Professor Paddle: Beta issue - River vs. rapid difficulty rating

This post is not intended to get into a discussion of rating accuracy (that's a whole other forum topic), but rating consistency.

I have noticed a number of river recently that appear to inconsistently rate the difficulty of a river. This may just be my own confusion about how each rating is defined, but I don't know. Maybe that can be part of the discussion.

For instance, on Canyon Creek - Lewis (which I've paddled), the river is given an overall difficulty of IV+, but most of the rapids are rated IV-V. Regardless of how each rating is defined (to me, IV+ is IV+, IV-V means the difficulty varies according to flow) they clearly imply a different difficulty different.

I noticed the same scenario on the Lower Big Quilcene.

Any of you Rio Banditos/beta cops wanna jump in on this one?

Sorry about the Big Q rating, that rating refers to the high level (800 cfs) that it was run at on my trip. The run is rated IV+ and the two named rapids are IV+ -V which - like you said - refers to variations in water level. In the description I make reference to the fact that the information reflects a high water level and lower water would change the way a paddler would experience the run.

I would say the same about CC lewis, it's a IV+ run but all the rapids have a IV-V nature depending on water level. I know that can be confusing but it's an unfortunate side effect of the diversity of the paddlers experience. Perhaps it is a class IV-V run, but at low levels it doesn't quite feel like a class IV run, but at medium to high levels it's not quite V, so hence the ambivalence.

The river rating "debate" is one of the most difficult in the paddling community, and is quite frankly out of the Rio banditos control in some ways. Even if the banditos came to a consensus, that consensus might still be in conflict with individuals in the community.

In a perfect world we would bring back the Class VI classification as not "unrunnable" but rather rapids such as some of the things that are in earnies, or maybe landslide rapid in Robe. And instead of calling unrunnable rapids class VI, call them unrunnable instead.

I understand your point and I wish that I could just wave a wand and fix it but there are so many different things to consider.

I know this sounds like such a cop-out, but I have a hard time coming up with a simple yes or no answer.

Well, I feel like if the rapids are rated IV-V, it shouldn't be a big deal to change the river rating....Let me ask another question: What ever happened to the V- rating. We use III- and IV-, so it makes no sense to use V- as little as we do, particularly since the difference between IV+ and V is much, much greater than the difference between III+ and IV....To me, V- clearly applies to some of the rapids we are talking about and makes more sense for drops like Kahuna....

In terms of Class VI, I recently read Doug Ammon's whitewater philosophy. Doug is probably one of the 5 greatest paddlers alive, and his knowledge of hard water matches anybody's. In his book, he regularly refers to running V+ and VI rivers. If Doug says it's so, it's so....

Thanks for the update Jed....

So I have a copy of Appalachian Whitewater volume I by Bob Shelinger, Don Otey, Bob Benner, William Nealy, and Bob Lantz, and Volume II by Ed Grove, bill Kirby, Chales Walbridge, Ward Ester, Paul Davidson, and Dirk Davidson, both volumes are some of the first guides that paved the way towards a "whitewater standard", published in 1987.

it defines the classifications as such:
Class I: easy - practiced beginner
Class II: requires care - intermediate
Class III: difficult - experienced
Class IV: very difficult - highly skilled (several years with organized groups)
Class V: exceedingly difficult - Team of experts
Class VI: utmost difficulty - near limit of navigability

There is also a large table that explains in detail the ways to classify by following some specific criteria that has to do with wave high, bends in the river, turbulence, length of rapids, gradient, resting or rescue spots, water velocity, width and depth, water temperature, and accessibility.

I like what Corran Addison suggested, the implementation of a multi class system:

the first class refers to the difficulty of the actual whitewater ie. class I-VI

the second part of the classification refers to the danger 1-6, one being relativly safe 6 meaning death or close to death.

the third part refers to accessability A, B, or C. A= within a few minutes of advanced medical care, B= a couple of hours, and C a day or more or faster access to third world facilities.

for example a V.2C would be a class V rapid with low consequences, but if you got an infection from a scratch you might be in trouble. A III.6A would be an easy line with dire consequences for a blown move and a hospital at the takeout.

I wish that the paddling community would adopt this sort of system, but it's harder to sandbag a run when you have the proper information.

I'm sure you've heard this all before Chip, but given the opportunity to soapbox on the forum I grabbed it.

I would suggest starting off with a V.1-10 scale planning to be open ended. VI is for those super danger zones. UnRun (not unrunnable lest we start that arguement again) is for the super death unrun drops.

@Chipper. I would suggest discussing each of the runs you want to change in the river beta forum. If general consensus supports you go make the change if not then don't. I would disagree about kahuna being V-. I would call that IV+ because of the easy lead in and big pool without much danger. Prelude would be more of a V- in more book because there is more carnage there and swims can be pretty nasty on that left side. Then you have other drops on that run that range from III+ toIV. So you can see why it is rated IV-V not IV+. A class III Boater should not be there which is why its not III-V but a class IV boater sharpening his teeth with some good help can get it done. IV+ runs are generally runs that have IV-IV+ rapids on them and don't really breach into that V or V- realm

Again this is a very debatable subject so the best thing is for everyone that can to chime in so we can flesh things out.

V is hard, VI is real hard. IV+ not quite as hard as V. If you are seriously thinking about class V then you probably already know a bit about IV+. If you are thinking about class VI, then you probably already know a bit about class V.

Also, there is no difference between IV+ and V- in my opinion. Kind of like in the musical scale. B sharp is the same as C flat.

BTW, I dont think there is a class V rapid with low consequence. A rapid with difficult moves but little consequence is class IV.

forgot to mention, jed, your explanation of Big Quilcene sounds adequate. I am wondering, though, were the flows you ran it at were above the maximum recommended? also, when are you going to take me down it?

as for James, my whole point want that CC Lewis is not rated IV-V but IV+, so I am not sure where you are getting that its IV-V. Anyway, it's not really important. I was just wondering what the protocol was for rating stuff that hasn't been rated or needs a rating change. sounds like Jed says a forum discussion if its that important to people....

see you on the river....

Chip I guess I was agreeing with you, but we can agree to disagree if you prefer.

I would say the difference between IV+ and V- for me is V- means difficulty with danger where as a IV+ might be more technical but with less danger or perhaps a smaller vertical drop. When a rapid has difficult moves it becomes consequential by nature would you not say... or then why would you be moving?

It's a wonder we get anything done around here...... do we?

It wasn't above the recommended levels, but in my opinion between 700 and 900 the run is in the IV-V range not IV+. At that level there were no eddies and very pushy. Lower that 700 maybe even around 650-600 the run would be back in that nice IV+ range. It's tricky because the run was still good to go, but it wasn't IV+, so I guess that means that it was outside the recommended flow. Perhaps I'll had that to the description.

Originally posted by James

I would suggest starting off with a V.1-10 scale planning to be open ended. VI is for those super danger zones. UnRun (not unrunnable lest we start that arguement again) is for the super death unrun drops.

I'm gonna try to keep this short and sweet:

Here's the problem with what you propose, James:

so here we are in the kitchen and I'm gonna help you make spagetti...

I'm gonna chop garlic for you.

Based on your cookbook, it isn't enough just to say, "Hey jP- chop this garlic really, really fine" because we went with your system and now there are all these finely seperate defintions:

mince

chop

dice

slice

how am I as an average person who just wants to cook a meal gonna distiguish

between 6 more distictions?

do I need some laser calipers or some high tech device for measuring each little piece of garlic I chop?

you're talking about something so nuanced that no one could ever possible agree on all the decimal points. It's too organic and ever changing.

There needs to be class VII, and when the next Whitewater Blockbuster comes out (Frontier), you'll see why. Those guys are routinely running class VI for breakfast, dude!

And it ain't making the Little White any less class V than it used to be.

Edited by jP - 08 Feb 2011 at 3:32pm

Yea I am not saying it needs to be refined, what I was saying is that before you implement a massively complex rating system with letters and 3 tiered meanings you should consider starting by adding an openended system if that works then consider going further.

But you have kinda re-inforced my arguement. If you just want to make sum grub don't bother learning what all those fine meanings are, but if you find yourself becoming keen on the idea of expertise in an area you might decide you want to learn all those little terms and differences. Joe schmoe off the street doesn't know what class IV+(V) means but most know when I was 13 I went on a rafting trip and it was class V. So for those non-boating folk 5 classes seem to work just fine. When you start into whitewater you learn there is well more of a breakdown. Use it if you want or don't but it is there. Class V as it is already has arguably 3 different ratings as I have seen in guidebooks and websites in general. V-, V, V+ and I have seen others like V (V+) but that is besides the point. I guess what I am saying is that there are clearly 3 different levels and it could be nice to have more substantial room in classing a run in general when it comes to that class V rating because class V runs are so diverse in nature.

Again I am not suggesting that everyone just start changing I am suggesting baby steps. Rather than diving right into a V.3C start with just the V.3 and use the a, b,c for another time to keep it simple. I mean then you get into what is a medical facility? Does Pateros Health Clinic Count or does it need to be a hospital with a MRI machine? I am just arguing for the sake of it at this point. I guess in the end I agree with you, a more complex rating system might not be needed, but since we added +'s and -'s once we might as well consider another change..... or not.

I do know one thing, I prefer to be the only cook in the kitchen, and you left out the almighty Puree dude!

Just to stir the pot... what is "consequence?"

I had the nearest death experience I've ever had years ago in the sieve after Boulder Drop.

I've seen folks swim Elbow Room on the Ohane and have an easier time... I've also seen people swim Behemoth unscathed, even jump in and get roped out before the hole when a boat was kicked in from the top...

What do people rate Ohane falls? I've yet to see anyone hurt in the hole at the top or swim over the waterfall right after it... but I've seen stitches at the class 4 White Salmon put-in rapid...

I've often found the class distinction hard to describe, I'd call Robe Canyon Class 5 at any level, but at low water the ohane may not be... especially Elbow room at very low water...

Water level is not trivial, and we all tend to sandbag runs that we do often.

Rating rivers and rapids is often more difficult than actually running them. There are many factors that go into the equation. But I think I see the point you're raising, and I'll try to clear it up as best possible. There is a difference between how an individual rapid is rated and how a river is rated and both are affected by river level-although in a different way.

When rating RIVERS on PP. The goal here should be to rate the river as accurately as possible at it's recommended range of levels*. Rivers are often run at levels outside of what we show as recommended levels, and this should be reflected in the notes of the river page (under "Other Issues"). Also, when a river is rated with more than one number that means something different from when a rapid is rated with 2 numbers. When a river is rated, the first number should reflect the overall character of the run. If a 2nd number is added, if it's in parenthesis- that indicates that there is one or just a few rapids of higher difficulty that are not mandatory (portagable). If the 2nd number is separated by a hyphen, this indicates a greater number of harder rapids, some of which may be mandatory. Two examples: the Skykomish is rated III+(IV+) indicating a mostly class 3+ run with a 4+ exception (boulder drop). The Green River Gorge on the other hand is rated III-IV indicating a run that is mostly class 3 but with multiple spots that are class 4, including some that are difficult or impossible to avoid (Nozzle).

On the other hand, when rating a rapid... If multiple numbers are shown, that generally indicates a range of difficulty ratings dependent upon levels (or possibly other factors). For instance, boulder drop is considered class 4 when low, 4+ medium, and 5 when high. Also note that the rating of an individual rapid is not contrained to levels within the posted recommended levels.

I hope this helps.

*Which is of course a whole other discussion

Originally posted by chipmaney

This post is not intended to get into a discussion of rating accuracy (that's a whole other forum topic), but rating consistency.

I have noticed a number of river recently that appear to inconsistently rate the difficulty of a river. This may just be my own confusion about how each rating is defined, but I don't know. Maybe that can be part of the discussion.

For instance, on Canyon Creek - Lewis (which I've paddled), the river is given an overall difficulty of IV+, but most of the rapids are rated IV-V. Regardless of how each rating is defined (to me, IV+ is IV+, IV-V means the difficulty varies according to flow) they clearly imply a different difficulty different.

I noticed the same scenario on the Lower Big Quilcene.

Any of you Rio Banditos/beta cops wanna jump in on this one?

this thread got hi-jacked....like i said, it's not about how to rate stuff but how PP manages the input of ratings, since I noticed there were some inconsistencies between the "river rating" and the individual "rapid ratings" on a couple of rivers....

Or to be more specific to your original river of inquiry....

Canyon Creek is rated at 4+ as a run at it's current recommended range of flows.... and several rapids are rated as 4-5-meaning they are always at least a class 4, but may be class 5 at higher water (perhaps low water in the case of Toby's). However at the recommended levels, none of the rapids are considered harder than 4+.

That's how it works- technically. However whether those ratings/level range are completely accurate is open for debate. Which brings me to another discussion... we still use the EF Lewis gague for that run even though there is a USGS gage operating on Canyon Creek itself now. AW is using it, and I think we should too, but we talked about it amongst us Rio Banditos and decided to open that to input. But I don't want to hijack this thread, so if you have something to say on that topic, please start a new thread or PM me.

Ok- you're right: thread got jacked.

but for a forum based on whitewater kayaking, of all topics, it is most forgivable in this case.

here's my answer for you:

content is user generated. as in open source, wiki, or however you wanna lable it. Therefore it will always have a loose, raw, element to it. someone once changed the rating of the LW to class IV. It is not a class IV run. Absolutely not.

It will be messy and prone to discrepencies. But everything is already that way. I use class V- all the time when describing sh*t. I think V- is probably my favorate difficulty and NO, it ain't like a B flat, Jonathan. I'm gonna smear my puree garlic all over your tablature on that one.

Consequence, Travis, is adding too much HAIR to the Sauce!

I'm slowing down and just want some casual fun, so I like keeping the hair to sauce ratio low.

I've seen "unnrunable" expressed in guidebooks as "U".

Those Appalacian Whitewater definitions actually dumb down the rating system. It's roughly accurate, but the complete definitions as adopted by AW (and listed in the Bennett Book) go into greater detail and are the "original" deal. Too bad AW drank the koolaid about the whole downgrading over time nonsense (today's class V = tommorrow's class IV). I guess that makes me a class II boater by now.

I think there is confusion about the IV-V thing. Again I refer to the Bennett book, because its as good as any guidebook out there and it is Washington. So I think it deserves some vested authority. IV-V means the whole run contains a mix of such rapids. IV(V) indicates there is one or a few class V rapids or drops.

Other than that, I don't have tome to pick this thread apart in every nuance... so here's (one of) my final comment(s):

Read Slickhorn's posts, cause that's basicly where I stand as well. You run any stretch 100 times and you will downgrade its difficulty with the repetitive motion of running the same line over and over. You get it wired. That is not how the rating system is meant to be applied. I get sick of hearing folks rate stuff when they don't even know what they are talking about at all. If the waves are big enough to swam an open canoe, it ain't class II. Period. Doesn't matter if a canoe has ever even been there. That is one ellement that defines class III and may be the most defined distinction in the whole SIX number rating system. Again, if Class VI used to mean runnable at the upper end of the scale, why does it now mean unrunnable? That makes NO SENSE AT ALL.

Lastly, we should definitely be using the CC Lewis guage. It's what the PDX folks use, and it's one of their staple runs.

btw an argument can and should be made that the whole rating system exists for the novice more than the expert. As Ellingford implied, if you are already running V, you ought to be able to think for yourself. It is the novice who is more likely to need a rating to help determine what is safe to run. So like Slick said, the sandbagging sh*t is always undermining this. always has, always will. Careful, Newbies' with who you trust as your beta sources!

Originally posted by slickhorn

goddamn jP, you agree with me more than my own gf does!

Just want to say I fully endorse using the real CC gauge. How is that even a discussion? A real flow reading in the actual river, instead of trying to figure a percentage based on a whole different drainage, simply has to be more accurate and consistent, and therefore better.

sorry to contribute to thread hijacking. such is the nature of internet forums though .... best on-topic discussion in months so thanks for getting it started. Always interesting to see where threads end up.

Well, luckily you're gf is prettier than JP. No offense, JP.

Glad to hear you and JP support the gauge change. Basically the only thing holding that back was fear that if we just did it, it would be whiiiiinnnnned about. Sometimes it has seemed like half of the rivers south of olympia were tied to that river's gauge. why? I don't know.

I know I said I wouldn't hi-jack this thread further. Oh well.

Originally posted by jP

btw an argument can and should be made that the whole rating system exists for the novice more than the expert. As Ellingford implied, if you are already running V, you ought to be able to think for yourself. It is the novice who is more likely to need a rating to help determine what is safe to run. So like Slick said, the sandbagging sh*t is always undermining this. always has, always will. Careful, Newbies' with who you trust as your beta sources!

^^^^^THIS!

I've seen ratings and opinions change over time quite a bit (I've been running rivers over 25 years now). And this is a very important point. Expert boaters should not only be experts at handling their craft but be experts at understanding beta and what their own limits are and differences in levels and how they change difficulty and how to compare different kinds of runs... if not, you're not as good as you think you are.

Newer boaters need more help and guidance. They need to have good beta and guidance from experienced boaters to help them make good decisions.

I don't like sandbagging either.

For one example... In earlier edition of Bennet's book, double drop on the green truss was referred to as V+. From his perspective I can understand the rating too... a story in his right book relates to the first time he ran it, Bill Bowey was showing him down and tricked him into running it blind.

I don't believe he found that very funny at the time. I can see how dropping off that 18 footer without even knowing it was there would influence you're rating. Especially since at the time, people were just getting into running waterfalls. A 10 footer was considered huge then. Now I understand how as time goes along and the rapid becomes better known and understood, it can be called "just" a class 5. But it's class 5. I would make no bones about it. However in more recent years, as it has been run hundreds of times, some boaters have downgraded it to 4+, 4... maybe even lower. Why? Low consequence? I've heard that one. What? Because it flushes?... and when people swim there, they generally pop out of the hole? Well, what about the fact that many many very good boaters get flipped there, and get worked in that hole, and some have some very extended down time before popping up a dozen yards downstream? How about the fact that it's so narrow that getting flipped or thrown to the side at the first drop can easily slam you into the hard basalt walls? Sounds consequential to me. Just the fact that it is a drop of around 18 feet alone should be pushing it close to class 5 land. It may seem easier to a local boater who has run it 100 times, and it is for that individual... but when rating a drop, or describing it to a first timer, that boater should be thinking what that drop was like their first time down.

rant over for now. :D

whatever...who's up for Canyon Creek this weekend?

I've always liked the casual rating system from the climbing world:

BYM - Bring your mama
NBD - No big deal
NTB - Not too bad
PDH - Pretty damn hard

and you can always add a:

DFU - Don't fu*k up

I think that tells you about what to expect.

So CC Lewis would be NTB DFU, and gets the DFU due to that hidden pin spot towards the end.

I think if people are trying to get all the nuances of a new runs from a rating, they are going to get in trouble no matter how consistent the rating is. That's what the run description is for. Not all Class 3, 4 or 5 runs are created equal and boaters are going to always have features that they either like or dislike. I really like NF Clack, Panther Cr. and Trout Cr., 3 runs many boaters find trashy and dangerous but I don't really like the Green Truss, a run many, many boaters love. They all fall into that vague Class 5, 5- whatever rating. I'd be an idiot to go jump on any run based on a rating without knowing the nature of the rapids (continuous, boulder gardens, waterfalls, big water, whatever) and what kinds of rapids I'm comfortable with. Doesn't mean I won't do the Truss but I have a pretty good idea what I'm getting into if I read a good description.

By the by, the size of the waterfall shouldn't have any bearing on rating necessarily. I've run a few 15-20' class 3 waterfalls and seen Class 3 boaters grease them multiple times.

As always, just my two cents.

pete