Bogley

[ratagonia]

canyonguru wrote: mystery,pine creek,keyhole,echo,subway,orderville,spry, is my list. so yes compared to you guys i am for sure a grasshopper. but i am working my way up. and yes tom it is very important where i get my info from. i have your book and have read it quite a bit. thanks for all the coments guys.

And you bring forth one of the problems with a Zion-centric canyoneering career - most canyons in Zion are VERY straightforward, and not at all representative of canyons elsewhere in Utah. Even the "easy" canyons elsewhere have a lots more "sports-action" than Zion easy classics.

Thus the Iceman commenteth on North Wash. Lots of sports-action there, often catches people by surprise their first time. :bath:

Beware, and be aware. :moses:

(And, to be fair, my book provides very little information about Spry - that's how you know it is a 'harder' canyon).

Tom :drums:

[ratagonia]

tanya wrote: Spry has some tight sqeezes and some tougher rope work. How did you do rappel into the water?


Perhaps Mr. Heaps would like to learn some of the "new tricks", such as setting the rope length, so rappellers just rap off the end of the rope and swim away.

In that under-the-rock rap, there is a small perch that can be had at a foot above the water, where one can disconnect.

But, with me, fair maiden, a guided rappel would be set up to keep fair maidens out of the water (should the water be of an inequitable temperature)...

Tom

[tanya]

ratagonia wrote:
Perhaps Mr. Heaps would like to learn some of the "new tricks", such as setting the rope length, so rappellers just rap off the end of the rope and swim away.


He does that and it freaks me out when I run out of rope!!!! :eek2: :eek2: :eek2:

ratagonia wrote:

But, with me, fair maiden, a guided rappel would be set up to keep fair maidens out of the water (should the water be of an inequitable temperature)...

Tom

I like that 'fair maiden' part. You are sweet when you loosen up. :nod:

[trackrunner]

ratagonia wrote: Perhaps Mr. Heaps would like to learn some of the "new tricks", such as setting the rope length, so rappellers just rap off the end of the rope and swim away.


tanya wrote: He does that and it freaks me out when I run out of rope!!!! :eek2: :eek2: :eek2:

Like in this picture :lol8: :lol8: :lol8:

[nat]

ratagonia wrote: Iceaxe wrote: Welcome to the forum Canyonguru. :2thumbs:

If you think Zion has some hard 3's you are going to love some of the ones in North Wash..... :five:

As for the "new ACA rating system", it's as flawed as the old one. I hope they trash can the idea as it will just make a giant mess of things if they change. While the current system is flawed at least everyone who sprays beta is using the same system.... this will not happen if they change the way they rate canyons. Having everyone using the same system is a major plus in my book, the new system would have to be MUCH better (and it's not) to make the change a positive...

:popcorn:

I concur, Dr. Ice.

Two of the largest beta-providers (Ice and Moi) have ZERO buy-in to the revised system. (Rich moving forward with it reminds me of a quote I heard recently: "Can open, worms everywhere!").

Tom

Yeah, you guys are just lazy. You might have to go and change all your ratings! :haha:

Hey, I have an idea. Perhaps you and Shane think it was a bad idea to expand the old climbing rating system (class 1 thru 6) to differnetiate between different class 5 routes. Why don't we just go back to the old system, and every route from 5.0 to 5.15 would simply be "class 5". For details, just look at the route description. :haha: :haha:

Nat

[tanya]

trackrunner wrote: ratagonia wrote: Perhaps Mr. Heaps would like to learn some of the "new tricks", such as setting the rope length, so rappellers just rap off the end of the rope and swim away.


tanya wrote: He does that and it freaks me out when I run out of rope!!!! :eek2: :eek2: :eek2:

Like in this picture :lol8: :lol8: :lol8:



Yeah :lol8:

[ratagonia]

nat wrote: ratagonia wrote: Iceaxe wrote: Welcome to the forum Canyonguru. :2thumbs:

If you think Zion has some hard 3's you are going to love some of the ones in North Wash..... :five:

As for the "new ACA rating system", it's as flawed as the old one. I hope they trash can the idea as it will just make a giant mess of things if they change. While the current system is flawed at least everyone who sprays beta is using the same system.... this will not happen if they change the way they rate canyons. Having everyone using the same system is a major plus in my book, the new system would have to be MUCH better (and it's not) to make the change a positive...

:popcorn:

I concur, Dr. Ice.

Two of the largest beta-providers (Ice and Moi) have ZERO buy-in to the revised system. (Rich moving forward with it reminds me of a quote I heard recently: "Can open, worms everywhere!").

Tom

Yeah, you guys are just lazy. You might have to go and change all your ratings! :haha:

Hey, I have an idea. Perhaps you and Shane think it was a bad idea to expand the old climbing rating system (class 1 thru 6) to differnetiate between different class 5 routes. Why don't we just go back to the old system, and every route from 5.0 to 5.15 would simply be "class 5". For details, just look at the route description. :haha: :haha:

Nat

Lazy? Not I. I just don't see the point in making a more complex system that does not address the main problem - mae west canyons. Rich is an unlikely candidate to improve the system in that direction, since he does not do those kind of canyons.

I'm working on it, slowly.

Climbing ratings work quite well. The Steve Allen PG/R/X/XX system as adjusted by Ram works quite well also; in much the same way. I believe this system will eventually shed light on which canyons are appropriate for which people. I don't see Rich's new system helping in the least.

Tom

[Iceaxe]

nat wrote: Yeah, you guys are just lazy. You might have to go and change all your ratings!

Show me a better system and I'll go with it. The currently proposed "revised" system has the same faults as the old system....

nat wrote: Hey, I have an idea. Perhaps you and Shane think it was a bad idea to expand the old climbing rating system (class 1 thru 6) to differnetiate between different class 5 routes. Why don't we just go back to the old system

I think we should compare the new canyon rating system to New Coke.... you remember that fiasco don't ya? New Coke replaces Old Coke, New Coke taste like crap so they bring back Old Coke as Coke Classic.... which soon replaces New Coke.... and now we have Coke Classic which is again just Coke..... but is what really happened was a bunch of folks just got turned off and started drinking Pepsi.....

nat wrote: and every route from 5.0 to 5.15 would simply be "class 5". For details, just look at the route description.

Climbing is a lot different then canyoneering... I can go up Big Cottonwood and the 5.9 routes I climbed in the spring of 1995 are still the same, even if I'm climbing them in the summer of 2007...... canyons go through major changes month to month.....

Heck.... I just look at a simple route like Pinecreek.... I've done that route and never gotten my feet wet (water rating A on the proposed ratings), I've also done that route with a strong flowing current (water rating C2 or C3 on the proposed ratings).... so what is "normal"? Pinecreek is also easier today then it was 10 years ago, two of the old rappels have washed out....

What do you do about the pothole in Neon?..... it changes week to week.... sometimes a 3, sometimes a 4, sometimes a 5.....

Reading the route description is MUCH more important in canyoneering then in climbing....

It seems to me that if you really want a new and better rating system the way to go is.... you get the 4 or 5 major players spewing beta together, you add Rich and Ram to the mix for flavor, lock everyone in a room, and only let them out when they come up with a better system that they all agree to use.....

Anyhoo.... that's my idea of how you create a better rating system, changing from a flawed system to a flawed system just because the first system is flawed is assine.

:popcorn:

[SLCmntjunkie]

Canyons do change a lot and I don't see how any rating system is going to keep up with the changes. It makes it that much more important to read a good description and to be prepared for the worse. I don't think the new system is or should try to replace the actual route description.

Ice, I'm curious to how you think the rating system should handle the constant changes in a canyon. Maybe there should be no ratings at all and you should have to read the route description? But then again, with canyons changing the way they do, how do you know the beta will be accurate?

[stefan]

SLCmntjunkie wrote: Canyons do change a lot and I don't see how any rating system is going to keep up with the changes. It makes it that much more important to read a good description and to be prepared for the worse. I don't think the new system is or should try to replace the actual route description.

Ice, I'm curious to how you think the rating system should handle the constant changes in a canyon. Maybe there should be no ratings at all and you should have to read the route description? But then again, with canyons changing the way they do, how do you know the beta will be accurate?

that's what web-based forums are great for, finding out about current conditions. folks should tune into those to find out about stuff.

i think MK is including the forums in his new book.

also in MK's new book, he'll have a web-based component to it with updates and new information.

shane and tom have kept updates using the web ...

[Iceaxe]

SLCmntjunkie wrote: Ice, I'm curious to how you think the rating system should handle the constant changes in a canyon. Maybe there should be no ratings at all and you should have to read the route description? But then again, with canyons changing the way they do, how do you know the beta will be accurate?

I believe the ratings system for canyons should just be a rough guideline to help you narrow down your search. People should stop trying to equate canyon ratings to climbing ratings.... that is apples to oranges....

A lot of people bitch because most canyons are 3. But I think that is OK, because your average canyoneer can do a 3 with little problem. Take a canyoneering class and do 3 or 4 routes and most people can do a 3 rated canyon, why try and make it sound difficult.... most canyons are just hiking, swimming and sliding down ropes, I get a good laugh out of those who try and make it sound extreme or something....

The rating also contains more info than just difficulty. It contains time required and water conditions. If it's cold outside and you want a dry canyon then the ratings help you eliminate a bunch of routes right from the get-go, you want an "A" canyon, not a "B" or "C" canyon. If you have 1/2 a day to spend doing canyons you want a I or II, no reason to look at others.

But my biggest concern in all this...... currently everyone is using some form of the same system, to me that is worth a great deal, any system that splits up the rating systems into numerous fractions, no matter how good the system, is a giant step backwards.

Just my 2 cents....

:cool2:

[tanya]

:2thumbs:

[Iceaxe]

I just put on my Magic Mod Hat and retitled the thread.... I was going to split it but couldn't really find a good way without hurting one of the topics.

Picture of Ice wearing his Magic Mod Hat :asshat:

[tanya]

Iceaxe wrote: I just put on my Magic Mod Hat and retitled the thread.... I was going to split it but couldn't really find a good way without hurting one of the topics.

Picture of Ice wearing his Magic Mod Hat :asshat:





I prefer this hat :haha: