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/

I too noticed that the biggest change I found was between class III and
class IV. Another big change I noticed was when I moved from the east coast
to the west coast. I had done a few big water runs in the east but they
seemed nothing like the one's in the west. To me, generally speaking, west
coast big water class III feels like a class IV; whereas their technical,
lower volume class IV feels like a class III. I've noticed in some of the
western whitewater books they make mention if the river is a big water run
which is exactly what I like to know. It would be nice if that could be a
staple in all whitewater books.

Courtney


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/

"Courtney" wrote in message
ink.net...
I too noticed that the biggest change I found was between class III and
class IV. Another big change I noticed was when I moved from the east
coast
to the west coast. I had done a few big water runs in the east but they
seemed nothing like the one's in the west. To me, generally speaking,
west
coast big water class III feels like a class IV; whereas their technical,
lower volume class IV feels like a class III. I've noticed in some of the
western whitewater books they make mention if the river is a big water run
which is exactly what I like to know. It would be nice if that could be a
staple in all whitewater books.



Yes, your perceptions are right on, Courtney. The lines get blurry at the
edges.

The reason for disparity at the Class III, Class IV boundary is that class
I,II and III rapids are primarily rated by canoeists, as that's their
'specialty water' and they can really split hairs. Class III+ is up near the
top end, and to an open boater, looks awful similar to Class IV-.

Likewise, class IV and V water is primarily rated by yakkers, as that is
their specialty water, and to them, class III looks suspiciously similar
to easy class IV.

As a result, there are a LOT of rapids rated class 3+ or 4- which have very
little similarity, except that they are really challenging for an open boat
and a bit easy for a kayak.

Similarly, eastern water is rated by yakkers and canoeists, but western
water is rated by rafters. Eastern boaters wouldn't automatically add a few
levels just because there are rocks in a rapid, but western boaters
(especially big water boaters) freak out at rocks. Look at Hance in the GC:
no way thats a 10, but tell that to those rubber boaters who are used to
punching 10 foot waves. Similarly, try to convince an east coast boater
that, just because there's a 10 foot wave in a rapid, its not necessarily a
class V.

In fact, when I travelled around the NW around 1985 or so, and was running
(eastern-style class 3) water in my BlueHole 17A, I was what most easterners
considered a dinosaur and an advanced-intermediate boater, but on most of
the western rivers I ran, no one had ever seen a canoeist before, and I was
cutting edge. Rather funny at the time. :-)

--riverman

You're right about many western boaters freaking out about rocks.
Personally I love them. They make the rapids fun and full of possibilities!

I don't know anything about class III and less generally rated by canoeist
and IV and V by kayakers. I haven't really paid that much attention to what
paddlers are rating what. I personally find that in a canoe or a kayak the
rapids seem about the same to me. In fact strangely enough, I find paddling
some class IV's in my canoe easier than in my kayak. Yet I've paddled V's
in my kayak but would never take my canoe on one. Don't ask me why because
really I don't know why. I know everyone is different but I can't see why
there would be a real difference between kayakers and canoeists and their
ratings? As I mentioned I personally find them to feel basically equal. I
can understand that I see more kayakers on class IV / V. Maybe that's it.
Can you expand on how you came to that?

Courtney

"riverman" wrote in message
...

"Courtney" wrote in message
ink.net...
I too noticed that the biggest change I found was between class III and
class IV. Another big change I noticed was when I moved from the east
coast
to the west coast. I had done a few big water runs in the east but they
seemed nothing like the one's in the west. To me, generally speaking,
west
coast big water class III feels like a class IV; whereas their
technical,
lower volume class IV feels like a class III. I've noticed in some of
the
western whitewater books they make mention if the river is a big water
run
which is exactly what I like to know. It would be nice if that could be
a
staple in all whitewater books.



Yes, your perceptions are right on, Courtney. The lines get blurry at the
edges.

The reason for disparity at the Class III, Class IV boundary is that class

I,II and III rapids are primarily rated by canoeists, as that's their
'specialty water' and they can really split hairs. Class III+ is up near
the
top end, and to an open boater, looks awful similar to Class IV-.

Likewise, class IV and V water is primarily rated by yakkers, as that is
their specialty water, and to them, class III looks suspiciously similar
to easy class IV.

As a result, there are a LOT of rapids rated class 3+ or 4- which have
very
little similarity, except that they are really challenging for an open
boat
and a bit easy for a kayak.

Similarly, eastern water is rated by yakkers and canoeists, but western
water is rated by rafters. Eastern boaters wouldn't automatically add a
few
levels just because there are rocks in a rapid, but western boaters
(especially big water boaters) freak out at rocks. Look at Hance in the
GC:
no way thats a 10, but tell that to those rubber boaters who are used to
punching 10 foot waves. Similarly, try to convince an east coast boater
that, just because there's a 10 foot wave in a rapid, its not necessarily
a
class V.

In fact, when I travelled around the NW around 1985 or so, and was running
(eastern-style class 3) water in my BlueHole 17A, I was what most
easterners
considered a dinosaur and an advanced-intermediate boater, but on most of
the western rivers I ran, no one had ever seen a canoeist before, and I
was
cutting edge. Rather funny at the time. :-)

--riverman

"Courtney" wrote in message
ink.net...
You're right about many western boaters freaking out about rocks.
Personally I love them. They make the rapids fun and full of
possibilities!

I don't know anything about class III and less generally rated by canoeist
and IV and V by kayakers. I haven't really paid that much attention to
what
paddlers are rating what. I personally find that in a canoe or a kayak
the
rapids seem about the same to me. In fact strangely enough, I find
paddling
some class IV's in my canoe easier than in my kayak. Yet I've paddled V's
in my kayak but would never take my canoe on one. Don't ask me why
because
really I don't know why. I know everyone is different but I can't see why
there would be a real difference between kayakers and canoeists and their
ratings? As I mentioned I personally find them to feel basically equal.
I
can understand that I see more kayakers on class IV / V. Maybe that's it.
Can you expand on how you came to that?

Courtney

Sure, let me try to explain.

Read the rating scale; who is it written for? If it were truly just a
quantitative descriptive scale which allowed boaters to make their own
assessments about whether or not a rapid could be run, then why does it
contain such qualifiers as 'easy', 'moderate', 'advanced'? Those descriptors
are accurate only from the eye of a kayaker: class 1 really IS 'easy', class
2 really is 'novice', class 4 IS 'advanced', class 5 IS 'expert'. But to a
traditional open canoe, no floatation, no saddle, those descriptors are
skewed, especially at the upper end. Class 1 is novice, class 2+/3- is
'advanced', class 3+/4- is 'expert', class 5 is suicidal. Its NOT an
'intermediate' canoeist who is running large class 3 rapids. Intermediate
canoeists are the folks who lead summer camp. :-)

(Let me add, also, that this is not an inappropriate or immature type of
canoe. Tripping or recreational canoes are traditionally one of the most
common inland vessels on rivers, especially in the east. When a canoe is
given rocker, floatation, a saddle and thigh straps, gear is lashed in,
etc...it becomes a new thing. A canoe-kayak hybrid. As such (being more
similar to a kayak than a tripping canoe), the rating scale will naturally
tend to fit better. But remember; the scale is allegedly NOT supposed to be
taking different types of boats into consideration...)

But canoeists are the ones who spend their lives on the smaller rapids. Yes,
they probably do feel quite similar in a canoe or a kayak, but the
difference is that an open general-purpose boat is at the upper sweet spot
of its intended use range in class 2, while a kayak is way at the bottom.
Canoeists will be able to clearly differentiate between a class 2- and 2+
river, because those differences will affect their boat greatly. A kayak,
however, will not be much affected by the differences, and will not be so
good at differentiating the ratings. Thus, Class 1-3 rapids are pretty much
defined by how they affect canoes, class 3-5 by how they affect kayaks.

--riverman