Pat MacAlinney wrote:Changed Grading: Waterfall section is a V (e) quoting ICF Class 5 Exceedingly difficult. Inspection from shore is mandatory; extreme hydraulics, keepers and boils; narrow in the only line of passage, high drops in cascades with difficult entrances and/or exits.
The points being made are very good. I will try to remain as neutral as possible and facilitate this debate (obviously I do have my own view on the issue, because I submitted the original guide).Bowsie wrote:Are we in agreement that the water fall is grade V? I personally dont think so. I have seen paddlers float down it unscathed. Giving it a grade V status might not do justice to actual grade V radids. I'd like to hear other opinions on this.
I will try to clear up a few points before we go on.
What are River grades?
The purpose of the scale of river difficulty is to compare the difficulty of rivers and rapids. When we specify a rating for a given rapid, we are comparing it to other rapids that are *about* as difficult. And this must also take into account various water levels. When we are talking about things such as difficulty etc. it is far from a direct science.
What grading system does IWW use?
http://www.irishwhitewater.com/river_grades.php
It follows the The International grading system.
American Whitewater developed and maintains this system.
(I didn't/won't use the ICF guidelines because I believe they are out of date)
One of the biggest complaints/comments I heard about Seamus MacGearailt's Irishwhitewater book was that the grading was far too high for lots of rivers, and that this made the guide "out of date". With the developments in training and gear there has been a huge change in safety over the years and as such some rapids which would have been considered dangerous in the past are now runnable. This affects the way we grade things since in it's simplest form a grading system is a comparative tool.
Would a more complex grading system work better?
I had this same debate a good few months back when I was developing the idea for the site.
Firstly I believe in a flat simple 1-6 grading system, with the addition of a + the odd time. The reason for this is that it's simple and doesn't require a key or an explanation in most cases. I have been paddling for a good few years now, in Ireland and abroad and I have never heard anyone refer to a feature as been a Grade 4e or anything like that, it's making something more complicated than it needs to be. The idea of the grading system is to give a rough idea. If some people don't understand the system, that means they won't be submitting good information and also might not use it. And if the users don't understand they will be leaving with the wrong idea.
The grading system in Seamus MacGearailt's book tries to narrow this down, and I think that this greater accuracy is needless.
Secondly I believe the grading system should primarily reference points for this should be 1 and 6 (because 6 is already the agreed standard).
I have great respect for what Mark from UKRGB says on the issue:
With all that said, I would welcome a discussion on the grade Boluisce and about river grading.UKRGB wrote:Yes, these descriptions are vague and unspecific. Grading is an imprecise and controversial activity. A continuous grade 3 river may be more challenging than a pool-drop grade 4 river. Gradings given by Authors of river guides are PURELY THEIR OWN UNTRUSTWORTHY OPINION and should only be used for a general guide. A river is a dangerous, unpredictable and constantly changing environment.
FORGET THE GUIDEBOOK GRADE ON THE DAY. INSPECT AND DECIDE FOR YOURSELF IF YOU ARE UP TO, AND HAPPY WITH, A RIVER. [/b]
We'll see if we can come to an agreement, ultimately it will come down to the points being made.