How IAM WMSC might go around to undermine the old WMSC

Since there should be only one world champion in any sport at any given time (if you don’t believe in alternative worlds), only one organization providing the champions their title should exist. So, the dispute between IAM and the old WMSC should be settled as to whom gets to recognize the real Memory World Champion.

Right now, I can think of what some IAM members should attempt to do to undermine the WMSC in a very legal way. I haven’t invented this approach. I have seen it being applied against my organization, the Canadian Memory Championships.

This year, a rebel group split and started a new National Memory Championship in Canada. One of their apparent supporters/members came and attended our old yearly competition but then refused to speak to reporters about his victory there and instead expressed the idea that the Canadian Memory Championship that he had won did not as a matter of fact identify the true Canadian Memory Champion and later he participated in the rebel competition and seemed to be more satisfied by the results of that other competition although he did not win it.

I can assure you that participants like that are great to undermine an organization issuing championship titles. It brings a loss of publicity because the media will not be interested in a winner that doesn’t believe he /she earned anything significant and who is only talking about the other upcoming competition. It also dishearten the organisers and other participants.

So, perhaps more IAM members (especially the top IAM memory athletes) should attend the old WMSC event and not pick up any prize if they win there and just dismiss the old WMSC competition as a good rehearsal for the real thing, the IAM WMSC (if any reporter are interested in what they think).

I don’t think the old WMSC can reply in kind and do the same thing back to you, but even if they try to do it back at you, all this fighting may create media interest in the sport. Or maybe it will kill it, I am not sure. I am just providing a suggestion here and I am not sure if it is any good. It is just a perspective I am privileged to have from my own personal experience that I wanted to share to see hear what people’s opinions about that.

Your suggestion to undermine the old WMSC sounds highly unethical to me. No offence.


Thanks for your opinion, Silvio. No offence taken.

My question would then be, how is it ethical to support and participate in the IAM, since the IAM presence produces similar results upon the WMSC? What exactly is unethical in this suggestion and how? Could it not also be argued that having two world champions of memory an unethical thing, if you don’t believe in the reality of an alternate world? How is it unethical to work to help the dominance of a single organization responsible for the issuing the title of world memory champion?

These aren’t easy questions to answer. But I think it would be interesting to try and answer them. It may help make the world a better place.

So basically “the end justifies the means”? Is that what you’re saying?

I think there have to be other ways for the IAM to become the leading memory-association, without having to undermine its “rival”.



I am not sure how you came to think that I might think that the end justifies the means.

My underatanding is that an unresolved ethical issue between memory athletes and the leadership of the old WMSC was the spark behind the creation of the IAM.

So, going to their memory competition or memory testing event without recognizing it for what they assert it is does not sound particularly unethical if you believe that the leadership of the old WMSC is rather oblivious to important moral considerations of right and wrong. If you think the old WMSC leadership behaves ethically, then the spark that led to the creation of the IAM must have been a hoax, a sham to split the WMSC organization to try and take control of it.

I don’t really know enough myself about the people and issues that led to the split to really take a side here but from what I have been able to derermine, the rebel IAM is so far winning my hearth. I side with them and so I am with the rebels here, because I believe their story as it comes across to me as more credible. Since it appears that the old WMSC is quite content to just ignore the IAM, isn’t it fair that IAM members participate in WMSC events as if these events weren’t what the WMSC claimed they are?

Back home here in Canada, I don’t have the same feeling that an ethical issue was behind what forced a show down that led to some members going away to form their own new board to organize a new national memory championship in Canada. So, I feel that such undermining of my competition, the Canadian Memory Championships, was a punishment that we, on the CMC Board, didn’t deserve and that this undermining should be considered unethical. But that is another story.

When you are in a battle for dominance, being right or wrong doesn’t matter; what matters is who ends up on top, and it certainly isn’t always the good guys that wnd up winning. I am at this point considering giving up organizing the CMC in 2019 so that at least, we will have an undisputed champion in Canada again next year, even if that would be an unethical one in my opinion.

As I live through a similar battle as the old WMSC and the IAM is going through, I feel that I have learned effective disheartening approaches from the rebels and that the IAM certainly is within its right to try out these same approaches.

So, that is my two cents. No, I don’t believe that the end justifies the means. I believe that the means should be consistent with the goal.


Sorry for the off topic, but sometimes, under certain circumstances, I seriously consider to start a new hobby. One that I can do all alone :video_game:

Memorizing and friendly competitions are fun. Some other things are, well, you know.

Please don’t take everything so bloody serious. Have fun. And when something goes terribly wrong, smile and have fun anyway. There is enough bashing, hate, accusations and defamation in real life already.

No offense, just my subjective 2 cents.

1 Like

Just to nitpick: the IAM (International Association of Memory) is one organization, and the WMSC (World Memory Sports Council) is another. The phrase IAM WMSC makes no sense.

On the topic, I don’t think that competitors who strongly support the IAM should attend the WMSC’s championships with the intention of diminishing them. For one thing, it seems like it would have a high chance of backfiring - unless you actually win and are doing media interviews, you would only be boosting the success of their championship. But also, it seems like the wrong thing to do. Better to focus on making the IAM better.


I totally agree with Simon and Finwing.

I actually think that anyone suggesting otherwise is trying to create drama and to stir trouble.

There are plenty of sports where you have several associations and several world champions or competitions.

Do your research before trolling.

Hi Guillaume,

I have mentioned in the past that you do seem inexperienced to me; your comments here do seem to confirm my views.

I used to know a guy who would get upset at what I wrote and would rudely call me a “pot head” as a result. Later, I came across a newspaper in which he had sent a letter to the editor. In it, he described himself as a pothead. I take your comments here as if you were that guy, accusing the other of things you are doing yourself.

As far as your other topic is concerned, that I should do my research, well what about you? Have you done your research here? You are a member of the Election Committee. Have you done your research on the candidates that are running in this election? I somewhat suspect you haven’t done that because if you had done this reaserch, you would know that the two other candidates you had at the beginning running in the American Region were Canadians like me who have become interested in memory sports directly as a result of my efforts in this field here in running memory competitions over several years.

So, this means that your Election Committee might not have had any candidates running in this American Election if it were not for my interest and initiatives in the sport. But do you care about that? When you care about the development of the sport or activity that you are in, you should care to some extent about its leaders.

But sometimes, leaders are at odds with each other and this brings disputes. Your point of view seems to be that all is fine with having 2 world champions of memory. You seem to suggest that it is common in other sports and therefore minding this issue, or even considering this as an issue is out of place, as if, if a point being made is not a concern to you at all, then the community you are a member of ought not to see that point as an issue either. Ok, well, if that is the case I think you are overstating, overvaluing your own opinion of things.

One thing I do like about you is that you do value your opinion and won’t hesitate to make it known. In my own book, it means you have leadership potential. On top of that you volunteer with this Election Committee which plays a key role in the development of a sport that I care much about, so you can count on me to go easy on you and if I have criticism to make of you, you will get praise along the way with it because I think leaders in the field of memory sports are needed and need to be encouraged and nurtured.

One important thing that the IAM needs right now is to earn respect for the way it runs its
first election. There are a number of things that can endanger a democracy and as part of the Election Committee, if you were to want to sabotage this election or turn it into a farce, you would be well positioned to do so. If you want that the IAM gets a reputation for running fair and impartial election, credit for this would certainly fall on you and your team. Running good reputable elections will encourage more candidates and more distinguished leaders in this field, which is what I believe we all want.

I think that if you had that in mind, you would refrain from the kind of comments you made above. I suspect you have formed the opinion that I am a disrespectful person who needs to be given what he dishes out. In running my election campaign, I have made some moves which you and your Election Committee did not agree with, but I haven’t crossed any lines yet which you feel would warrant taking me out of the election game. Thanks for keeping me in. I like elections and the debates. I like it when people start to think about issues and that perhaps an election is the time for the spark to get something important done, to get that bridge or wall built. This is what makes it all worth it. I have come to believe that if we had had better world leadership in memory sport, that here in Canada we would be miles ahead of from where we are now. That is why I think this election is important and why I am involved in it. I have other things to say about the other replies on this thread, some ideas I want to share but that will be for my next post.


PS. Right now, I do feel that the partisan comments you made about me in this thread warrant an apology from your Election Committee to me. IAM Candidates need to have reason to believe that you are impartial to all of us and your prejudice shows here.

Dear namesake, you are right about your nitpicking, I stand corrected here. Thank you.

On the topic, I would disagree that going to an event to diminish it wouldn’t be effective.

However, I do get your point that it would not feel right, even if logically it would be right to engage in such action.

This brings me back to a point I made at the beginning. We may be simply witnessing a parallel world where they have their own World Memory Championship and we have to agree with that, even if it is unacceptable.

And then I thought last night that to make the situation bearable, we might want to view the World Memory Championships as a two headed snake: It does not matter which head crowns the World Memory Champion because it all goes down in the same digestive system. Maybe the best thing to do would be to accept this situation and perhaps alternate meal times with the two heads.

Working out a fair mealtime schedule with each head may be the most respectful way to go. That would likely mean for the IAM to crown a world champion of memory every two year, if the WMSC would agree to do the same. They might agree you know.

As a matter of fact, I like the idea so much that I will talk to Francis about sharing alternate years to determine the Canadian Memory Champion. It would be great if we could solve our differences that way. We wouldn’t be living with alternate worlds and two canadian memory champions anymore but simply with a two headed organization. To me, that is much more sensible. What do guys think?

1 Like

Sorry Simon, I don’t have time to read three pages of what I am sure are perfectly valid arguments.

Just know that I still will do my best as long as I am in the election committee and for all memory athletes out there.

Wishing you the best, I am going back to my wife and kids now.

Have a great life !


I am glad you recognize my enthusiasm and still find time to reply to my posts. I guess I found a way to go around your monitoring of my posts: just overwhelm the poor reader with extra long posts. Don’t worry, there wasn’t anything explosive there… I think.

I guess I am trying to make up with the lack of online participation from the other candidates.

By the way, how is the vote counting going?


Hi everyone, I just did as I suggested I would in this thread, and Francis gave me a prompt answer: he is not interested in my offer.

I guess if the IAM were to offer that same kind of deal with the WMSC, the IAM would get the same reply that I got from Francis.

Since I do respect the integrity of the titles that the Canadian Memory Championships has to offer, and that we can no longer offer the Canadian Memory Championship Title without bringing us into conflict with the other organisation who will dish out the title anyway and without giving us any alternate years, when we would be in charge, I will be talking to my Board about discontinuing our flagship title. We could find other titles to use, like just using the city name in the Championship title. It won’t sound as good but it will feel great not to be conflicting and confusing anyone. This may bring us luck.

The same goes for the IAM. If the WMSC would not agree to rotate the years between the two organizations, I would recommend that the IAM stops from calling its flagship yearly event as a World Memory Championship.

I think doing that would be the right thing to do, as it would feel right. IAM Members would not flee back to the WMSC as a result. IAM members are not that egoistical that they won’t be able to live without one of them calling him/her self World Champion, I think.

I guess I went from suggesting a way to undermine the old WMSC to believing we should totally get out of their way, if they don’t want to alternate the World Championship Title.

I think I will attempt to prove to the world that this is the right way to go by leading the way here in Canada and showing how it is done.

Now I just need a bit of luck.

The IAM is supposed to be better than the WMSC in terms of ethics, not worse. So I hope no one will follow your leads. If the IAM would go your way, I would be looking forward to a third organization competing to IAM and the WMSC. If we had a third organisation you would have caused the number of organisations to increase not to decrease.


Philodoof, would you mind clarifying your position?

I am not sure what you are talking about. My conclusion here is that the IAM should share with the WMSC the duty of finding the World Champion of Memory but if WMSC does not agree to this, then the IAM should refrain from calling its own IAM champion, such as this year’s Vienna Champion as a World Champion of Memory. The IAM should just call him something like, the 2018 IAM Vienna Open Champion.

If it is wrong to go to a WMSC event to diminish it, then how is it not wrong to issue the same championship title as they do to our event? Unless you can answer to these points, your position isn’t really clear. What you think is unethical in my position is not pointed out. In your opinion, is it unethical for two organizations to alternate each year in finding the World Memory Champion? Is that what you find unethical about my position?

I’m referring to suggestions like that “So, perhaps more IAM members (especially the top IAM memory athletes) should attend the old WMSC event and not pick up any prize if they win there and just dismiss the old WMSC competition as a good rehearsal for the real thing, the IAM WMSC (if any reporter are interested in what they think)” and therefore I agree with Silvio, Simon and Guillaume.

1 Like

I see, @Philodoof. Well, I wasn’t suggesting that you or anyone else actually does that.

I was simply considering this possible action as a question, or idea. I was considering this idea because someone had done something very similar to what I describe at one of my memory competitions, and I felt perplexed by this behavior.

In my opinion, to suggest that this idea or suggested course of action is “my way” does not do justice to what I said and how I said it.

I am glad to hear you think this is a dumb idea. I agree with you on that. And yet, I am still glad I shared this idea in the first place because the insight of my namesake on this thread helped me figure out why it was a dumb idea and what ought to be done instead.

Two women claim some baby is theirs. Solomon has this idea, he says, "Lets cut the baby in half and give each one of you women your share of the child. "
Isn’t Solomon a real dumb and dangerous guy? Shouldn’t people avoid a stupid guy like that? The answer is maybe not, it all depends.

1 Like

Hey Simon,

I think the whole premise of this post is really ill-fitting for the memory sports world and goes against everything that it stands for.

No one should be talking about undermining anyone else.

I agree, one main competition or single governing body for the sport would probably drive the sport further, quicker. But as of now, there are lots of people with differing opinions, he-said-she-said kinda things regarding this competition and that, so it’s hard to really know what’s what. Is this competition running things fairly? Are those guys rebels? From whose point of view? Etc.

I think for the moment, the best thing to do is allow the competitors to happily choose where and when they want to compete. If there happen to be more “world/national championships” then so be it, it allows more opportunity for the sport to get heard and seen, and more opportunities for competitors to compete.

Please don’t try and introduce some evil tactics in the sport - it doesn’t need that right now.



Hey, Nelson, thanks for the recommendation although I don’t believe I was trying to do as you suggest.

I no longer think myself that a single world body is the best way to go to further the sport. I think a multi- headed body is the best way in the current situation.

As a result of all this discussion here, I think I will continue to run the Canadian Memory Championships, but I won’t claim anymore that my organization is about finding the Memory Champion of Canada. From now on, we will just be finding the memory champion of the Canadian Memory Championships (not of Canada) on a yearly basis.

The thing about sports really, in my opinion, is that they should bring people together, and work for peace in this way. If you care nothing for that, then you go ahead and create another organization, errect walls, ban some people and then call your organization “National”, as you live in contempt of the other organization that was there before you. That is being a rebel, in my opinion.

The IAM can therefore count as a rebel organization when it calls its main event a “world memory championship” and I think it should stir away from doing that out of respect for the integrity of the sport, and of the world champion of memory title.

It is a big thing to be a World Champion but when there are different organizations that issue the same title, how do you know who is the world’s best really? Is there a point to the title anymore when this happens?

So, what I would suggest for the International Association of Memory is to steer away from claiming that it crowns a world or even an international memory champion (that sounds too much like a world champion and means the same). All the IAM should do is to claim that it finds the memory champion of its organization.

The IAM as a right to do so without earning a rebel badge for itself in my opinion. The title of world champion is in the hands of those who started it and out of respect for them ( and the sport), ethically it should remain there unless they want to share it somehow.

Quite honestly, I think the title of Memory Champion of the IAM can become more prestigious than the title of World Champion of Memory, and that should be the goal of the IAM.
That is very doable. As this objective is being achieved, the title of World Champion of Memory would be undermined, (even without anyone else using their own specific title but simply because a big memory league isn’t even being acknowledged in the old WMSCs’ World). This would be a good thing, in my opinion.

When the world is divided, you simply can’t honestly have a single world champion and I think we do live in a divided world. So, in our times, the title of world champion should really be a laughable title anyway.

So if the IAM does recognize this situation and responds appropriately by not offering a world champion title but just an organization championship title, it would earn brownie points
for itself on the cognition scale.

If you want to have a real world champion but still not have anything to do with the other organization, then the title could be shared around on alternate years between the organizations that want this title. This would be good for the sport. It would allow to surmount our differences in order to join together even with two different organizations ruling the sport on alternate years.

The alternative would be to spend energy trying to bridge the gap between the two organizations, but I don’t think this will happen.

Ultimately, if the IAM grows well, it could promise the old WMSC to have its members attend their world event if it will agree to share the World Memory Champion title with them on alternate years. This would be a way to make peace between the two organizations without having to resolve anything about what is wrong with the other. In this way, scenarios such as the one I describe with people going to a competition to lessen its prestige actually never need to occur.

Just letting people decide can be difficult. People see the split, and don’t want to go either way as they don’t want to be put on the spot. People want a hobby not politics. I have seen this sort of backing off happen this year due to the split we have here.

In the end I think memory competitors need to see clearly which organization is preventing the sport from coming together. The answer to that can be both sides are responsible but if you see on one side the willingness to share the title and refusal on the other side, you know who really cares about the sport and the world championship title.

That is why I asked Francis Blondin if he were willing to share the title on alternate years for the Canadian Championship but he
says he isn’t interested. So, I will be able to show that the title of Canadian Memory Champion is in the hands of someone who seeks a monopoly over it, even as he took it while it was already in use.

I think this will help me sell the idea to people and competitors that they should participate in my memory competition instead of his and show him not to be fair to the sport but instead fair to other things or objectives. I will be able to make that point for as long as he keeps claiming to crowning the National Memory Champion while I only claim to crown a Memory Champion of the Canadian Memory Championship ( not of Canada) . If we both start claiming to be only crowning the champions of our own organizations then, why not decide to alternate the good sounding between the two organizations? There is no point in not using such a great title if no one else as an interest in it.

You know, when we got into a heated debate Braden, Francis and I, Braden at some point wrote to me that I didn’t own the Canadian Memory Championship, and now he takes part in an organization that behaves as if it owns the National Memory Championship.

There is no reason to want to quarrel with anyone over the issuing of a good sounding title. Appropriating for one’s self the title and not wanting to share it when there would be positive outcomes if that title were shared is doing something selfish, not sport, and that is not the best way to help the sport.

So, if you read all this and think this is about introducing an evil into the sport that it does not need, would you mind sharing with people why you think this is an evil idea? I just think you aren’t following what I say.

Anyway, the election is over and yes, I have won it but in the wrong catagory (nos) so you may want to save your message for next year when I will run again. I am going to try and get my supporters to participate in memory league competition this year, so they will be able to vote next time.

Also, if you know what the sport needs or does not need, then why didn’t you run in this election? And thanks for finally getting into this discussion. It shows you care about the topic and about the sport, I think.

I will always be willing to try and undermine any devil. If you want to protect the devil, I regret but I am unlikely to hear what you have to say very well.

By the way, aren’t there a lot of active shooters wrecking havoc in your country? Maybe that is the issue there with you US guys being too nice to everybody. You do have to undermine others sometimes for your own good. Work to get good gun control legislation in your country, please, if you have any spare time.

@SimonLuisi some parts of your last post are just beneath contempt.


I hope you’re not surprised that you got so many “No” votes in the election…