This group seems to have picked back up a bit lately. That's good to see!
I don't know if anyone's posted anything about this lately:

http://www.usnwc.org/

TB

It really, REALLY ****es me off when someone -- the government of
Charlotte, NC, or Catawba County, or the Bank of America and other
corporate sponsors -- ANYone, bills himself as "the U. S. National..."
as if they somehow represent me and my country.

If the Federal Government wants to establish such a place to train US
competitors, then fine, I accept and agree, but for any other entity to
try to pretend to national prominence by such sleazy monenclature
really -- uhhh, did I say? -- ****es me off.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 remark 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".

"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.

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 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
================================================== ====================

"Oci-One Kanubi" wrote in message
ups.com...
It really, REALLY ****es me off when someone -- the government of
Charlotte, NC, or Catawba County, or the Bank of America and other
corporate sponsors -- ANYone, bills himself as "the U. S. National..."
as if they somehow represent me and my country.

If the Federal Government wants to establish such a place to train US
competitors, then fine, I accept and agree, but for any other entity to
try to pretend to national prominence by such sleazy monenclature
really -- uhhh, did I say? -- ****es me off.riverman wrote:
(This is a repost from another thread. I thought it might be worth
its own
discussion.)



Wow, this topic is certainly bifurcating!

BTW, OhSeeJuan, what brought that on? Personally, I completely agree, but
what did it have to do with my post about river ratings? Did you skip
breakfast again this morning??

--US National Riverman

riverman wrote:
"Oci-One Kanubi" wrote in message
ups.com...
It really, REALLY ****es me off when someone -- the government of
Charlotte, NC, or Catawba County, or the Bank of America and other
corporate sponsors -- ANYone, bills himself as "the U. S.
National..."
as if they somehow represent me and my country.

If the Federal Government wants to establish such a place to train
US
competitors, then fine, I accept and agree, but for any other
entity to
try to pretend to national prominence by such sleazy monenclature
really -- uhhh, did I say? -- ****es me off.riverman wrote:
(This is a repost from another thread. I thought it might be worth
its own
discussion.)



Wow, this topic is certainly bifurcating!

BTW, OhSeeJuan, what brought that on? Personally, I completely agree,
but
what did it have to do with my post about river ratings? Did you skip

breakfast again this morning??

--US National Riverman

Actually, this is the only part of the message that is ON topic. The
OP posted a link to the "National Whitewater Center", and the two
paragraphs above are my intended reply.

I am suspecting that everything from "riverman wrote:" on (my reply to
yer thread on river ratings), got appended when I imagined I was
pasting in my sig text, whilst, all unknowingly, I actually had that
other reply on my "clipboard".

I know that long reply about river ratings was on my clipboard at one
point because, as I began to reply I was interrupted (*work* does
occasionally rear its ugly haid) so I saved it as a text file for later
completion. I later continued in the text file until I was finished,
then copied it into my eMailer. *Voila*, it's on my clipboard! Then I
replied to *this* thread, but evidently failed to copy my sig (below)
onto the clipboard, before pasting. Another good argument for the
time-honored practice of proofreading before pressing that ol' "send"
button, eh?


-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
================================================== ====================

"Oci-One Kanubi" wrote in message
oups.com...

riverman wrote:
"Oci-One Kanubi" wrote in message
ups.com...
It really, REALLY ****es me off when someone -- the government of
Charlotte, NC, or Catawba County, or the Bank of America and other
corporate sponsors -- ANYone, bills himself as "the U. S.
National..."
as if they somehow represent me and my country.

If the Federal Government wants to establish such a place to train
US
competitors, then fine, I accept and agree, but for any other
entity to
try to pretend to national prominence by such sleazy monenclature
really -- uhhh, did I say? -- ****es me off.riverman wrote:
(This is a repost from another thread. I thought it might be worth
its own
discussion.)



Wow, this topic is certainly bifurcating!

BTW, OhSeeJuan, what brought that on? Personally, I completely agree,
but
what did it have to do with my post about river ratings? Did you skip

breakfast again this morning??

--US National Riverman

Actually, this is the only part of the message that is ON topic. The
OP posted a link to the "National Whitewater Center", and the two
paragraphs above are my intended reply.

I am suspecting that everything from "riverman wrote:" on (my reply to
yer thread on river ratings), got appended when I imagined I was
pasting in my sig text, whilst, all unknowingly, I actually had that
other reply on my "clipboard".

I know that long reply about river ratings was on my clipboard at one
point because, as I began to reply I was interrupted (*work* does
occasionally rear its ugly haid) so I saved it as a text file for later
completion. I later continued in the text file until I was finished,
then copied it into my eMailer. *Voila*, it's on my clipboard! Then I
replied to *this* thread, but evidently failed to copy my sig (below)
onto the clipboard, before pasting. Another good argument for the
time-honored practice of proofreading before pressing that ol' "send"
button, eh?



Maybe so, maybe not. I think the problem lies with 'work rears its ugly
haid', myself. ;-)

--riverman
(ugly head and all)