I think you're making things confusing with all of those "R"s. No Offense meant.
And some people's comments sound as if they overlooked my whole point I made in my 2nd or 3rd post (and it was breif, too.). Thanks to Joeskayak for echoeing it:
Pickup the Idaho guidebook. Pick up the Bennet Book. Gander at the Gary Korb Book, or any guidebook. Read the AW int'l scale, ect. They all mention class VI as "Rarely Run" or something similar. Look also at how those guidebooks distinguish between whole runs and rapids and how they are rated. I think the existing rating system is fine, if loose and vague at times.
I'd argue that these precedents, as they exist in print over several decades, should continue to have weight, to keep the scale grounded to something objective.
Yes the scale is subjective. But it's up to individuals to inform themselves about this larger landscape of subjectivity: Actually knowing how California interprets the scale vs. West Virginia, or the commonalities between 5 or so relavent guidebooks. There is an AVERAGE subjectivity that provides us with a rough framework to evaluate and communicate these rapids, runs and rivers.
People will always infuse their own individual opinion into the mix. But it is up to all individuals to be grounded to some standard, which is what we currently have.
I understand how the I-V scale looks when plotted on a J curve. Within the class V zone, there is a wide variance of difficulty, hazard, and consequence. It does follow that while standards are important, so must the rating syatem adapt to new standards, hence the V.3 ect. I'm just saying it should be integrated with what's already been established, otherwise it is arbitrary and doesn't help to comminicate anything.
Edited by wetmouse - 29 Apr 2009 at 2:20pm
Register
Login
Active Topics
Memberlist
Search
IP Logged
