[Article] Martin Stepanek: It's Not About Me

[efattah]

In my mind, the 1m rule allows records to be broken too often. The most 'magical' records are the ones which stand for a long time, and no one can break. Consider some of those magical long standing records:

Andy LeSauce 7'35" (1996-2001) 5yrs
Pelizzari 75m (1997-1999) 2yrs
LeMaster 81m (1999-2001) 2yrs
Tanya Streeter 70m (2001-2004) 3yrs
Martin Stepanek 80m CNF (2005(?)-2007) ?2yrs?
Tanya Streeter 122m variable (still standing since ?2005?)
Natalie Desreac 150m dynamic (1997-2004?) ?7yrs?

Some of the most memorable records are the ones which withstood the most number of failed attempts to break them.

From memory, the number of failed or cancelled attempts:
Andy LeSauce (at least 2; by a German and by Claude Chapuis)
Pelizzari 75m (at least 1: Ravelo 76m)
LeMaster 81m (at least 1: Mike Rapu 82m)
Tanya Streeter 70m (at least 3: Mandy Cruickshank 71m, 71m, Yasemin Dalkilic 72m)
Martin Stepanek 80m CNF (at least 3: Will Trubridge x 2, William Winram x 1)

[Kars]

Have you considerd that as we may get closer to the 'human limit' with more contenders, the differences will become smaller. At the current level I think the 1 meter is fitting and attaineble for a broader range of athletes, inviting more competition, and therefor a nice amount of record attempts during the year.

I think the 1m improvement minimum should not be alterd.
I do think that it would be a moral thing of every contender to do his upmost best and not be tempted to give in to the easy thing.

I have the greatest respect for those who choose to remain acting in a moral way in these challenging times.

Love, Courage and Water!

Kars

[glennv]

'The Human Limit'. That is what they say inevery sport and every year records get higher faster deeper and better.
If you think in limits they become limits to you. Like the magical dooms crushing depth of 50 meters from freediving history.
We humans create limits ourselves and then are surprised if we break them.
Do you actually really seriously think that we are getting close. Trust me , we are not even scratching the surface of what we will discover is humanly possible.
And besides that, a WR should not be for everybody or more easy attainable but should mean something. So the more difficult to break the more value they retain.
And there is still enough (much more even) competition below WR level, which is only for some top athletes as it should.
So I say kick up the challenge level.

p.s. Most WR´s already surpass the old ones by more that a small margin.

[Billextreme]

Maybe you should ask for the same in other sports.

In athletics, running:
In 100 and 200 meter races you have to beat the record with a half second or more, if not... NO record. in 400 and 800 meter races you have to beat the record with one second or more, if not... NO record. Every race over 800 meter you have to beat the record with five seconds or more, if not... NO record. In all jumpin disciplines it should be 1 decimeter better or more, if not... NO record. In throw dicipline we could say 2 meter or more... etc etc.

In swimming we could ask for steps of minimum 1 second, if not... NO record.



/B

[glennv]

Sounds good to me.

[glennv]

And p.s. we are still talking about record attempts, in all other sports there is no such thing as record attempts.
So yes if you take away record attempts in freediving and get very accurate measuring devices by all means : 1 nanometer deeper is a new world record.

We could even make a rule that in competitions , where circumstances and therefore all the possible advantages/disadvantages are equal to all contestants, you get a new WR according to the latest possible measuring accuracies like in any other sport on the planet . But for WR attempts you have to make a bigger jump to make sure that it was not or can not be blamed just on some slight advantage in circumstances or whatever that gave you just that little 1 meter advantage over the old record holder.

[Kars]

Glenn The point I tried to make was that amount recordmargine is a balance thing.
Making this too big, like 20m, would hamper the sport for various reasons.
Making it too small, Decimeters (1/10 meter), would also hamper the sport for various reasons.

Now people like Guilliame Nery CAN chime in picking up a 'minimal' AIDA worldrecord, promoting freediving by putting Freediving in the news.
Some divers are able to keep up with the world's elite, but I thinks now the sport is maturing it will be more rarely one has the ability to top all others with wide margines.

I think the recordmargine question relates to not only to the amount of respect the athlete gains, but also to amout of exposiure and promotion of freediving.

To me the current 1 m margine feels pretty natural, because most of the general public can relate to.

Love, courage and water,

Kars

[trux]

I think that 1m is pretty fine. I even think that reducing it further would make the sport more attractive (for sponsors, for the public, as well for competitors), more democratic, and more competitive. Why should only the first one who reaches the limit get the record? If we start measuring by decimeters, centimeters, or millimeters, all freedivers with the same level will have the chance to get a record. They won't keep it for a long time, but they will have it in their CV - a freediving world record holder. I think it is much more just when all top freedivers have a record in their logs, than when it is just the very first lucky one who had the chance to get it first and is then protected by a baselessly huge security margin.

That told, I am pretty satisfied with the current 1m, and would not like start measuring in millimeters (at least not as long as we cannot guarantee the correctness of such measuring), but protecting current record holders by a huge margin of 5m is absolutely ridiculous and unacceptable.

[glennv]

Trux,

Who said anything about protecting current world record holders ???
The initial suggestion came from the current problems in exactly measuring depth. Specially if you account for effects of temperature , salinity , line stretch , wave action , line angle etc. Eric has already mentioned that in numerous threads. So as longs as we have that , why not make it fair and clear. And for the sake of clearing the discussions forget about all my other points with I mentioned. Then it is in principle absolutely NOT ridiculous and unacceptable (harsh words for an honest suggestion and normal discussion ) . Maybe 5 meters is not the perfect distance but clearly 1 meter has its problems with current measuring devices.

And if you are really interested in making world record more open to all athletes to fill up their CV and not just the rich ones with big sponsors and large support teams so then can dive weeks on end at the bests spots in the world to try day after day to get the record, then get rid of record attempts completely.
Luckily the last years there are more and more competitions so people can try it under normal and equal circumstances, but as long as you keep WR attempts possible , the big boys (not necessary the best ) will remain on top. There is a big difference there compared to trying one and only one time under stressfully situations. I think this mechanisme falls more under your mentioned category of protecting the WR holders.

[turtle]

Ok, how does this sound?
Currently there are two schools of thought for setting records...

The first is attending annual world cup events. These world cup events need huge budgets for: travelling teams of safety/judges/athletes, promotion, setting up lines, access, accomodation etc. Once they are over, the place is forgotten & people gear up for next year somewhere else. Public and press attendance at these events is negligible compared to other sporting 'world cups'.

The second is individuals with private/corporate backing who set up events geared at breaking a specific record, or several. Again, the set up costs are considerable. Press and public attendance at these type of events seems marginally better, as more scenic locations can be used and the attention is more focused on an individual.

With all this in mind, what about the following idea: Build a permanent centre for freediving, in a location with generally good conditions, and in an accessible + scenic part of the world that would act as a focal point for athletes, media and public awareness of freediving. Employ full time judges and safety teams on site. Create a learning centre, welcoming tours, offering courses etc. The centre would have it's own lines, depth guages, cameras, platforms, and everything else necessary. This would be a stage where competitions and single record attempts would be held under the same conditions, to the same standards. It would be a place where scientific research would be centralised and encouraged. Safety techniques could be practiced, taught and new ideas tested.

If, as Seb Murat sees it, AIDA is behaving too much like a controlling entity rather than a set of standards everyone can agree on, this proposal makes sense as it inherently aligns the concept and the reality of comparable achievement between individuals through set standards of performance. As freediving is still developing as an activity and a collective knowledge, having a focal point still makes sense, as it allows new approaches (frc, training etc.) to be seen comparatively and in an accepted environment.

It seems that the travelling world cup events make little sense financially, environmentally or even practically to anyone involved. Private record attempts are a loss-making enterprise for almost all those involved & are dogged by a form of judging/safety which is inherently decentralized and at risk of subjectivity, then controversy. Safety procedures are haphazard and irregular across events. Media interest is virtually nil, and at best freakish, because freediving lacks genuine respectability as a sport at large.

If most of the money spent on private attempts and world cups at the moment was instead put towards a proposal like this, along with some funding from sports/government bodies to create a non-profit charitable body, within a few years there would be something truly longstanding and tangibly beneficial to the freediving world in every respect and at every level.

I've emptied my piggy bank of cents. Would be very interested to hear thought on this.

fred

[trux]

Sorry, Glenn, but I still do not agree and consider the request to increase the minimal measuring unit for ridiculous, for a unnecessary protectionism, and quite counterproductive. If you are a record holder and your record gets broken by someone else who did it in better conditions (other salinity, temperature, altitude, etc, ...) and you think he got it easier than you, all you need to do is optimizing your own conditions (selecting a place with the best ones) and taking the record back. The different conditions are no argument. That's in the same way in other sports too, though in some cases some extreme conditions may invalidate a record (i.e. wind in athletics sprints).

[Fondueset]

'Long live the horse!'

[Billextreme]

So, we should have a 3 meter plus-limit for record in depth... and how about records in dynamic? Should it be the same? And then static?

We did have different rules about this before; I guess it was 2 meter in depth and length and 2 seconds in Static. (if I remember right it was 3 meter in the sled disciplines)
This all change back in 1999-2000.

...I could live with that, but I wouldn't vote for it.


/B

[glennv]

Trux , I think we are talking past each other. Probably my own fault because I discuss 2 thiungs at the same time (measuring problem and the value of record attempts). You talk about conditions making it easier for the athlete. I talk about conditions making the measurement less accurate then 1 meter. Different issue. I agree on your point that if it makes it easier, in the current rulings etc , go ahead and do the same. But (lets take the recent dive as an example) can you really without any doubt say that one dove 1 meter deeper/shallower then the other ? Neither could you with 5 m or any number for that matter , but what you CAN say if you take a margin that is above the current error margin that the person dove deeper then the previous record holder for sure.
So for the last time I was just suggesting to take any interval as long as it is not within the current error margin of the measuring system used. Otherwise we could have situations where the new WR is given to someone that actually dove shallower then the previous one. I think even you would not advocate a system like that. Show me beyond a doubt that you can measure depth reliably in a changing environment , salinity , temperature gradients etc etc with current devices to within 1 meter and I am you man ;-)
For static and dynamic we have (percentage wise) much smaller error margins so thats why the current systems works fine and you will never see any discussions about who dove 1 meter further than the other.

[glennv]

Eric,

Maybe you can shed some light in the dark here. You of all people have the most experience in what is currently reliably possible in depth measurements. What can you say about the current systems used and their accuracy.
I am sure rope measurements are as good as looking between your fingers to estimate the distance between 2 objects, but what about the currently used Stingers , D3s etc etc.
Specially in the current world record range of depths.