riverman wrote:


Nonetheless, we can morph this into a rating system thread, if you want. :-)

Sure, why not, RBP seems to have come alive again, and I enjoy the
direction that some of these discussions are going. :-)

What do you think: two identically skilled paddlers in the same type boat,
on the same day, paddling the same river together. One is dressed
appropriately, one is underdressed significantly. Is the river rated the
same?

Not according to me. I rate the difficulty of a rapid by how difficult
it is to stay on the line, i.e. the skill necessary to stay on that
particular line through that rapid.

Danger or risk is not part of the rating for me, but it does have a big
impact on whether or not I would run something, despite the rating.

I was thinking about this on the way home, and began to get a grip on the
problem with the rating system...allow me to soapbox a bit.

:-)

The solution is simple. The first step has to be to clearly and
unambiguously define as much about that 'imaginary person' as possible. What
boat, what clothing, what skills, etc. And that imaginary person has to be
standard for all rivers, everywhere. Of course, we can always invoke the
'reasonable man test', as they do in law. "A reasonable person in such a
situation", but I don't think the disparate types of boaters could ever come
to agreement on what a standardized 'reasonable man' is. But until it is
clearly defined, any attempt to make a river rating system is doomed to
failure.

Hmmm, so what according to you does the clothing of said imaginary
boater have to do with how difficult it is for him to stay on his line?

Anyway, my proposal: some recognized authoritative body must clearly define
who the 'Reasonable Boater' is: what skills, what boat, what gear, as well
as what the environmental situation is: what temp (air and water), what
river level, what sky conditions are, etc. Then, all rating systems
worldwide would be correlated and usable. If a person was in a more stable
boat than the Reasonable Boater Standard, they could modify *all* river
rating worldwide by just adjusting the rating system on their local river
accordingly. Sort of their personal handicap.

Sounds a bit like (in part) what AW has tried to do...

In this way, a river's actual rating is meaningless. There is NO 'class 4
rapid', because no one is really the Reasonable Boater. But what is class 4
for YOU may be class 3 for someone who is a much stronger paddler, and
class 5 for a newbie. Which actually represents reality much more, since
people will argue all day about whether a class 4 rapid is runnable.

I think that most difficulty ratings have grey areas, but for me the
clearest line was the one between class III and class IV. Suddenly I
found myself acutely aware of the differences between the two, it just
felt so clearly different. Now that I've run plenty of each, I find that
they seem to get closer, but still I find them to be rather clearly
distinquishable. Do we need a clearer distinction? Maybe... For me it's
more an indicator that is joined by a number of equally subjective
arguments and measurements like tiredness, confidence, risk, danger,
distance from the nearest help and so on.

Wilko

--
Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.---
http://wilko.webzone.ru/