The Problem with River Grading Systems
 

(This is a repost from another thread. I thought it might be worth its own
discussion.)


What do you think:
a) 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 rapid rated the
same for each of them?
b) Two paddlers on the same river the same day, one is a novice, one is an
expert. Is the rapid rated the same for each of them?
c) One is in a canoe, one is in a raft. Is the rapid rated the same for each
of them?
d) A rapid is rated a class 5 (unrunnable) in 1992, but since then, new
materials and techniques makes it quite runnable by advanced boaters. Is it
still a class 5 rapid?

Most folks would say YES to questions a-c, and claim that the rapid rating
is based on the characteristics of the water, not the boater. But they also
say NO to question d, although the rating is now being based on the
characteristics of the boater.

I was thinking about this on the way home, and began to get a grip on the
problem with the rating system, and why people argue enlessly about whether
canoes can run class 4, or whether class 5 is runnable, or wheter a certain
rapid ought to be downgraded once its been run enough times, or even if a
class 3 in an open boat is a class 3 in a squirt kayak.

With most quanititative measurements, the questions being asked are innate,
and divorced from the observer. For example: how high is the wave at 5000
cfs? How fast is the current behind that rock? Whats the volume of water at
4 feet on the guage? Asking the question implies measureing something
without actually interacting with or affecting the measurement. As a result,
the answer is identical for all observers.

But when try to give a rating system to a river or rapid, we are asking a
very specific question: how hard is the river to run? That implies
explicitly that we are imagining someone interacting with that river, which
means we have to clearly define who that person is. And as obvious as that
statement is (I guarantee that almost everyone reading this is saying "well,
duh!"), as obvious as that question is, we go to great lengths to avoid
answering it! Rating systems try to quantify all sorts of unbiased,
measurable data: stuff like how much whitewater there is, how many rocks,
accessibility to egress and rescue, size of the waves, etc. Often, rating
systems try to avoid the 'how likely is an average boater to capsize' types
of assessments, and they step fully into the trap: no one has ever clearly
defined who they are talking about, but they MUST because of the question
being asked.

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.

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.

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.

--riverman

The temperature of the air and water should not enter into the rating system
at all. I want to know that a class V in Alaska is the same as a class V in
Costa Rica. I'll use my judgement as a reasoning human being to figure out
that glacial melt in Alaska might require different gear than tropical
water. My local river at 3,000 cfs should be rated as class III after a
summer rain storm or in December when the water temp is about freezing.
It's the moving water that's rated, not the weather. or the gear or the
type of boat or the skill of the paddler. If you're a newbie, then a class
III could be a river of death, but knowing roughly what is meant by class
III should inform you enough to influence your decision to run the river.
The thing that has always bothered me about the rating system is that it
doesn't seem to take into account life-threatening features differently than
just big features. A line of bus-sized waves seems to sway the rating
higher, even though nothing dangerous would be likely to happen to a person
with average water savvy. If two of those ten waves are hard keepers, or
there are undercut banks, I'd like to see rating tons higher.
Maybe the rating scale needs to be like the Richter scale and have the
difficulty increase exponentially for every 0.1 point. (That's a class 4;
but a 4.4 after a heavy rain.)
Or maybe the tenth could be coded to mean something:
0.1 caution after heavy rains
0.2 parts of river inaccessible/unexitable
0.3 drops of death
0.4 open boats not recommended
0.5 big but not unfriendly
0.6 cold water - danger of hypothermia
etc.
I guess that might lead to class IV.3.4.6

Mike in Lunenburg, NS


"riverman" wrote in message
...
(This is a repost from another thread. I thought it might be worth its own
discussion.)


What do you think:
a) 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 rapid rated the
same for each of them?
b) Two paddlers on the same river the same day, one is a novice, one is an
expert. Is the rapid rated the same for each of them?
c) One is in a canoe, one is in a raft. Is the rapid rated the same for
each
of them?
d) A rapid is rated a class 5 (unrunnable) in 1992, but since then, new
materials and techniques makes it quite runnable by advanced boaters. Is
it
still a class 5 rapid?

Most folks would say YES to questions a-c, and claim that the rapid rating
is based on the characteristics of the water, not the boater. But they
also
say NO to question d, although the rating is now being based on the
characteristics of the boater.

I was thinking about this on the way home, and began to get a grip on the
problem with the rating system, and why people argue enlessly about
whether
canoes can run class 4, or whether class 5 is runnable, or wheter a
certain
rapid ought to be downgraded once its been run enough times, or even if a
class 3 in an open boat is a class 3 in a squirt kayak.

With most quanititative measurements, the questions being asked are
innate,
and divorced from the observer. For example: how high is the wave at 5000
cfs? How fast is the current behind that rock? Whats the volume of water
at
4 feet on the guage? Asking the question implies measureing something
without actually interacting with or affecting the measurement. As a
result,
the answer is identical for all observers.

But when try to give a rating system to a river or rapid, we are asking a
very specific question: how hard is the river to run? That implies
explicitly that we are imagining someone interacting with that river,
which
means we have to clearly define who that person is. And as obvious as that
statement is (I guarantee that almost everyone reading this is saying
"well,
duh!"), as obvious as that question is, we go to great lengths to avoid
answering it! Rating systems try to quantify all sorts of unbiased,
measurable data: stuff like how much whitewater there is, how many rocks,
accessibility to egress and rescue, size of the waves, etc. Often, rating
systems try to avoid the 'how likely is an average boater to capsize'
types
of assessments, and they step fully into the trap: no one has ever clearly
defined who they are talking about, but they MUST because of the question
being asked.

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.

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.

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.

--riverman

You can't rate routes according to the ability of the traveller. For
example, the routes on a road map may be marked differently if they are
primary (paved two lane) or secondary (gravel single lane). Just because a
single lane gravel road might be "primary" for a farm tractor doesn't mean
the map should show it as a primary road.

Standards have to be objective, not subjective. When they become
subjective, like in our teacher-dominated schools, they loose their
meaning and usefulness, which is why we see university students who cannot
read and write.

If you start to rate river routes accordign to the ability of the paddler
then paddling will be controlled by so-called "certified paddling
instructors" and rivers will become like schools. Better to keep our
rivers out of their greedy grasp.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William R Watt National Capital FreeNet Ottawa's free community network
homepage: www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm
warning: non-FreeNet email must have "notspam" in subject or it's returned

"Mike Taylor" wrote in message
...
The temperature of the air and water should not enter into the rating
system
at all. I want to know that a class V in Alaska is the same as a class V
in
Costa Rica. I'll use my judgement as a reasoning human being to figure
out
that glacial melt in Alaska might require different gear than tropical
water. My local river at 3,000 cfs should be rated as class III after a
summer rain storm or in December when the water temp is about freezing.
It's the moving water that's rated, not the weather. or the gear or the
type of boat or the skill of the paddler. If you're a newbie, then a
class
III could be a river of death, but knowing roughly what is meant by class
III should inform you enough to influence your decision to run the river.
The thing that has always bothered me about the rating system is that it
doesn't seem to take into account life-threatening features differently
than
just big features. A line of bus-sized waves seems to sway the rating
higher, even though nothing dangerous would be likely to happen to a
person
with average water savvy. If two of those ten waves are hard keepers, or
there are undercut banks, I'd like to see rating tons higher.
Maybe the rating scale needs to be like the Richter scale and have the
difficulty increase exponentially for every 0.1 point. (That's a class 4;
but a 4.4 after a heavy rain.)
Or maybe the tenth could be coded to mean something:
0.1 caution after heavy rains
0.2 parts of river inaccessible/unexitable
0.3 drops of death
0.4 open boats not recommended
0.5 big but not unfriendly
0.6 cold water - danger of hypothermia
etc.
I guess that might lead to class IV.3.4.6


Hi Mike:
You're falling into the trap. While I understand the desire to rate rivers
based on the features of the water (as you say: "It's the moving water
that's rated, not the weather, or the gear or the type of boat or the skill
of the paddler"), my point is 'the moving water is rated in comparison to
WHAT?"

You use (as is common, and standard) such terms as "life-threatening
features", "big features", "dangerous", and "keepers" to determine river
grading. But those terms are variable: what is 'life-threatening' or
'dangerous' will vary greatly on the paddler skill, boat style and material,
water temps, and a host of other factors. "Big" to an open canoe can be
'miniscule' to an 18 foot, 2 ton row boat. What is a 'keeper' to a kayak may
be a mild splash to a 28-foot snout rig with two outboards. What may be
'life threatening' (even such things as low-head dams or strainers) may be
merely 'cautious' to someone who is a solid paddler with experience around
and in these thigs. Even your proposed scale uses terms like "big, but not
unfriendly". Big to whom? Unfriendly to whom? That does not mean the same
thing to all boats or boaters.

Now, imagine that we are talking about a kayaker, in a playboat like an old
Perception Mirage (I'm dating myself here), not a squirt boat, and they are
well-acquainted with the river; it's 'home water'. Let's assume it is
midseason, define this kayaker as wearing appropriate clothing, they are in
a group large enough to provide adequate safety at any rapids, give them
solid skills (this will need to be more well-defined, but lets agree that
they have a dependable roll in all but the worst keeper holes, can high and
low brace all day, and if they gave driver's licenses for kayaks, they'd
have one). Now, when the rapid is rated a class 3, it's class 3 for them,
and this has some meaning we can work with.

You, on the other hand, have a low-volume squirt boat, are a bit shakey in
your skills, and have never seen the river before, and are paddling with
only me. The guidebook rates it Class 3.2, which means "Class 3.2 for our
'Standard Boater'. You say "OK, I'm in a smaller volume boat, thats .25
grade higher. I'm also a beginner in this style boat, thats another .5
grades higher, I don't know the river; add another .1 grade, we're alone
(add another .25) and the water temps are much colder than usual (its a late
fall trip), so add another .1. The result; its a Class 4.4 for me. I am
not personally comfortable running anything over class 4.0, so I'm skipping
this."

I, on the other hand, will say "OK, I'm in a raft, that makes the rapid 2
grades easier. We're alone (add .25), I'm a solid oarsman, so there's no
modification there. The water temps won't affect me, so there's no
modification there, and I don't know the river, so add .1 to the grade. That
makes the rapid Class 1.55 for me, so not only am I going to run it, but
I'll carry you and your boat on through."

Similarly, we come across an unrated rapid. In the current system, we might
debate the rating. I'll say "it looks simple for my raft, just some rocks
and splashy waves; its a class 2-3" and you'll say "hell, no! In my kayak,
its very tricky. That's a class 4!" The result is what we have today; a TON
of class 3+/4- rapids, with little continuity between them.

But in this new system, despite our different boats and different skills, we
look at this rapid for the sake of our 'Standard Boater'. With him (or her)
in mind, we will easily and quickly agree on the river rating (say, class
3.5), and then modify it for each of our own situations. No matter what
happens with future developments in materials or styles, the rating that we
give this rapid will not change. Just the new equipment will change the
rating for the paddlers.

--riverman

"William R. Watt" wrote in message
...

You can't rate routes according to the ability of the traveller. For
example, the routes on a road map may be marked differently if they are
primary (paved two lane) or secondary (gravel single lane). Just because a
single lane gravel road might be "primary" for a farm tractor doesn't mean
the map should show it as a primary road.

Standards have to be objective, not subjective. When they become
subjective, like in our teacher-dominated schools, they loose their
meaning and usefulness, which is why we see university students who cannot
read and write.

If you start to rate river routes accordign to the ability of the paddler
then paddling will be controlled by so-called "certified paddling
instructors" and rivers will become like schools. Better to keep our
rivers out of their greedy grasp.


Good point about the greedy grasps, and steps would certainly have to be
taken to account for that, but river rating systems CANNOT be objective.
There is an implicit question about 'runnability' in rating systems, which
is highly subjective. What we need is a standardized subject. But then, the
rating system won't apply to anyone but that subject; the rest of us will
need our own personal handicap, as it were. I think there would be enough
common usage to have a standardized handicapping system.

Your example about road maps is good. Highway maps are designed for 2WD
street cars, and are rated accordingly. Look at a 4WD touring map: all the
roads are listed differently (all the dirt roads, that is. The paved roads
are treated similarly). Likewise, roads don't usually change conditions with
seasons, etc. In fact, we spend a lot of time trying to keep the conditions
consistent, but in the case of the roads that are not able to be kept
consistent, the rating DOES change. Maps will say '4WD only, in winter' or
'flooded or impassible in rainy conditions'. The user is left to determine
if that road is passable on a certian day....a Class 2 paved road will cease
to be such in winter, in that case, although the map won't change.

--riverman

To support my point, here is the AWA Rating scale. Look at how much of it is
subjective, without defining the subject. Terms like 'easy', 'difficult',
'easy to maneuver', 'easily missed', 'fast moving', 'complex'..... what boat
are they talking about? And what boater? Even reference to 'swimmers' leaves
quite a few assumptions to be made. As an open boater, I always am
challenged by the reference to 'waves that can swamp an open canoe'. And as
a rafter, I can hardly imagine doing an eskimo roll...

Read these descriptions, and imagine yourself in a huge raft. Then imagine
yourself as a novice in a squirt boat. The descriptions won't fit the same
river on the same day.

The Six Difficulty Classes
Class I: Easy. Fast moving water with riffles and small waves. Few
obstructions, all obvious and easily missed with little training. Risk to
swimmers is slight, self-rescue is easy.

Class II: Novice. Straightforward rapids with wide, clear channels which are
evident without scouting. Occasional maneuvering may be required, but rocks
and medium sized waves are easily missed by trained paddlers. Swimmers are
seldom injured and group assistance, while helpful, is seldom needed. Rapids
that are at the upper end of this difficulty range are designated "Class
II+".

Class III: Intermediate. Rapids with moderate, irregular waves which may be
difficult to avoid and which can swamp an open canoe. Complex maneuvers in
fast current and good boat control in tight passages or around ledges are
often required; large waves or strainers may be present but are easily
avoided. Strong eddies and powerful current effects can be found,
particularly on large-volume rivers. Scouting is advisable for inexperienced
parties. Injuries while swimming are rare; self-rescue is usually easy but
group assistance may be required to avoid long swims. Rapids that are at the
lower or upper end of this difficulty range are designated "Class III-" or
"Class III+" respectively.

Class IV: Advanced. Intense, powerful but predictable rapids requiring
precise boat handling in turbulent water. Depending on the character of the
river, it may feature large, unavoidable waves and holes or constricted
passages demanding fast maneuvers under pressure. A fast, reliable eddy turn
may be needed to initiate maneuvers, scout rapids, or rest. Rapids may
require "must" moves above dangerous hazards. Scouting is necessary the
first time down. Risk of injury to swimmers is moderate to high, and water
conditions may make self-rescue difficult. Group assistance for rescue is
often essential but requires practiced skills. A strong Eskimo roll is
highly recommended. Rapids that are at the lower or upper end of this
difficulty range are designated "Class IV-" or "Class IV+" respectively.

Class V: Expert. Extremely long, obstructed, or very violent rapids which
expose a paddler to above average endangerment. Drops may contain large,
unavoidable waves and holes or steep, congested chutes with complex,
demanding routes. Rapids may continue for long distances between pools,
demanding a high level of fitness. What eddies exist may be small,
turbulent, or difficult to reach. At the high end of the scale, several of
these factors may be combined. Scouting is recommended but may be difficult.
Swims are dangerous, and rescue is difficult even for experts. A very
reliable Eskimo roll, proper equipment, extensive experience, and practiced
rescue skills are essential. . . Because of the large range of difficulty
that exists beyond Class V, Class 5 is an open ended, multiple level scale
designated by Class 5.0, 5.1, 5.2 etc. . . Each of these levels in and order
of magnitude more difficult that the last. Example: increasing difficulty
from Class 5.0 to Class 5.1 is a similar order of magnitude as increasing
from Class IV to Class 5.0.

Class VI: Extreme and Exploratory. . . These runs have almost never been
attempted and often exemplify the extremes of difficulty, unpredictability
and danger. The consequences of errors are very severe and rescue may be
impossible. For teams of experts only, at favorable water levels, after
close personal inspection and taking all precautions. After a Class VI
rapids has been run many times, its rating may be changed to an appropriate
Class 5.x rating.

"riverman" wrote in message
...
To support my point, here is the AWA Rating scale. Look at how much of it
is subjective, without defining the subject. Terms like 'easy',
'difficult', 'easy to maneuver', 'easily missed', 'fast moving',
'complex'..... what boat are they talking about? And what boater? Even
reference to 'swimmers' leaves quite a few assumptions to be made. As an
open boater, I always am challenged by the reference to 'waves that can
swamp an open canoe'. And as a rafter, I can hardly imagine doing an
eskimo roll...

Read these descriptions, and imagine yourself in a huge raft. Then imagine
yourself as a novice in a squirt boat. The descriptions won't fit the same
river on the same day.

The Six Difficulty Classes
Class I: Easy. Fast moving water with riffles and small waves. Few
obstructions, all obvious and easily missed with little training. Risk to
swimmers is slight, self-rescue is easy.

Heh. Came across this:

http://www.wellar.ca/gokayaking/pics...tomofchute.jpg
http://www.wellar.ca/gokayaking/pics...endofchute.jpg
http://www.wellar.ca/gokayaking/pics...tecauldron.jpg

Was described as "riffles" in the guide.

riverman wrote:
(This is a repost from another thread. I thought it might be worth
its own
discussion.)

Firstly, the remark in the other thread was perfectly valid, though it
could be expressed differently. Rather than saying (I paraphrase) "a
class II river becomes a class III river in icy conditions", the poster
might have said "though I am competent to run Class III rivers (with,
perhaps an occasional flip), in the wintertime I restrict myself to
Class II because the potential consequences of a flip are so much more
severe." Taken literally, his remark was bogus; but why take him
literally? We're just people talkin' here, aren't we? What he meant
was "I stick to easier stuff when conditions are adverse," an eminently
reasonable policy.

What do you think:
a) 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 rapid rated
the
same for each of them?
b) Two paddlers on the same river the same day, one is a novice, one
is an
expert. Is the rapid rated the same for each of them?
c) One is in a canoe, one is in a raft. Is the rapid rated the same
for each
of them?
d) A rapid is rated a class 5 (unrunnable) in 1992, but since then,
new
materials and techniques makes it quite runnable by advanced boaters.
Is it
still a class 5 rapid?

First, let me qualify my remarks by pointing out that "Class V" never
meant "unrunnable". Class VI means "unrunnable". For the purposes of
my reply below, I'll assume you meant "Class VI".

Second, and parenthetically, let me point out that there is a basic
fallacy in yer question, since "a" thru "c" are latitudinal comparisons
but "d" is a longitudinal comparison. But yer question does point to a
problem that needed to be solved: how to let the rating system conform
to extant old guidebook ratings still in print and still conform to the
notion that "Class VI" means "unrunnable".

I say "No" to the fourth question; it does not retain its Class VI
rating. The formerly "unrunnable" Class VI rapid must now be rated
Class V, but in keeping with AW's new rating system, the former Class
VI is now considered a Class V.1 or V.2, where V.1 is as much harder
than V as V is harder than IV, and where V is as much harder than IV as
IV is harder than III, etc., and, of course, V.2 is as much harder than
V.1 as V.1 is harder than V. What the actual degrees are is, by and
large, irrelevant. It may be that any grade is twice as hard as the
next lower grade, or 50% harder, or 3 times harder or 10 times harder.
The point is that the relationship of each grade to the grades above
and below are the same. The point of all this is that, as formerly
"unrunnable" rapids become run, they are added to the top of the scale,
such that nothing below them changes; a Class III will always be a
Class III, a Class IV+ will always be a relatively difficult Class IV.
Nothing changes except the number of grades inserted between V and VI.

Most folks would say YES to questions a-c, and claim that the rapid
rating
is based on the characteristics of the water, not the boater. But
they also
say NO to question d, although the rating is now being based on the
characteristics of the boater.

"No" the (formerly) Class VI is not still a Class VI, but also "no" the
downgrading to Class V.? is not strictly a function of the
characteristics of the boater. If it were downgraded to an
ever-expanding Class V, then I would agree that boater-characteristics
were the governing factor. However, if it is downgraded to a Class V.3
or V.1, depending on how difficult it is with respect to known Class V,
V.1, V.2, and V.3 rapids, the re-grading itself results from improved
boater skills, but the grade assigned still depends upon whichever of
the new "V.?" grades is appropriate to the intrinsic difficulty of the
rapid itself.

[snip discursion on objectivity and interaction between the boater
and the rapid, and the "reasonable boater"]

None of this really matters a whole lot. Just accept that there can be
no absolute quantification of a subjective experience in a dynamic
environment. But it doesn't HAVE to be absolute! My needs are served
perfectly well with RELATIVE ratings. For e.g., if an unfamiliar rapid
is rated Class III relative to half-a-dozen other rapids that I know to
be rated Class III (at specified levels), then I have a good idea of
what to expect from this unfamiliar rapid. The difficulty, of course,
can be that this unfamiliar Class III might have been rated by a Class
V.3 boater whose idea of Class III is not consistent with the raters of
those other Class IIIs I have experienced. AW has addressed this
problem, too. AW has set up a table of benchmark rapids. They list
several rapids in each class in each region of the US, to be used as
standards. Any writer describing any rapid in the US should rate it by
comparison with whichever of these benchmark rapids he is familiar
with; if he is not familiar with at least one of the benchmarks in each
class (up to his skill level) in the AW standard table, he is probably
not sufficiently experienced to be rating rapids for others' use.

The idea of establishing an imaginary standard "reasonable" boater
strikes me as a bootless exercise. [Heh heh. Remember who used to
frequently use the word "bootless" on RPB, lo these many years ago?]
There is no governing body of recreational paddlesports that has the
authority (or the time, money, and interest) to start from scratch
exhaustively defining someone who doesn't even exist. But the AW table
of benchmark rapids effectively achieves the same result; it pulls
together the experiences and observations of a lot of different boaters
of differing skill and differing watercraft, over many decades of
guidebook-writing; it effectively achieves the "average" boater by
averaging many actual boaters -- far more useful than trying to define
a nonexistant average "Reasonable Boater", I would think.

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 this is nonsense, Myron. Sorry to be so -- uh, shall we say
"succinct"? -- to someone whom I like and respect as much as I do you.
But it makes no sense whatsoever to assert that "one man's Class II is
another man's Class IV." There lies anarchy. What makes sense is an
agreed-upon set of standard ratings, by comparison to which previously
unrated rapids will be rated, that is a constant against which each of
us must measure himself. All I need to know is that I am a Class IV
boater who could successfully run the isolated Class V rapid but is
currently very much out of shape. From this knowlege I can assess
where on the scale of difficulty I can reasonably paddle and where I
cannot. Beginners need to accept the recommendations of experienced
paddlers until they get a sense of how the scale works and what the
ratings are of the rapids they have run successfully and (even more
importantly) unsuccessfully. There should be no argument ever about
whether a [given] Class IV rapid is runnable; it should be for each
individual to decide, and to assert, whether or not *he* believes that
*he* would find it runnable, and then to prove it (one way or the
other).

Ditto for questions of boat type: I paddle a whitewater open canoe. I
know that I cannot successfully run all the rapids that my kayaking
buddies can, even though I arguably have greater skill than they. I'm
over it. I accept it. It takes more skill to negotioate a rapid of
any given class in an open boat than it does in a kayak. As long as I
continue to paddle an open boat I shall never be more than a Class IV
boater. So be it; I'm not gonna go around saying "I'm a Class V boater
*for a canoe*." I can boat Class IV rapids, so I'm a Class IV boater,
no matter how much more difficult it is to do in a canoe than in a
kayak. It's still Class IV.

The class of difficulty of any given rapid should never change (until
the rapid itself changes); it should be as nearly an accurate
expression of relative difficult as we can find consensus upon. It
then becomes the job of the boater to adjust his willingness to run a
rapid of that class based upon his own skill and experience, his
condition at the time, his equipment at the time, weather conditions at
the time, and the relative river level at the time.


-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty
--

================================================== ====================
Richard Hopley Winston-Salem, NC, USA
rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net
Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll
rhopley[at]wfubmc[dot]edu
OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters
================================================== ====================

Wow! This thread generated a lot of noise!! ;-)

I think a river's rating is just a broad guide to it's difficulty. A general
very imprecise gage of how "hard" it is. And after all, as I always tell people,
you can make a class V out of just about anything if you try hard enough!

John Kuthe...

PS: At least RBP is gettinjg a little more lively, huh? :-)

"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message
...
"riverman" wrote in message
...
To support my point, here is the AWA Rating scale. Look at how much of it
is subjective, without defining the subject. Terms like 'easy',
'difficult', 'easy to maneuver', 'easily missed', 'fast moving',
'complex'..... what boat are they talking about? And what boater? Even
reference to 'swimmers' leaves quite a few assumptions to be made. As an
open boater, I always am challenged by the reference to 'waves that can
swamp an open canoe'. And as a rafter, I can hardly imagine doing an
eskimo roll...

Read these descriptions, and imagine yourself in a huge raft. Then
imagine yourself as a novice in a squirt boat. The descriptions won't fit
the same river on the same day.

The Six Difficulty Classes
Class I: Easy. Fast moving water with riffles and small waves. Few
obstructions, all obvious and easily missed with little training. Risk to
swimmers is slight, self-rescue is easy.

Heh. Came across this:

http://www.wellar.ca/gokayaking/pics...tomofchute.jpg
http://www.wellar.ca/gokayaking/pics...endofchute.jpg
http://www.wellar.ca/gokayaking/pics...tecauldron.jpg

Was described as "riffles" in the guide.


grin Obviously, the guide was written by a rafter.

--riverman

"Oci-One Kanubi" wrote in message
ups.com...
riverman wrote:
(This is a repost from another thread. I thought it might be worth
its own
discussion.)

...
What do you think:
a) 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 rapid rated
the
same for each of them?
b) Two paddlers on the same river the same day, one is a novice, one
is an
expert. Is the rapid rated the same for each of them?
c) One is in a canoe, one is in a raft. Is the rapid rated the same
for each
of them?
d) A rapid is rated a class 5 (unrunnable) in 1992, but since then,
new
materials and techniques makes it quite runnable by advanced boaters.
Is it
still a class 5 rapid?
...

I say "No" to the fourth question; it does not retain its Class VI
rating. The formerly "unrunnable" Class VI rapid must now be rateds
Class V, but in keeping with AW's new rating system, the former Class
VI is now considered a Class V.1 or V.2, where V.1 is as much harder
than V as V is harder than IV, and where V is as much harder than IV as
IV is harder than III, etc., and, of course, V.2 is as much harder than
V.1 as V.1 is harder than V. What the actual degrees are is, by and
large, irrelevant. It may be that any grade is twice as hard as the
next lower grade, or 50% harder, or 3 times harder or 10 times harder.
The point is that the relationship of each grade to the grades above
and below are the same. The point of all this is that, as formerly
"unrunnable" rapids become run, they are added to the top of the scale,
such that nothing below them changes; a Class III will always be a
Class III, a Class IV+ will always be a relatively difficult Class IV.
Nothing changes except the number of grades inserted between V and VI.

The parallel with rock climbing rating systems is obvious and inescapable.
As the art advanced and more and more routes became 'climbable,' the new
routes weren't labeled 6s. They were stuffed into 5.X. When people blitzed
past 5.9, the mathematically offensive 5.10, and on were introduced.

The rock ratings are independent of such things as climber ability, weather,
hangovers, history of mind-altering drug use, etc. They do depend on
physical layout, sizes of features, separation distance between them,
exposure, difficulty of setting protection, etc.

The biggest difference between rock and river rating systems is that the
condition of a climbing route doesn't depend so heavily on the recent
rainfall. Within a day or two last week, my home stream went from
unrunnable low to in-the-trees flood with anything you'd normally call
obstacles far below the surface. The only thing worth rating would be the
total absence of eddies and the presence of strainers lining both banks.

...
None of this really matters a whole lot.

Finally, we get to the crux. :-)

Just accept that there can be
no absolute quantification of a subjective experience in a dynamic
environment. But it doesn't HAVE to be absolute! My needs are served
perfectly well with RELATIVE ratings. For e.g., if an unfamiliar rapid
is rated Class III relative to half-a-dozen other rapids that I know to
be rated Class III (at specified levels), then I have a good idea of
what to expect from this unfamiliar rapid.

The existence of a rating system erodes the fundamental idea of paddling.
We are each responsible for our own safety and the safety of our party if we
manage to get anyone to go with us. If I'm contemplating running a noisy
section of river for which the loss of the boat would mean a 25 mile walkout
through alder thickets, what I'd like most from someone who has been there a
description of a good place to scout from, maybe an estimate of the extent
of the run, the size of the features, the separation distance between them,
and the presence or absence of eddies or a pool beyond. The existence of a
published rating or description doesn't dilute my own personal
responsibility. Depending on the source, the report and rating might be far
worse than useless.

I avoid rating myself as a such-and-such boater. I might play (and swim)
happily in a warm VI within sight of the putin and there are a bunch of
kayakers around but walk around a III if I'm out alone in shebabaland.

Just my take,
Fred Klingener

"Fred Klingener" wrote in message
...
"Oci-One Kanubi" wrote in message
ups.com...
riverman wrote:

The parallel with rock climbing rating systems is obvious and inescapable.
As the art advanced and more and more routes became 'climbable,' the new
routes weren't labeled 6s. They were stuffed into 5.X. When people
blitzed
past 5.9, the mathematically offensive 5.10, and on were introduced.

The rock ratings are independent of such things as climber ability,
weather,
hangovers, history of mind-altering drug use, etc. They do depend on
physical layout, sizes of features, separation distance between them,
exposure, difficulty of setting protection, etc.

The biggest difference between rock and river rating systems is that the
condition of a climbing route doesn't depend so heavily on the recent
rainfall. Within a day or two last week, my home stream went from
unrunnable low to in-the-trees flood with anything you'd normally call
obstacles far below the surface. The only thing worth rating would be the
total absence of eddies and the presence of strainers lining both banks.

Another difference, I imagine (but am not at all certain about) is that the
hardest climbs were probably all rated by the same handful of leading-edge
climbers, while rapids are probably rated by lots of different folks in
different places, and at different times. Your point about rainfall is
important and well taken: imagine a climber getting to what he was expecting
to be a 5.4a walkup, only to discover that a recent storm has changed it to
a 5.8b. :-)


...
None of this really matters a whole lot.

Finally, we get to the crux. :-)

Just accept that there can be
no absolute quantification of a subjective experience in a dynamic
environment. But it doesn't HAVE to be absolute! My needs are served
perfectly well with RELATIVE ratings. For e.g., if an unfamiliar rapid
is rated Class III relative to half-a-dozen other rapids that I know to
be rated Class III (at specified levels), then I have a good idea of
what to expect from this unfamiliar rapid.

The existence of a rating system erodes the fundamental idea of paddling.
We are each responsible for our own safety and the safety of our party if
we
manage to get anyone to go with us. If I'm contemplating running a noisy
section of river for which the loss of the boat would mean a 25 mile
walkout
through alder thickets, what I'd like most from someone who has been there
a
description of a good place to scout from, maybe an estimate of the extent
of the run, the size of the features, the separation distance between
them,
and the presence or absence of eddies or a pool beyond. The existence of
a
published rating or description doesn't dilute my own personal
responsibility. Depending on the source, the report and rating might be
far
worse than useless.


Good point. Kanubi's point about rating systems being relative falls apart
right here. Being relative, and in the absence of an gubmint sponsored
rating team, its pretty inevitable that it will be locally relative, so
when you get advice from someone that a run is rated such-and-such, you have
to find out if that is a local rating, and if so, has anyone ever challenged
it. I remember oh, so well, when we were opening up the Penobscot in Maine
as a rafting river, and everyone rated the Cribworks as a Class V. Hell, it
was by far the biggest thing any of us had ever seen....but now, after 20
odd years of dozens and dozens of boats a day, tens of thousands of boaters
a summer, and not one fatality, not one serious injury, even among folks who
fell out of their boats, I gotta wonder if our 'locally relative' rating
system really was all that accurate, and if all those Carolina boys who
assured us that it was really just a bony class IV all along were really
right.


--riverman

"riverman" wrote in message
...

"Keenan Wellar" wrote in message
...
"riverman" wrote in message
...
To support my point, here is the AWA Rating scale. Look at how much of
it is subjective, without defining the subject. Terms like 'easy',
'difficult', 'easy to maneuver', 'easily missed', 'fast moving',
'complex'..... what boat are they talking about? And what boater? Even
reference to 'swimmers' leaves quite a few assumptions to be made. As an
open boater, I always am challenged by the reference to 'waves that can
swamp an open canoe'. And as a rafter, I can hardly imagine doing an
eskimo roll...

Read these descriptions, and imagine yourself in a huge raft. Then
imagine yourself as a novice in a squirt boat. The descriptions won't
fit the same river on the same day.

The Six Difficulty Classes
Class I: Easy. Fast moving water with riffles and small waves. Few
obstructions, all obvious and easily missed with little training. Risk
to swimmers is slight, self-rescue is easy.

Heh. Came across this:

http://www.wellar.ca/gokayaking/pics...tomofchute.jpg
http://www.wellar.ca/gokayaking/pics...endofchute.jpg
http://www.wellar.ca/gokayaking/pics...tecauldron.jpg

Was described as "riffles" in the guide.


grin Obviously, the guide was written by a rafter.

--riverman

Maybe! I never thought of that! Although I don't think you'd eve see a raft
on the Bonnechere, at least not in that location :-)

My wife and I actually tried to check with a local before heading out on
that particular trip. He seemed to know exactly what we are talking about,
and said that he thought if we found it too difficult to navigate we could
probably just get out and "wade down the riffles." Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Keenan
gokayaking.ca

I always thought river grade worked like this

Grade 1 take the mother-in-law / father-in-law
Grade 2 take the girl/boy friend
Grade 3 take the husband/wife
Grade 4 take the mistress/lover
Grade 5 take the photographs
Grade 6 take the mother-in-law / father-in-law.


By the way when I do my current lecture show about the trips I did in
Iran I describe the last few days on the Bakhtiari river as the hardest
grade 6 flat water I have ever paddled.

Paddling into vertically sided canyons with no eddies and no way of
seeing around the corner to the end of the canyon is incredibly
exhausting even when you are drifting on the flat.

The full report of the first two trips is on my web page - sorry I ain't
got round to posting the last years trip on the site yet. Got to find
time to unravel my Internet web page files - they got confused - don't
ask!

http://www.dmanby.demon.co.uk


--
Dave Manby
Details of the Coruh river and my book "Many Rivers To Run" at
http://www.dmanby.demon.co.uk

riverman wrote:
"Fred Klingener" wrote in message
...
"Oci-One Kanubi" wrote in message
ups.com...
riverman wrote:

...
None of this really matters a whole lot.

Finally, we get to the crux. :-)

Just accept that there can be
no absolute quantification of a subjective experience in a dynamic
environment. But it doesn't HAVE to be absolute! My needs are
served
perfectly well with RELATIVE ratings. For e.g., if an unfamiliar
rapid
is rated Class III relative to half-a-dozen other rapids that I
know to
be rated Class III (at specified levels), then I have a good idea
of
what to expect from this unfamiliar rapid.

The existence of a rating system erodes the fundamental idea of
paddling.
We are each responsible for our own safety and the safety of our
party if
we
manage to get anyone to go with us. If I'm contemplating running a
noisy
section of river for which the loss of the boat would mean a 25
mile
walkout
through alder thickets, what I'd like most from someone who has
been there
a
description of a good place to scout from, maybe an estimate of the
extent
of the run, the size of the features, the separation distance
between
them,
and the presence or absence of eddies or a pool beyond. The
existence of
a
published rating or description doesn't dilute my own personal
responsibility. Depending on the source, the report and rating
might be
far
worse than useless.


Good point. Kanubi's point about rating systems being relative falls
apart
right here. Being relative, and in the absence of an gubmint
sponsored
rating team, its pretty inevitable that it will be locally
relative, so
when you get advice from someone that a run is rated such-and-such,
you have
to find out if that is a local rating, and if so, has anyone ever
challenged
it. I remember oh, so well, when we were opening up the Penobscot in
Maine
as a rafting river, and everyone rated the Cribworks as a Class V.
Hell, it
was by far the biggest thing any of us had ever seen....but now,
after 20
odd years of dozens and dozens of boats a day, tens of thousands of
boaters
a summer, and not one fatality, not one serious injury, even among
folks who
fell out of their boats, I gotta wonder if our 'locally relative'
rating
system really was all that accurate, and if all those Carolina boys
who
assured us that it was really just a bony class IV all along were
really
right.

O Myron, my mistake; when I type "relative", I mean "relative to the
other classes", not relative to whatever other arbitrary criterion
(boater skill, craft, weather, geographical region) you might choose to
apply. The whole purpose and intent of the AW "benchmark" rapids is to
obviate the possibility of *local* relativity; to standardise the
system across the US. I should have typed:

AW has addressed this
problem, too. AW has set up a table of benchmark rapids. They list
several rapids in each class in each region of the US, to be used as
standards. Any writer describing any rapid in the US should rate it
by comparison with whichever of these benchmark rapids he is
familiar with; if he is not familiar with at least one of the
benchmarks in each class (up to his skill level) in the AW standard
table, he is probably not sufficiently experienced to be rating
rapids for others' use.

I s'pose I should have mentioned that a benchmark Class III in the
Rockies is judged, by people who have paddled both at the cited levels,
to be of the same difficulty as a benchmark Class III in the Southeast.
Here are the examples from the AW website for Class III:

north east
.. dimple-swimmers youghiogheny, lower pa 1.6-2
.. railroad esopus ny summer
.. slalom rapids tohickon cr. pa 1.8
.. entrance youghiogheny, lower pa 1.8'-2'
.. zoar gap deerfield, fife brook sect. ma 900-1000
.. railroad youghiogheny, lower pa 1.8'-3.5'
rocky mountain
.. raft ripper arkansas, browns canyon co 1000-3'
.. seven steps arkansas, browns canyon co 2500
.. pinball arkansas, browns canyon co 2500
.. government rapids san juan ut 5000
.. lunch counter snake, alpine canyon wy 10,000
.. split rock rapid yellowstone mt 3000-5000
south east
.. nantahala falls nantahala, gorge nc 3.25
.. double trouble ocoee, middle tn 1200-1600
.. diamond splitter ocoee, middle tn 1200-1600
.. narrows chattooga, sect. iii ga/sc 1.8'-2.3'
.. grumpy/snow white/ ocoee, middle tn 1200-1600
.. entrance ocoee, middle tn 1200-1600
.. double suck ocoee, middle tn 1200-1600
.. on the rocks nolichucky gorge nc 1500-2000 (2-2.2')
.. wooten's folly clear creek tn 2000-3000
.. dick's creek ledge (first ledge) chattooga, sect. iii ga/sc
1.8'-2.3'
west coast
.. meat grinder/quartermile american, s. fk., chili bar run ca 1800
.. wolf creek selway id 2.8'
.. railroad bridge drop (meadworks) green river gorge, upper wa
low-mod
.. trouble maker, s turn american, s. fk., chili bar run ca 1000
.. oak creek falls deschutes or mod
.. rubber salmon, middle fork id 2'
.. badger colorado, grand canyon az 15-22000
.. triple threat american, s. fk., chili bar run ca 900-5000
.. rock and roll/satan's eyeball wenatchee, lower wa 6000

Go to http://www.americanwhitewater.org/ar...y/Bnchmark.htm if
yer interested in reading the benchmark rapids of other difficulty
levels. You'll also notice all the *caveats* that you propose, already
propose by AW.

So. Is this perfect? Of course not. But it does mean that if I go
paddling in Colorado and Wyoming, knowing that I can effectively
navigate the Middle Ocoee (for which several rapids are listed here,
and several others in the Class III+ table), and knowing that Western
Whitewater describes Lunch Counter as clearly the most difficlt spot in
the Alpine Canyon of the Snake River, that I can be fairly confident in
taking a group of Ocoee-grade Eastern boaters down Alpine Canyon, even
if I have never been there before. I may read the book carefully for
indication of where and how to scout Lunch Counter, or I may keep a
probe team of my best boaters far enough in front to identify the
horizon line and pick a scouting landing, but at least I will know that
the trip is within the bounds of reason.

Fred, above, pooh-poohed guidebooks and rating systems in favor of
classic exploration. There is a lot to be said for that if you have
the time; I certainly love it when I have the opportunity to be probe
boat on a river I have never run, and I have run one or two with no
prior intelligence. But if you run rivers that way, you will run a
number of rivers that turn out to be too easy to be interesting, or
that contain portages-from-hell. It will be an adventure; it will be
worth doing; but you will not maximize yer whitewater jollies.

in July, 2000 I spent a month in the central Rockies the year after my
friends Jon and Karen moved from Washington DC to Boulder. The three
of us and a nice guy and good boater from Boulder named Steve spent 22
consecutive river days circumscribing Yellowstone. We started by
basecamping at Jackson, WY for the Gros Ventre Landslide section, Wind
RIver Canyon, Alpine Gorge, and the Snaggletooth section of the Grey's,
went southwest to Idaho (boring section of the Blackfoot; we called it
the Cow**** River), then north to Bear Trap Canyon, and east (Gallatin,
Yellowstone, Stillwater) and south again (Shoshone, North Platte) and
back to Colorado (South Platte, four sections of the Arkansas) -- and
I'm leaving out several. I was previously familiar with those around
Jackson, House Rock of the Gallatin, and the Arky, and my Boulder
friends were previously familiar with the Arky. ALL of the others we
picked out of the guidebooks. We made short lists of Class IV (or
nearly Class IV) rivers on our planned loop, consulted gauges and
release schedules, then Jon, Steve, and I took turns as probe boats on
unfamiliar water. We could have just picked rivers off the map and
explored, but I really wanted to get the most of my rare Rocky Mountain
paddling time, so the guidebooks and USGS gauges were a treasure to me.
It worked out fine. Occasional rapids (Kitchen Sink, and the Shoshone
at Cody) gave one or more of us a bit of trouble, but we never got so
far over our heads that we could not scout safely and perform safe
effective rescues when needed. In the Shoshone gorge we were pretty
much maxed out, but we had expected that when we put on, and we had all
made the informed decision to try the toughest thing that we would run
all Summer.

The guidbooks, USGS gauges, and a fairly consistent rating system
(despite tales we had heard about "Western Class IV" versus "Eastern
Class IV") served us in good stead and we were able to explore and to
have fun, without undergoing undue risk. The only time we were burned
was on the Cow****, and in that cass it was because an easy river had
been overrated; we never encountered a difficult river that had been
underrated (iow, where Western Whitewater erred, it erred on the
conservative side). It was up to us, however, to assess the weather,
remoteness, water level, and my ability to run in a canoe nearly
anything Karen and Jon could run in their kayaks.


-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty
--

================================================== ====================
Richard Hopley Winston-Salem, NC, USA
rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net
Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll
rhopley[at]wfubmc[dot]edu
OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters
================================================== ====================