"riverman" typed

The interesting thing about western ratings is that there is no numerical
classification for 'unrunnable'. Class 10 often is described as "an
inexperienced boatman in a good quality boat has less than a 50-50 chance of
making it right-side up." I like the 10-step breakdown, too, since it
clears up some of that vast grey area between Class III and Class IV on the
traditional grading scale.

Myron, I think you bin away from home to long. As far as I know there
is no "western" 10-step scale in the US any longer. The only 10-step
scale I know about is the "Grand Canyon Scale", applied only on the
Grand Canyon, as an historical artifact.

The Class 10 you describe could only conceivably apply to rafts and
dories (only guessing about the latter, since I have no experience
with dories). I would say that, in the 6-step International Scale of
River Difficulty, which we and the Europeans try to follow, an
inexperienced kayaker or canoeist in a good quality boat would have
less than 50% chance of making it through a Class III rapid right-side
up. (In fact, the ratings map very closely to skill levels:
I-Beginner, II-Novice, III-Intermediate, IV-Advanced, V-Expert,
VI-God).

Which brings up a problem, and perhaps the reason the 10-step scale
has fallen into disuse: if the rating of the rapid must be changed to
suit the craft, then you are not actually rating the rapid, *per se*,
you are rating the rapid/craft combination. By contemporary thinking,
the difficulty of a rapid should be intrinsic to the rapid, measured
by objective criteria, and irrelevant to the nature of any craft that
might attempt the rapid.

I think.

-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty
--
================================================== ====================
Richard Hopley, Winston-Salem, NC, USA
rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net 1-301-775-0471
Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll.
rhople[at]wfubmc[dot]edu 1-336-713-5077
OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters.
================================================== ====================

Which brings up a problem, and perhaps the reason the 10-step scale
has fallen into disuse: if the rating of the rapid must be changed to
suit the craft, then you are not actually rating the rapid, *per se*,
you are rating the rapid/craft combination. By contemporary thinking,
the difficulty of a rapid should be intrinsic to the rapid, measured
by objective criteria, and irrelevant to the nature of any craft that
might attempt the rapid.

I think we should rate rapids based on a combination of both the rapid, the
boat, and the paddler. For instance, there is a rapid, that shall remain
nameless due to embarrassment, that flips me every time. It's "easier" than
many other rapids I paddle, and I've done it a few dozen times, and yet, it
flips me. I think it should be at least a V.

Geoff

Geoff Jennings wrote:

I think we should rate rapids based on a combination of both the rapid, the
boat, and the paddler. For instance, there is a rapid, that shall remain
nameless due to embarrassment, that flips me every time. It's "easier" than
many other rapids I paddle, and I've done it a few dozen times, and yet, it
flips me. I think it should be at least a V.

big grin

Come to think of it, I know a rapid which my GF refuses to run, because
she's "not sure that she's good enough". She accidentally ran it several
years ago, acing it. Now that she's progressed several classes and finds
it well within her ability, she seems to find new excuses not to run it.

Funny thing is that she runs much harder stuff everywhere else, just not
that one rapid.

--
Wilko van den Bergh
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

"Geoff Jennings" typed:

[snip hypothesis]

I think we should rate rapids based on a combination of both the rapid, the
boat, and the paddler. For instance, there is a rapid, that shall remain
nameless due to embarrassment, that flips me every time. It's "easier" than
many other rapids I paddle, and I've done it a few dozen times, and yet, it
flips me. I think it should be at least a V.

This, Geoff, seems like an elementary problem in physics. Get one of
yer grad students on it.

-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty
--
================================================== ====================
Richard Hopley, Winston-Salem, NC, USA
rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net 1-301-775-0471
Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll.
rhople[at]wfubmc[dot]edu 1-336-713-5077
OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters.
================================================== ====================

"Oci-One Kanubi" wrote in message
m...
"riverman" typed
Which brings up a problem, and perhaps the reason the 10-step scale
has fallen into disuse: if the rating of the rapid must be changed to
suit the craft, then you are not actually rating the rapid, *per se*,
you are rating the rapid/craft combination. By contemporary thinking,
the difficulty of a rapid should be intrinsic to the rapid, measured
by objective criteria, and irrelevant to the nature of any craft that
might attempt the rapid.

I think.


Well, there you go thinking again. We've warned you about that. :-)

Anytime a rating description uses a boat, then its impossible for it NOT to
be a rapid/craft combination. The Class 10 explanation "An inexperienced
boatman in a dependable craft..." actually implies a rapid/craft/boatman
skill connection. However, I think these are all interpretations of the
river itself, and the craft/boatman connection comes out in the description
only. Exactly like what happens when you try to translate from one language
to another. Maybe "petit amie" translates exactly to "little friend" in
english, but any french-speaker know that it really means the equivalent
of 'girlfriend'. I say "the equavalent" because that is an English
translation of a French word. The actual word, to any Frenchman, is "petit
amie".

Saying "a rapid is Class III" means exactly the same thing to a canoeist, a
doryman, a kayaker, a paddleboater and a swimmer; the rapid is Class III.
How they translate that to a flatlander varies according to the boatman,
the craft, etc. The problem is that we keep trying to translate river
rating systems, even to other boatmen, when we really need to just learn to
think in them.

--riverman

riverman wrote:

Well, there you go thinking again. We've warned you about that. :-)

Exactly like what happens when you try to translate from one language
to another. Maybe "petit amie" translates exactly to "little friend" in
english, but any french-speaker know that it really means the equivalent
of 'girlfriend'. I say "the equavalent" because that is an English
translation of a French word. The actual word, to any Frenchman, is "petit
amie".

Oh my, now you're getting on a slippery slope: with all the languages
being spoken by the posters on paddling forums, even those who share a
common language (i.e. English) can get confused by the use of that
language by other native speakers.

I remember an incident where a British paddler told a U.S. paddler who
just had a bad experience to get ****ed. The U.S. paddler took that as
to get mad, even though the advise of the first person was to get
completely drunk...

Saying "a rapid is Class III" means exactly the same thing to a canoeist, a
doryman, a kayaker, a paddleboater and a swimmer; the rapid is Class III.
How they translate that to a flatlander varies according to the boatman,
the craft, etc. The problem is that we keep trying to translate river
rating systems, even to other boatmen, when we really need to just learn to
think in them.

When I first started paddling with open boaters in the U.S., I
recognised their ratings of rapids. What baffled me was that their lines
seemed to be so much different than mine! If I rate a rapid, I take a
"virtual" line through a rapid in a kayak and I do so in the assumption
that it's the easiest route down. It's often possible to run harder
lines in that same rapid, but that's not all that interesting for rating
it, IMO.

Now here come these open boaters who run something unknown to me,
leading. I follow them blindly, faithfully, and get hammered in some holes!

A good lesson from those trips is to pick my own line, but taking their
remarks about possible dangers at heart! :-)
The best open boater's line through a rapid isn't always the best
kayaker's line.

--
Wilko van den Bergh
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.
http://wilko.webzone.ru/

"Wilko" wrote in message
news:dKX9b.44958$tK5.5233861@zonnet-reader-1...
riverman wrote:

Well, there you go thinking again. We've warned you about that. :-)

Exactly like what happens when you try to translate from one language
to another. Maybe "petit amie" translates exactly to "little friend" in
english, but any french-speaker know that it really means the
equivalent
of 'girlfriend'. I say "the equavalent" because that is an English
translation of a French word. The actual word, to any Frenchman, is
"petit
amie".

Oh my, now you're getting on a slippery slope: with all the languages
being spoken by the posters on paddling forums, even those who share a
common language (i.e. English) can get confused by the use of that
language by other native speakers.


Too true, which highlights my statement that we all need to "think in River
Grades, not in translations of River Grades." When someone says 'its a class
4', everyone in every boat, every country, every experience level should be
visualizing the same type of difficulty. Then they can each determine for
themselves if they can run it, in the boat they currently are sitting in.
But the rating is a property of the rapid, not of the boater, boat or skill.

When I first started paddling with open boaters in the U.S., I
recognised their ratings of rapids. What baffled me was that their lines
seemed to be so much different than mine! If I rate a rapid, I take a
"virtual" line through a rapid in a kayak and I do so in the assumption
that it's the easiest route down. It's often possible to run harder
lines in that same rapid, but that's not all that interesting for rating
it, IMO.

Which brings us to the REAL question: is a rating for a rapid, or for a
line? I think that it should be for the line, exactly how climbers rate
climbs, not mountains. Saying "Zungo Rapids" is a IV could mean several
things: the easiest run through is a IV, the most common route is a IV, or
the 'average' route is a IV. These have vastly different ramifications, so
instead, it would be wise to say "the popular route down the middle is a IV,
the sneak route on the left is a II, and there's a class V run if you go
down the right." I think most boaters talk to each other that way all the
time, but the guidebooks seem out of synch.

And open boaters will alway overrate rapids. Its just too damn embarassing
to be that scared and wet after a class II rapid! It must have been class
IV... Mary had a post several years ago about swimming a class III, and it
really highlighted how people overrate rapids. I'll see if I can find it.

--riverman

riverman wrote:

Which brings us to the REAL question: is a rating for a rapid, or for a
line? I think that it should be for the line, exactly how climbers rate
climbs, not mountains. Saying "Zungo Rapids" is a IV could mean several
things: the easiest run through is a IV, the most common route is a IV, or
the 'average' route is a IV. These have vastly different ramifications, so
instead, it would be wise to say "the popular route down the middle is a IV,
the sneak route on the left is a II, and there's a class V run if you go
down the right." I think most boaters talk to each other that way all the
time, but the guidebooks seem out of synch.

That's something we don't often have to worry about in Britain, most of
our rapids only have one line on those terms. That is to say you can hit
the same features in a variety of ways or places but mostly they are
either riverwide, or the difficulty doesn't change across the river :-)

When we talk about good or bad lines, we are normally talking about
those few inches that make a difference between styling and hurting!

Just thinking about some of the multi-line rapids over here, and almost
all are clearly described as such in any existing guides. Orchy chicken
chute: 3 left 4 right and centre, Tyne chicken chute: 2 left 4 centre 3
right, wow I can't easily think of any others where different routes
have different grades and I think I just noticed another clue in the
names of the ones that do :-)

Now different grades at different levels always amuses me, I like the
way that on the Orchy some rapids are harder at high flows and some are
easier :-)

JIM

I always liked the way of describing grades as

grade 1 take the mother in law
grade 2 take the girlfriend
grade 3 take the wife
grade 4 take the mistress
grade 5 take the photographs
grade 6 take the mother-in-law

Change to suit your sex

old joke I know but someone might not have heard it
--
Dave Manby
Details of the Coruh river and my book "Many Rivers To Run" at
http://www.dmanby.demon.co.uk

Dave Manby writes:

I always liked the way of describing grades as

grade 1 take the mother in law
grade 2 take the girlfriend
grade 3 take the wife
grade 4 take the mistress
grade 5 take the photographs
grade 6 take the mother-in-law

Change to suit your sex

Not sure that'll work; women might have intentions toward members of
the opposite sex that go beyond either wanting to impress them or
wanting to kill them. Just guessing...

--
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::
Mary Malmros
Some days you're the windshield,
Other days you're the bug.