Sparked from the news recently that Tyler Brandt just ran 186' Palouse Falls sucessfully, I want to crack this open for everyone here to chew on...

 

There's always been a split camp about the class VI and its definition, although most guidebooks I've seen describe class VI as runnable if rarely run. I know that the "never been run" qualifier is prevalent throughout the west (then downgrading it into class V once it's run--and AW actually lists this along with the criteria of a class VI rapid in their description:  

http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/Wiki/do-op/id/safety:start#vi - http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/Wiki/do-op/id/safety:start#vi  

 You may have to scroll through some other stuff to view it at that link).

 

but check the guidebooks for Idaho and Washington, or the Cassidy/Calhoun  guide to Western Whitewater, and they all define class VI as runnable if rarely run. It seems weird then that the generations that follow would step in the other direction and say class VI is synonomous with U (unrunnable, or "Off the scale" ).

 

I don't think the Little White (taken as a run) is easier than class V. But the stuff in Rush Sturgis's  video of African Bigwater seems to me to be of a whole other class, and not just because it's in a remote expedition style setting, though that factors in for sure.

 

And The weird thing about the sub-V  decimal system is that one man's V.3 is another girl's V.1. I can see that myself looking at the inconsistant decimal ratings attached to several of the class V runs on the Guage Page. And then I ask- is 10 slots enough to keep packing new whitewater rapids and runs into over the next 100 years?

 

I mean, I don't really care. I'm content with our fuzzy rating system the way it is. I just want to watch everyone debate about it. I suppose it's the range of opinions that interests me. Humor me here...

 

 

Morgan

 

 

Dude, I'm SO all about getting people riled! That's one reason I started this thread!! But more importantly to get people to at least read what has already been established as a standard. This topic has recently aggitated me again (not really, but you know what I mean). It's as if 90% of the whitewater population really has no understanding what the

I-VI rating system is.

 

So I'm coming back swinging harder than last time:

Get with the program: AW is a great place to go to see it in writing. It's not up to YOU and YOUR puny opinion- no matter who you are, who you think you are, how many class V's you've run ect.

 

Why did the contemporary public lop off the class VI rating? why is it never used, and why do people consider it unrunnable? I've said it before: when Tyler ran Palouse Falls, he transformed it from an unrunnable drop (U) to a class VI. When Leif runs it it'll be ok to down grade it to class V.  Until then, it's class VI. In an era where more and more radical drops, rapids and sections of rivers and creeks are being run for the first time, doesn't it seem silly not to use that last number at the high end of the scale to accomodate newly run drops and rapids? If anything we should be adding numbers for future generations to fill with their as of yet unaccomplished feats!

 

The book "River Recue", a classic by Slim Ray and Les Bechdel, printed the rating system with permission of AW (AWA at the time) in the 2nd edition (1989 publication) that I possess in my library of whitewater literature.

 

It states (in 19F*ckin89!!):

"Class VI: EXTREME. One grade more difficult than Class V. These runs 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."

 

 

"This class does not represent drops thought to be unrunnable, but may include rapids which are only occasionally run."

 

Look in the Bennet Book. The wording is exactly the same.

 

Yeah, I know the conception of a Class VI in 1989 is totally different than today's. But why would you take away additional numbers. It doesn't make any sense. The decimal system isn't a bad idea, but come on- you can't expect to cram all of tomorrow's record breaking feats into a single container. Sooner or later you'll need that VI, if not already. It's just funny how many people (some of which are VERY accomplished paddlers) act as if they didn't even know a VI existed at the upper end of the scale.

 

Grade vs. Class huh? Well everyone knows I got no class, but still, most of us need to go back to class on this. It's all about communication.

Educate yourselves. There was an article written by Doug Ammons on this subject, within the last year or two, but I can't find it. Basicly suffice to say I agree with his conclusions on this topic.

 

 

the article was in the AW mag called the art and artifice of rating whitewater. Good read and it's online at the AW site.

 

Rob G

 

IMO, "unrunnable" means that 'as of today', no one has attempted or been able to run it clean.  Where "clean" means still in your boat at the bottom with a smile on your face.

 

I don't see the problem with changing drops from (U) to (VI) when some yahoo successfully runs them.  So the number of class VI drops will increase with time, why is that a problem?  For example, if Leif runs Snoqualmie falls, it gets downgraded from class (U) to class VI.  That doesn't mean Eagle falls is now bumped from class V to class IV, or that Boulder drop is now a III-, it just means there's a new class VI rapid in the mix, nothing else should be affected.  Does that make any sense to anyone besides me?

 

Dan

 

Yeah, I'm waaayy out of line on that one 

 

http://www.professorpaddle.com/uploads/bin/2/useruploads/388/792.jpg - http://www.professorpaddle.com/uploads/bin/2/useruploads/388/792.jpg

 

I thought we were talking about stuff at the bleeding edge of the sport.  Class II riffles in BFE hardly count as such.

 

Of course, unrun and unrunnable are not the same thing, and I think you've got all the gear you need to prove it. 

 

Dan 

 

It just seems that on a website devoted to whitewwater kayaking, if people stop arguing about classifying this or that, something is wrong. I just wanted to stir it up, and it seems to have worked!! Ha!

 

Of course I have an automatic "Disagree With Ben No Matter What" policy.

 

seriously, The rating system is something that I think is healthy to debate and think about. What really amazes me is how we could go so long without a better standard.

"The American version of an International system" WTF does THAT mean? sounds like a cop out. Like, Feet and Inches are our version of the Metric system or something. Lame.

 

Fukkit. I know Unrunnable when I see it,Hope y'all do, too.

I can see a horizon line, and I can catch a mean eddy. Hope y'all can too.

 

For my part, old school is as easy to understand as a system of quantifying can be.  The current system is simple enough to comprehend even for a non-boater.

If there were changes, I'd keep'em to how a 'run' is rated as opposed to how individual rapids are rated.  There seems to be plenty enough subjectivity in this 'sport' as it is, and complicating ratings only makes for more confusion or contention. 

 

 

If it looks like its going to kill me, I am not going to run it...

 

I say we all switch to the "Drunken Tuber" system immediately

 

Dan

 

But Brian, I have to respectfully disagree with you:

Pieces may be needed as you say, but how do you split hairs that finely?

 

I feel really confident calling both Sunset Falls and Palouse Falls class VI drops. Regardless of what either of the paddlers who ran those drops has to say about it. That's right. I said Regardless of what either of the paddlers who ran those drops has to say about it.

 

Both drops fit the definition of a class VI. I don't even see how one could dispute this, unless they haven't read the definition of class VI.

 

Back to the point system though: To this very moment, despite me asking the question of how to define the verious "points" along the class V spectrum, no one on this site (or anywhere else) has been able to define it for me in any satisfactory manner. So how can it hold ANY validity? I've been told that each point represents the same scale of steps as that between IV and V. But what does that mean? Not much. How many numbers are in there? V.1-V.3?

V.1- V.9?

 

Look, as imperfect as the rating system is, at least you can say one thing: It is written down in an attempt to try to define itself. And just like the Constitution, or the Bible, it is subject to interpretation and it's meaning will continue to be debated. But at least it is writtin down. So what are the written definitions for each decimal point? saying each decimal is like a whole class in and of itself isn't enough. You have to define what each "class" is. Here's where paddlers roll their eyes if they haven't done so sooner. But then, are you serious about understanding how sh*t is rated? Rob don't give a F*ck. He just paddles the sh*t whether it's V or Vi, he doesn't stop to wonder. Me? I just like to ponder it. That's all. The existing system doesn't give me any problems, nor do the added ambiguities of the so-called point system.But I've been paddling long enough to feel confident that I can go into a canyon and at least stay out of trouble (usually! ).

 

Paddlers got no business trying to patch and peice-meal some jacked up half concieved rating system if they aren't willing to adequately define it.  A half assed  "improvement" is worse than no improvement at all. It takes an imperfect rating system and makes it totally worthless if it's inconsistant.

 

Class V boaters will say here: "Well if you're paddling Class V you should be able to just deal with it" . Well I agree, but clearly others don't.

 

Yeah I hear ya. I think we all agree that the V rating does span that broader range- My opinion is that due to the subjectivity, it's very hard to accurately define all of those little incremental steps.

 

And the statement you quote, just to clarify where I stand with it, was meant to point out the prevailing sentiment among my peer group. I don't necessarily agree with that attitude myself, but perhaps somewhat.

 

I guess I feel like a lot of the IV+ runs in the Bennett can feel like light V's. It'll always be hazy no matter how you try to define it. So IV+ boaters venturing into class V need to be going there with people who they can trust, get beta they trust, and go from there. A suggestion fo those people on the cusp of the Gnar would be for them to make the rounds on all of the popular, more often run V- trips first until they get their footing. If you want to do exploratory class V, let's face it: you need to be prepared to find V+.

 

"Splitting hairs" can't ever work too well due to the vague subjectivities-the nature of the beast. It's like sizing a guy up for a fight, or sizing up a woman you want to pick up- you don't really know until you get into it.

 

Taoists say "The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao" But the Tao Bergman that can be named is... well, Tao Bergman. (Two different Taos here and the statement of course refers to the acient eastern philosophy Taoism, based on the Tao Te Ching)