Record keeping and publication
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
Comment
Thanks for splitting up the proposal regarding the record keeping, I have approved it.
As already mentioned in the other discussion, I wonder whether it would make sense to combine the new rule on record keeping with the existing rule “1.5 Historical Records.” In a way, both deal with the same issue, namely that old records should remain available online. In my opinion, it only makes sense to include records that were set before the introduction of the World Record Guidelines or under other versions of the WRG. I could imagine something like the following:
1.X Record Keeping
1. The IUF will publish current World Records on the IUF website.
2. The IUF will archive old World Records and make them available on the IUF website.
3. World Records set prior to the establishment of the IUF World Record Guidelines or under earlier versions of the World Record Guidelines may not be directly comparable to those set under the current guidelines. These World Records are marked accordingly on the IUF website. These World Records can be recertified upon submission of evidence that complies with the current IUF World Record Guidelines and thus listed without marking.
Comment
Hi Jan
Thanks for approving. I really like your additional paragraph 3. I was thinking how we denote historical records and which or whether guidelines were followed, but this will work well. Perhaps the only thing I would change is to be more specific about the marking. If done under IUF guidelines (even if an old one), it should state which one.
eg
* Guinness WR certified
** IUF 2011 guidelines certified
*** IUF 2026 guidelines certified
**** IUF 2050 guidelines certified
Comment
I agree with you that the record should include the rules under which it was set. However, I am unsure whether we actually need to explicitly include this in the guidelines with an example.
Theoretically, this could apply not only to the WR guidelines, but also to the IUF rules themselves. I would indicate both accordingly if the case arises, but I would not include explicit examples in the guidelines. However, if the majority is in favor of including explicit examples or instructions for labeling, then I have no problem with that.
Comment
I'm hoping our guidelines don't change too much over time, otherwise it will be difficult to compare records. The main thing I have in mind is course measurement. The 2011 IUF guidelines used inner perimeter rather than a measurement line 30cm out, so that affects distances for our time-trial records.
It will be useful to show which guideline was followed, and then keep the guideline in the archives for anyone who cares to look. Alternatively, for a significant change, we can just highlight that within the records page:
**pre-2026 IUF guidelines used inner perimeter measurement for lap distance so will be less than current records**
It is conceivable that we will make other major changes in future guidelines. eg if we certified 29" to be the standard class for 10km instead of 24", then that might be best specified rater than go back through archives of old guidelines:
**pre-2040 IUF guidelines used 24" as the standard class in the 10km instead of the 29"**
I'm actually thinking it will be more useful to highlight the significant changes rather than which guideline was followed. It only gets complicated if there are too many changes, or if we change the rules back to a previous guideline.
Comment
The bicycle hour record is a good example of what can happen with guideline changes, when they excluded certain setups to bring it back to Eddy Merckx's 1972 record. I don't think it's fair for people who do the Hour record under UCI guidelines in good faith, only to have it excluded when they changed to rules.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hour_record
Comment
> I'm hoping our guidelines don't change too much over time, otherwise it will be difficult to compare records.
I hope so too. I also believe that the guidelines will change much less frequently than the IUF rules. However, changes to the IUF rules may also mean that records are no longer 100% comparable with each other. This should then, of course, be indicated in some way.
I also agree with you that, in the case of simple changes, it is nice if the changes are immediately apparent in the note. However, I don't know if it's really possible to summarize all changes so briefly and concisely that this is actually feasible.
In view of possible changes to the IUF rules, we should perhaps write “IUF World Record Guidelines / IUF Rules” in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the rule.
Comment
"I also agree with you that, in the case of simple changes, it is nice if the changes are immediately apparent in the note. However, I don't know if it's really possible to summarize all changes so briefly and concisely that this is actually feasible."
Yes, we don't want to clutter up the IUF records page, but I think a major change, like the measurement line/inner perimeter distance, or change in standard wheel size for a particular record, should be noted without having to reference the IUF guideline.
Either way, as you said, that doesn't have to be specifically written into the rule.
Comment
any more comments or can I put it to vote?
Comment
I am in favor of the proposal to publish and archive former records.
However, I think we should be careful with the term “historical records.” Originally, this term referred to records that do not follow the current guidelines, not simply to records that have been beaten.
In my view, once a record is beaten, it should simply be called a "Former World Record". We should avoid labeling beaten records as “historical records,” as that could create confusion about their validity.
If needed, major rule changes can be highlighted on the records page, but I would keep the terminology itself as clear and simple as possible.
Comment
Thanks Jan, the mention of 'historical records' is not in the rule itself, only in the background behind the rule change. I agree that 'historical' record is not specific to those set under IUF, or any guideline. In terms of validity, many cannot be compared to modern records because we don't know the rules under which they were set, or if there were rules at all.
The term used is 'old world records', and I agree that 'former world records' sounds better and also gives it more respect. I'll change this in the next draft.
Comment
> However, I think we should be careful with the term “historical records.” Originally, this term referred to records that do not follow the current guidelines, not simply to records that have been beaten.
> In my view, once a record is beaten, it should simply be called a "Former World Record". We should avoid labeling beaten records as “historical records,” as that could create confusion about their validity.
As Ken already said, the rule does not consider broken records to be “historical records,” and my idea in the original post was to delete the existing rule “1.5 Historical Records” and integrate it into the rule discussed here, so that the term would disappear completely from the guidelines. The previous Rule 1.5 would be replaced accordingly by paragraphs 3 and 4 of the new rule.
@Ken: I think if we want to delete the rule “1.5 Historical Records,” we would have to mention that in the proposal.
Comment
It seems to me a good idea to stop referring to "historical record." I agree that we should take this opportunity to remove section 1.5.