference of a few 1/100 or even 1/10 seconds.

I think the main argument for giving the results in 1/10 or even 1/100 seconds for road races is the possibly close result of a race and the related distinction between placings (example of Ken Unicon 17) - isn't it? Strictly speaking, this is not an issue for the WRG but for the rulebook - it's only about the comparison within a competition - but for the WR it's a comparison between different competitions.
But to make a proposal for a solution that could be implemented in the Rulebook Committee: How about a compromise based on athletics again:
In the event that there is a tie for the placings, the unrounded time of the measuring system or the data from a photo finish system will be used to decide on the placings. Since this is a direct comparison within one and the same competition, the differences can be regarded as certain. However, the results will only be published with the given accuracy and a reference to the unrounded time for the decision about the placement will be added.
In addition, it should be added that a WR can only be broken by the winner of a race.
This would allow us to reliably distinguish the placings within a race and still publish the results with an accuracy that allows a realistic and meaningful comparison between different competitions.

Comment

Let me explain you that hand sensors are no option for Stillstand:

Please have a look at the IUF Rulebook:

"After time starts running, the starting post will be taken away. Time stops at the moment when the participant rides of the board, dismounts...."

The reason ist that while performing stillstand riders need an arm radius space of 360° to keep the balance. 

Hand sensors we had only once (2012 in Brixen) and then no more because of two possible problems: 

 1. riders touch accidentely the hand sensors (hand sensors can not be removed) 

2. riders dismount without touching the hand sensors. 

Therefore, it would be the best to take the time exclusively with stopwatches like it´s done at all competitions after Brixen.

Comment

After reading Ana's comment, I agree that hand sensors are not a good idea.

If there is no alternative electronic measurement (and I don't see a feasible one), then handstopped time measurement is the way to go. Probably 1/10 seconds time resolution is OK.

Comment

Most if not all of us agree that for track races, a time resolution of 1/1000 seconds is not realistic, and that 1/100 should be used.
I have also not heard of anyone disagreeing that for road races, a time resolution of 1/10 seconds should be used.

If, for World Record purposes, we compare times from different competitions, we round UP to above resolutions.
This also holds in my opinion we compare results from a single competitive event (e.g. Unicon 2020), in which to potential records were set or broken in different heats in a Track Race, or different waves in a Road Race.

However, suppose we receive record claims from two riders who have started in the same heat or wave. Do we recognise both of them if they have the same result within the required accuracy? Presumably we will be able to distinguish who comes first based on a finish photo or whatever, even if the next rider has the same official time. Can someone who is officially slower than someone else be a WR (co-)holder?

(Or would someone who perceivably crosses the finish after someone else, but still having the same official time, not be "officially slower" in the first place??)

Comment

As far as I know in athletics it is done like followed:

If (in the unlikely case) two racers of the SAME heat set a time, let's say, 12.45s, on of them HAS to be the winner (and this is found out with the photo finish). So one is a bit faster than the other and then also the world record holder (because he was faster).

If the time 12.45s is done in two DIFFERENT heats, BOTH will be the world record holders (because you cannot tell by the photo finish who was actually the faster one).

I suggest we also use that rule for unicycling.

Comment

Agree Mirjam.
A good example of this is the world record 30m wheelwalk male, performed at Unicon18.
In male finals 2 riders were in the same hundredth but not in the same thousandth. It is correct that Yunsung Park holds the WR. We only have to round it up to 7.08 in the official WR list. Bansai can obviously not claim the WR in this case. This example shows that there may be good reasons to publish results with higher accuracy than we accept in the WR list.

 

1 411 Yunsung Park 0:07.071

2 1233 Ryosuke Bansai 0:07.077

Comment

This is probably the best thing to do.

It's still slightly uneasy for me though. Building upon Erik's example: Bansai is not on the list because we know he was slower than Park. Now suppose that at an event in the near future, rider X wins the final in 0:07:08. Rider X would then be added on the WR list on equal standing with Park, only because we don't know if rider X was faster or slower. Even if his time to 3 decimal places would be 0:07:079, we still cannot tell if X is faster or slower than Park, because we disregard the 3rd decimal (and rightly so).

To me, it feels unfair towards Bansai (in this example) but I don't think there is a better way to deal with this.

And by the way, in general I think it is good to copy best practice from other sports such as athletics.

Comment

I would like to make it quite clear once again that I do not think it makes sense to publish results in general with a higher degree of accuracy than is appropriate for the WR list.
Published results will always be compared and if the result lists have a higher accuracy than our WR list, it will not be clear to outsiders why this is the case.
I will therefore do my best to ensure that all results are published only with the accuracies discussed here and found to be meaningful.

But this doesn't mean that we can't use a photo finish within a race to determine the placings.
I already suggested in my comment a few days ago a similar concept as in athletics and would like to quote that again:

In the event that there is a tie for the placings, the unrounded time of the measuring system or the data from a photo finish system will be used to decide on the placings.
Since this is a direct comparison within one and the same competition, the differences can be regarded as certain.
However, the results will only be published with the given accuracy and a reference to the unrounded time/ a hint, that the placing is decided by photo finish, for the decision about the placement will be added.
In addition, it should be added that a WR can only be broken by the winner of a race.
This would allow us to reliably distinguish the placings within a race and still publish the results with an accuracy that allows a realistic and meaningful comparison between different competitions.

This procedure would allow us to continue to round the times to whole seconds during road races and still distinguish the placings exactly within a race.

For the given track race example, this mean something ike that for the result list:
1 411    Yunsung Park    0:07.08 (Photo Finish: .071)
2 1233    Ryosuke Bansai    0:07.08 (Photo Finish: .077)
or something like that:
1 411    Yunsung Park    0:07.08
2 1233    Ryosuke Bansai    0:07.08 (Photo finish: -0.006)

Comment

Referring to everything but the last paragraph: I agree to all of that.

Is the last paragraph about the results list from some event, and not about the WR list?
I think so, because in the official WR list, we only display times rounded up to 0.01 seconds (in the case of track races).
Am I correct?

Event result lists are outside the scope of the WRG. But continuing off-topic: I like the second presentation better because it does not give any specific result in 3 decimal places, so no-one can use those meaningless numbers to compare. The only thing I would change is the minus sign. I would make that a plus sign, since the time of Bansai in 3 decimal places was higher than that of Park, not lower.

Comment

I also like Jans second proposal for the way of publishing results, plus sign Klaas makes sense.
Don't know if it is possible with the IUF software.

Comment

Yes, the last paragraph was used as an example of what the result list could look like in a competition. So nothing about the WR list.
I just think it's necessary, if we change here to keep the WR list with a certain accuracy (e.g. 1/100 for the track races), that we can also demand this for the competitions in good conscience and have solutions for possible concerns.
I think we have found such a solution (and yes, a plus is more sensible than a minus) and we agree that a publication of competition results should also match the accuracies defined here. Of course this is a topic for the rulebook and not for the WRG.
I think the IUF software could be supplemented in such a way that results are published exactly the same way.

Comment

We (as WR Committee) have an interest in some specific changes in the Rulebook, so that we can depend on the Rulebook, and have consistency between the Rulebook and the WRG.

Does anyone know what's up with the Rulebook discussions for 2018? Some subcommittees have been running for months now, but for some others (including Track and Road which are relevant to the WRG) I can't find any activity. It appears they haven't started yet. Also I have requested to join Jumps because of some changes we discussed in the WR Committee.

I tried contacting some people in IUF (several times) but got not response. Who is in charge for the Rulebook?

Comment

As far as I know Scott is in charge for that.

I'll ask him on Wednesday when we skype.

Comment

I was also surprised that the work in some subcommittees is almost finished and for other sections obviously no subcommittee has been formed yet.

Comment

I have an issue about distance/height measurement precision that I think should actually be dealt with in the IUF Rulebook, and the WRG should just follow it. But the current version of the Rulebook (2017) does not mention it, and I don't think it is discussed in the ongoing Rulebook discussion. Whereas the current WRG do mention precision. So let me bring it up here.

The text for Jumps records (Chapter 6 of WRG, sections 6.2.1, 6.2.3 and the newly proposed 6.2.4) states that "Precision should be to +/- 1mm using certified measuring instruments."

This is a new issue in this discussion, which although titled "Accuracy..." has been mainly about published resolution. For jumps we already agreed that rounding down to the nearest cm is the way to go (no change from the current rule).

The main problem I see with requiring +/- 1 mm precision in both types of Platform jumps is that the edge of a typical platform is not a mathematical shape - it may well have irregularities in the order of millimeters, which makes the "true" distance hard to define.

For High Jump (over a bar) the definition is not so much a problem, but reading the height to that accuracy may still be a problem because the bar is round. (Parallax error.)

Also, for Long Jump on Platform, if you measure with a "roll tape measure" (don't know the proper English term for this) between the jumping edge and the landing edge, you would need to support the tape along the whole length or it will hang and not be a straight line. You could measure across the floor between the bases of the two stacks but then you would have to rely on the stacks being vertical within one mm, which is hard to achieve.

Strangely, the +/- mm precision requirement is not stated for Long Jump (over bar), while that is probably the easiest one to define and measure accurately.

Finally, I suspect that often just a tape measure from the local DIY-market is used, which will probably have nothing like a calibration certificate, or any certification printed on it. Do we really need to require a certified measuring instrument? If we do, we also need to enforce this.

Comment

Some of the Rulebook committees are now up and running, including Road. I was going to start a discussion there about publishing road race times rounded up to the nearest second, and with "photo finish +0.xx or +0.xxx seconds" additions to discriminate between riders who were close.

However, while the argument for World Records to be rounded is strong enough, I am struggling to find good arguments to NOT publish times with a 0.01 or even 0.001 seconds resolution, in the result list from a single competition. The high-resolution times are a 'natural' way to discriminate riders in time, and assess their position in the results list.

Given that we (World Record Committee) publish only road records in 1 second resolution, what is the best argument that event result lists must use also 1 second?

Comment

In my opinion, the most important argument is that the published results of different events will always be compared with each other. But as we have found out, the results of different events are by far not comparable to 0.01 or 0.001 seconds - which is also the argument for publishing world records to 1 second only.

In other words: It is possible to determine a time for a single event that is more accurate than 1 second - but this time is then very much tied to the event and not to the discipline itself for which it was determined. This means that this time would not offer a meaningful comparison with the same discipline at other events and that's exactly what result lists should be there for.

For example, nobody would offer a certain distance only once and choose a new distance at the next competition, because this would not result in any comparability at all, which in my opinion is a decisive criterion for sporting competitions.

 

Moreover, it would rightly cause a lack of understanding among the athletes if world records were published with a low accuracy than normal competition results. Then you would have to explain with every published result list why the times on this list cannot be compared with the times of other published competition results. I think that this is very unfavourable and I think that the published results should be only so accurate that they can be compared.

Comment

Now that we have chapters in the IUF rulebook about the accuracy of the results to be published, I don't think we need separate rules in the WRG anymore. However, it might be useful to include a general reference to the rules:

Proposal

X.X Accuracy of records

All results must be read and reported according to the IUF rules. World record lists are kept exclusively with the accuracy specified in the IUF rules for the respective discipline.

Comment

Are there any further comments or objections to the proposal? If not, I would like to create a proposal that can be voted on after the official review time.

Comment

Such a statement would need to be in two chapters in the WRG, i.e. 3 Standard Track Records and 4 Road Racing Records. (Or have we done away with these discplines being in separate chapters... I lost track of that.) So I think we need two separate statements. Do you agree?
Time Trial events are not governed by the IUF Rulebook at all, so for them we cannot simply refer to the relevant Rulebook chapter. Perhaps we can refer to the Road Racing chapter of the Rulebook.

Comment

I'm not sure how the structure of the new WRG would make the most sense. I think one could already summarize many things and thus dispense with large sections for the individual disciplines. On the other hand, there will probably still be discipline specific things...
Maybe the proposal could be made flexible, so that it is either inserted in each discipline section or once for all disciplines together. The content remains the same: The accuracy is based on the specifications of the rulebook.

Regarding the time trial records: I would indeed either refer to the specifications for road races or explicitly mention it again - depending on how the division of the WRG is in the end.

Comment

I think it is time for an official proposal like what Jan wrote above. The placing of the new text (in two chapters of the WRG, or in a place that covers both Track and Road) should explicitly be kept flexible.

Comment

I will create a corresponding proposal at the weekend. In advance, here is the idea - for the time trials, I would refer to the Road Race regulations:

 

Proposal

Depending on the final division of the WRG, a corresponding paragraph is to be inserted for each category, or in a central place for all categories.

X.X Accuracy of records

All results must be read and reported according to the IUF rules. World record lists are kept exclusively with the accuracy specified in the IUF rules for the respective discipline. For time trail records the roads racing rules apply.

 

Comment

I see several issues with the proposal. What about this rewrite:

For fixed-distance Time trial records, the published accuracy should correspond to the specification in the IUF Rulebook for Road racing.
For fixed-time Time trial records, the published distance should be rounded down to the closest 1 m.
For all other records, the published accuracy should correspond to the specification in the IUF Rulebook for the respective discipline.

This adds fixed-time Time Trials which cannot follow Road racing in the aspect of accuracy (because there is no distance rounding in the Rulebook).
It also solves some minor typing errors.

I have not mentioned "read and reported", only "published". I'm not sure who is supposed to "read" or "report", but I think that record riders should be free to report to the World Record Committee what they see fit. I only want to prescribe the accuracy that is finally published, which in my view binds all parties: the IUF (WR Committee) but also the record rider.
But maybe I miss something important here?

Comment

You are, of course, absolutely right that the fixed-time records cannot be based on the Rulebook in terms of accuracy, so of course we need an extra phrase for this.

The "read and reported" is taken from other sports. There is more to it than just the publication of the value, because read also contains, for example, how the value is to be read if the measuring device itself has a higher display accuracy than the one with which the result is published (i.e. how it is rounded, which is very important if someone rounds the value themselves). For this reason, I would want to keep the suggestion "read and reported according to the IUF rules".

If the paragraph was only about how the results are published, then I think "published" would be sufficient - but the paragraph is about the accuracy of records in general and therefore also for athletes who set records and submit the results to the WRC and there I think "read and reported" plays a role or may play a role.

Comment

Let me use the 10k time trial as an example. There are usually several lap times from which the final 10k time is calculated. The final time will be rounded up to the closest 1 second and published only as this rounded value. But I would prefer to have the lap times to the accuracy (or at least resolution) that they were directly measured. When the average of two values is used as per 5.1.2 of the WRG, I think it would be better if the full values are used for calculating this average. Otherwise, the average might include half a second (xx:xx.5) which has to be rounded up again. I think it is generally recommended to do all calculations with the full values and only apply rounding (if appropriate) for the end result. Also, if any reading and reporting of fractional seconds is against the rules, it is kind of illegal to submit screenshots of a stopwatch to the WR Committee if it displays fractions of a second.

Comment

I'm sorry that I'm only answering now, but I hadn't noticed that you had written something else.

I agree with you that for the time trails - since there are some calculations that have to be done - it seems to make sense to get as high an accuracy as possible. But we must ask ourselves here again whether this accuracy is physically reasonable and realistic (and thus should be reasonably included in the calculation) or not.
The official documentation of values with a higher accuracy than is physically reasonable always bears the risk that these values will be regarded as something "true" and will probably be published or compared with other values at some point. Therefore, I think it makes sense that in other sports the rules mention "reading and reporting".
Of course, sending in a photo/screenshot of a stopwatch is still not against the rules in my view, because there is no "reading" in the sense of the IUF rules. But I would agree with you that it would be a form of reporting...

All in all, for the world records, I would agree that a transmission of raw unedited data, e.g. from the timing equipment, would be desirable as proof of the record. However, I would still like to see everything that is not raw data read and reported according to the IUF rulebook.


Copyright ©

International Unicycling Federation