# Lake Fork Post



## yetigonecrazy (May 23, 2005)

fresh, thanks a bunch for posting that....just want to give some props to a great short run in my area.


----------



## Timmy (Oct 12, 2003)

Hi Yeti,
Thanks for sending us the article. Feel free to send us more. We love reading them. 
Tim


----------



## 217 (Oct 27, 2003)

I love your guy's articles but IV+?? unless it changed a bunch since two seasons ago then it is III with one IV- (rattlesnake) at all levels. Remoteness wouldn't bump it up because its roadside. 

my two cents-

-aaron


----------



## yetigonecrazy (May 23, 2005)

i dont think so.....thats one of the things this site is bad about, things often get downgraded around here because most people here are used to running the big nasty.....for most people, that run is a solid IV...rattlesnake at really high levels is pretty intense and last chance can be too. i stand by my rating, as i am not coming for a V+ seasoned creeking standpoint.


----------



## overlyworked (Oct 14, 2003)

there is no way that the lake fork is a class IV+... no way. i have ran that river a million times and have taken every line possible through rattlesnake. hell i live 2 miles from red bridge... kit ur a dumbass yeti...


----------



## 217 (Oct 27, 2003)

henson, obj, daisy, black and slate = V taylor, lake fork, east (save stupid falls) = III
A good IV+ run in your area is the Upper A. Head down there and run it then come back on here and tell us that the Lake Fork is in the same class.
but i dont want to hurt your ego so continue to rate them whatever makes you feel good. 

-aaron


----------



## Timmy (Oct 12, 2003)

Hi double-a-ron and overlyworked,

If you guys think Lake Fork Canyon was rated incorrectly by yeti, then please send us your write up with your classification and we will post it. We just post what boaters send us. Thanks.

Tim Hawkins
[email protected]


----------



## Delbert Grady (Oct 13, 2005)

According to CRC2...

Red Bridge to Gateview III(IV) 400-1000 cfs, IV(V-) > 1000 cfs

but the authors were probably just padding their egos..


----------



## yetigonecrazy (May 23, 2005)

you know....im gettin real sick of everyone dogging everything i have to say....im a solid class V rafter and a class IV+ boater, and i cant say anything without getting picked apart anymore.....you dont see me telling you everything youve got to say is wrong, know why? because you do your thing, and ill do mine. ive got a super angry response to this whole shit but im only going to post it if i feel like it.

everyone get off my ass. ratings are meant to be generalized, because no river is the same at all water levels. as most of you are V+ ish boaters, you naturally tend to downgrade stuff below that. dont say whatever, we dont, because fuck off, you do. for someone of all of your calibur, its going to be an easy run. but for a class III boater, its going to give them a handful. so get off your soap box and leave me alone, because i dont care if youve done this run one time or a million times. if you truly are concerned with the rating, then do what tim said and send in your own report. if you dont do that then you are just doing this to nitpick shit. and maybe i am over-reacting, but this shit seems to happen every time i post anything. everyone has their own opinion, and dont tell me mine is wrong, because i dont do that do you. 

i stand by my rating.


----------



## gapers (Feb 14, 2004)

You act surprised. This state is nothin but Johnny Colorado's and this website is ground zero for them. Best thing to do is just nod your head and say "yeah, sure, you betcha."


----------



## ski_kayak365 (Dec 7, 2003)

I'm not taking sides, but I've been watching most the posts dealing with class ranking and Yeti's articles. When it comes down to the river and location and class..... Everyone will choose differently. Those who have lots of experience and/or run the same run over and over will say that it is easier, those that dont will say its harder. Just remember that a lot of newbies and 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and up seasons use this site and the Colorado kayaking site to read up on new/old creeks and rivers. Over classifying a stretch maybe better than under classifying it to keep it safe for all users.


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

A couple thoughts here. In my mind CRCII should be the default frame of reference in colorado. The key for ratings is to have consistency across rivers and levels, and to have enough knowledge and experience to rate them. CRCII did and excellent job in my opinion and is fairly consistent. Many boaters in colorado have the book or access to it and can use it as a good starting point when going to new rivers. I personally also like the approach that the general class of the river is presented and if there are one or a few harder rapids they are in parentheses. Depending on how you rate it (hardest rapid or overall character) all could be correct. According to CRC and double A-ron its class III, and that would be correct. According to Yeti, its a IV+, and CRC gives IV-V- as the rating for the hardest rapid, so depending on levels and how you view it you both could be right. Of course by callings names and getting pissed, you both stray into the wrong, but isn't that what makes the buzz fun?

On a side note several posts have vented at the buzz as a whole for being a bunch of ego V+ a-holes. I don't see that at all. There are lots of intermediate boaters (me being one of them), lots of beginners, some rafters, and there are class V boaters too. Many of the routine class V contributors have lots of info, good perpspective, and help out the rest of us quite a bit. No need to bite the hand that feeds you.


----------



## ski_kayak365 (Dec 7, 2003)

-deepsouthpaddler-

Nice post, you said it exactly how it should be said. Plus CRCII is the Colorado Bible.


----------



## cayo (Mar 20, 2005)

I soloed it once at 900'ish IMO the bible had it right good 3 with one 4/4+,someone pointed out a factor of your familiarity with a run ,of course if youv'e run it a gazzillion times it seems easier,and conversely if it's new to you it seems better.It's better to overrate it a bit so some over confident bonehead doesn't get in over thier head


----------



## cayo (Mar 20, 2005)

forgot to mention that river way fucking cold even in July


----------



## Cutch (Nov 4, 2003)

A couple of thoughts, and if you hate them just pass me off as an elitest snob. 



> In my mind CRCII should be the default frame of reference in colorado.


I disagree with this. Although I think the authors did a great job at being consistent with their difficulty assessments they have a somehwat skewed perspective since the book was written in the big water years between 1995 and 1998. Not a big deal, but the book only gives a loose correlation between the runs rating and the water level. Therefore runs like Gore get a solid V rating because those paddlers considered a minimum flow to be around 1000, when we all know that many people run it below 1000, and often, when the river is more class IV with a couple of class V's. (I'm not about to debate ratings on Gore, because its already been done. Just an example). 



> The key for ratings is to have consistency across rivers and levels, and to have enough knowledge and experience to rate them.


Exactly! However, the lack of level to difficulty beta on colorado runs causes inconsistency. Also, boaters have become a lot better with equipment advances and better instruction, etc. Therefore more is being run, and it is only natural that the classification system adapts with those changes. However, when I have suggested changing the class V rating system to decimel or going with Corran Addisons system people get pissed. The other alternative is to let things be downgraded over time (not a bad thing as long as it is done slowly and cautiously). 

Experience, as you said is also a huge factor. Therefore the people that are the best at rating things are the ones that have paddled the most places, and can paddle everytype of whitewater, because they see the full spectrum. A class III paddler will have a tougher time differentiating the difference between a class IV and class V than a class V paddler would. Not ripping on class III paddlers, but that is how ratings work. The other day I told a mtn bike friend that I thought the ratings were off (I'm a begginer/intermediate) and he (expert/former pro) told me that they were right on. Until I can do it all, I'll take his word for it. 



> Over classifying a stretch maybe better than under classifying it to keep it safe for all users.


Sorry Josh, but I disagree. The safest system is one that is consistent, not just from run to run but also with levels. Over classification leads to the class V lumping effect that we have here in colorado. There is a HUGE difference between class V Super Max on bailey, and class V+ Yule Creek. Yet, they are only 1/3 of a rating difference. This creates a larger safety problem in my opinion. Overating easier water makes people believe that when they are paddling a class V run that they have officially become a class V paddler, and then they go and get destroyed in Pandora's Box, because its only class V. 

I think the Montana books ratings were the best that I have seen. Compared to the Colorado book, a class IV+ montana would easily be a V- or solid V in this state. And damn, that IV+ montana action was so good. I'm not ripping on the quality of whitewater. They just spread the ratings out much more. A montana V+ scares the shit out of me, and colorado V+ is usually a little subjective. (Again, a lot of the discrepencies come from lack of level to rating information)



> ratings are meant to be generalized


Then why rate it? Ratings are meant to tell you how difficult it is as close as possible. Generalizing ratings gets people in trouble. 

I think that ratings should be very specific. Think about mtn biking. There are a lot of expert bikers out there, but when was the last time someone cleaned ALL of Apex. Not nearly as many times as people have ridden it. In other words, rate the inbetween water first, and then if there are more difficult rapids rate those seperatly. Instead of Class V, its class IV (V,V-). This tells people to expect to portage the harder stuff unless they are a class V boater. If it is class V then they know the whole run is class V and if they aren't a class V boater then they will portage almost everything. 

On a side note, CRCII is fairly outdated. It was written in 1999. That was before the loop was invented, let alone half the freestyle manuevers out there. Technology and paddlers have improved. Likewise, it isn't an accident that CRCII is out of print. Sold, done. Yes, there are a couple of guys working on a new book at this point, and rumor has it that it comes out Spring 07. 

laters


----------



## BrianK (Feb 3, 2005)

the problem with the bible and all river rating systems is a huge lumping of runs in the class III and class V categories. The bible says that runs likke the royal gorge are a III and pumphouse and runs like it are III. These runs are very differrent in nature and the skill needed to complete. I am not saying the gorge is not a III but if it is then pumphouse can't be a III. Also it rates very few runs as IV generally. Basically most begenner intermediate runs become III's and advanced runs become V's and it really limits the system.


----------



## BrianK (Feb 3, 2005)

sorry he posted what i wanted to say right before i posted just look above


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

I pretty much agree with what Kyle and Brian said. To clarify, my assertion that CRCII should be the default, I meant it from the aspect that its widely published, generally respected and is fairly consistent, and its the best that we have now. Paddlers need some common basis, and the only thing even close that I can think of is the AW site, which is way more general. Until something better is published, CRC should be and generally is the default starting point. If I go do some runs in colorado and CRC says they are III, then I have a better idea what to expect from the next III run I try, same with IV etc. I do agree that there are some problems (gorge vs pumphouse is a prime example), and that there are large lumpings. The fact that CRC gives some flow dependent ratings, is also a big plus compared to one rating with no additional info (many AW site listings). So my thought is that the general consistency of the CRC gives paddlers a very good starting point for understanding ratings of unrun rivers. By default I also mean the starting point. If you have a crew of buddies that run a bunch of rivers or a certain difficulty, then you have way more inforamation to decide what the subtle differences are, but if you don't start with the CRC.


----------



## ski_kayak365 (Dec 7, 2003)

Kyle- thats a great way to say it all. After reading your post and mine, I will have to disagree with my post as well. The lumping of V's in Col. is deffinetly a problem. question: the ratings in climbing have continued to increase to 13, 14, a, b, c, d,.  so should we(in general) start changing the general rating of rivers? 1-III is basicly the same but the IV's and Vs are very different. You just cant compare V super max to V oh-be-joy to V gore. Just because we can run one, doesn't mean we can run the others ( or at least not cleanly---running tunnel sideways just doesn't work as well) So should V's be increased to VI and VII is not considered unrunable?? just thought I would ask, curious to the replys..

kyle-- side question-- Lucky 7 gate closed, any clue who to contact to find out if the dam will re-raise the gates??

thnx


----------



## COUNT (Jul 5, 2005)

This is a great discussion and a lot of good things have been brought up so far. Lumping is a big problem (especially the lumping you get in your favorite slippers after wearing them for too many years). Over-rating puts the guy who ran the over-rated V thinking he can run all V's. While under-rating puts the guy who knows he can run IV potentially in over his head on a run that's rated a IV but actually a V. In addition, it causes problems when trying to compare runs in different areas (is a Colorado IV a West Virginia V and Montana III?). The LE (Lumping Effect) is a direct result of the closed rating scale we have been using. With VI being considered unrunnable, V has to be the most difficult gnar. Not only does this cause crowding in the III's and V's, but it also makes comparing rivers on different scales more difficult. I have met people who were adamant that the Grand is a V and people who say it's no harder than a III (personally I call it III-IV; AW calls Lava the hardest rapid at V- or 5.0). We definately need to change the way we rate rivers. I liked Corran Addison's method but there was so much to remember that I don't even know what it is anymore. Therefore, I think the most practical method so far is the rating system AW is using, where rapids of V and higher are rated as 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, etc., where each tenth increase is equal to the difference between a IV and a V. This way Pine Creek is a 5.0 and Rigor Mortis is a 5.3. Here two rapids that are currently rated the same are actually three classes apart (we could call Rigo an 8, too). I don't know if "unrunnable" should even have a place on the scale. Rather we should call those runs "unrun" because they may someday be considered 5.0's (many people considered the Grand to be unrunnable before JWP returned from his trip).

COUNT


----------



## gh (Oct 13, 2003)

Deepsouth, good post. Being an intermediate paddler, I agree with your feelings about the buzz. 
Should we bring up the Zoom Flume debate about some people saying it is a IV? Sorry just trying to start trouble.


----------



## Cutch (Nov 4, 2003)

Hi. 

Deepsouth- you are right on with using the local guide book as the basis for a rating system, because generally each books rating system is consistent from run to run, even if it isn't from book to book. Therefore a paddler just has to run one river from the book, and then he will know the rating of that river relative to that book and can safely explore from there (assuming other factors are partially controlled, such as water levels, etc.)

COUNT, I agree in theory that going to a 5.0, 5.1, 5.2 and up rating system would be the best option, but I don't think it would work as well as the climbing system does, because the river environment is so much more dynamic and changing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that climbing is easier to judge because the routes generally stay the same over time which makes it easier to compare route to route. I also agree that Corran's system is too complicated, but parts are excellent. The best advantage of Corran's system is that it seperates remoteness, consequence, and technical difficulty. I think it is good to leave consequence and technical difficulty together (see other post about risk, and unable to know the true consequence). But I don't think remoteness should play a part in the difficulty rating. It should be listed serperately. 

Josh, I think everyone answered your first question. As for the Lucky 7 gates, I don't know who to contact, but I had a friend that had a number. I would try the Grand Valley Canal authority and ask them when they open the gates, because you like to fish downstream and when they are open the fishing is worse (muddy). Historically the gates were open for only 2 weeks in late fall, and 2 weeks in early spring, for cleaning, and washing out the silt. 

If you are jonesing, check out the wave/eddy line at 28 1/2 rd and Patterson on the canal. I used to get busted there all the time by the canal guys, but it is a decent spot, especially with a longer boat.


----------



## Caspian (Oct 14, 2003)

Lots of good thoughts already here. I totally agree that class V is very different at Oceana, Supermax and Gore. AW already has a multilevel rating system for class V. It actually makes a lot of sense. But even in that system there is some real variance -- the following rapids are all 5.0 according to AW:

*Pine Creek on the Ark (1500-2100 cfs)
*Stateline Falls on the Watauga (200-400)
*Sock-Em-Dog on the Chatooga (1.8-2.3')
*Insignificant and Lost Paddle on the Gauley (@ release) 

These are VERY different rapids with different hazards:

*Pine Creek - cold, potentially long swim, hypothermia, but it's close to a road
*Stateline Falls - remote area, technical approach to a big staging eddy, but really one very simple move, screw it up and you drop 18' and hit a rock
*Sock-Em-Dog - remote area, basically no approach, just fight to hold your line and boof hard, but there is a wicked hole with a double hydraulic (undercut behind the curtain - some boat have disappeared never to return)
*Insignificant - long swim with big pool, remote, but usually lots of people on the river
*Lost Paddle - long swim, lots of undercuts, but probably easy to avoid if you know how to swim

The same can be said of the class 5.1 rapids - take Chief on the Green Narrows and Supermax at Bailey. If you screw up at Supermax, you take a beating and that's it unless you get a foot entrapment (the undercut is not really that bad if you see it at low water, I really doubt it would do more than force a swim). And Supermax has lots of moves. But Chief is one move and if you miss it you could very easily die. Most regulars will tell you it is easily the most dangerous of the big rapids there. Heck it's even true of class III - compare Nantahala Falls (the SE textbook class III) and half the drops on Westwater - very different kinds of rapids. Or class IV - compare the little-to-no-move-required Power Slide on the Green (AW says 5.0, but I think it's a IV+ at best at least at 100%) to the first rapid in the Steeps or Number Five.

My point is that ratings can be improved, but they will always be an approximation. You absolutely have to rely on your own judgment to decide how hard a drop really is - and that comes only from experience and the time necessary to become adept at reading water and the factoring in of your own preferences and comfort level (Are you as good in low-volume and technical class V as you are in fast and pushy class V?). The goal should be consistency across the board. Locally and nationally. I mean, how many of us only boat in CO?


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

As I understand it, the Addison scale was pretty simple, though more complex then what we use now. I think showing the difference between a technically hard rapid with smaller consequences and one which has an easy move but high consequences is important. Take for instance a rapid like Four Falls on Bailey, the first drop in particular, a drop which I have seen more people portage the SuperMax, even though its easier. Now, its a pretty easy a drop and I don't think anyone has managed to screw it up too badly, but if you did, you would be in a very very nasty situation that would probably kill you. Compare this to any rapid on the Numbers section of the Ark and you have a more technical rapid, that will be less likely to cause you harm. Trying to get that information over in one piece of data is hard, so I think its important to expand the system a bit.

Part of the risk of a drop is involved with the remoteness, which is quite another issue beyond the actual consequence and difficulty. Even runs that are near a hospital can cause problems if you have to hike out of a gorge to get people to help.

As I remember it, the Addison scale went as follows. A.Bc where A is the skill it takes to run the rapid on a scale from 1 to 5, B is the consequences on scale of 1 to 6, 1 being nothing and 6 being death if you screw up the correct line/s for the rapid. The last one is the remoteness indicator, A being days away from help or if you do find help its undesirable, say the rural parts of South America for instance. Within a day and with good health and safety services at your disposal, C is within hours. For most people, B and C is all you'll use (except for maybe parts of WV and Alabama.....kidding), but when you talk about the Tsang Po gorge or the Zambezi A is definetly the rating.

So for instance, Bailey (and this is what is personal opinion here) is a 4.4b, since it takes some skill but you can still get down it as person new to technical creeking, you could get hurt but would likely not die or get seriously injured if you went off course (except in a few places like First Falls of Four Falls). Gore is about the same. Lake Creek of the Ark is a 5.5.c for me, since its got some seriously hard rapids that you could seriously get hurt in (its borderline 5.6c) but its right along the road and you could get to a place that could give emergency care within a couple hours of the incident at the most (I've never run but I've driven over independence pass and it seems pretty close to the road, though it is in a gorge in places). Same could be said of Death Falls/Upper Barrel SPrings. That one I would give a 4.6c, since its very roadside, takes skill but not beyond the call of an advanced boater, but if you go in the wrong place it can kill you, as it has several people.

So that seems pretty simple to me. I think the last thing I have to say is this. Some people seem to have a good grasp of what is true for most and can easily seek a common ground. Others have a hard time seeing that what may be easy and no problem for them may be quite a problem for others when it comes to boating. Even I find myself trivializing runs like the numbers and SBC, just as some of the more advanced guys trivialize runs like Bailey, Gore, Gilman Gorge, Middle Clear Creek and many others. With that in mind, it would be interesting to see what the outcome would be of a survey done on rapid ratings and what people thought it would take to get down these runs. I think it would offer a much more reliable way to rate a rapid, but only as long as people took it seriously and that it wasn't skewed towards a certain group (say if only hairboaters voted or only begginers). Just an idea, but it might be cool to see. Ok, enough writing and ranting.

Josh


----------



## COUNT (Jul 5, 2005)

Thanks for the refresher on Corran's system. I remembered that skill and consequences were seperate and seemed to recall the #.#A pattern but couldn't get it exactly right.

COUNT


----------



## Mut (Dec 2, 2004)

I don't understand why some of you are calling for a more precise rating system. Are you trying to insulate your own responsibility and liability to use good judgment. Are you looking for someone else to tell you what you can run? If there was a very detailed rating system would you stop scouting all rivers below a certain rating?

To me you are all being a bunch of tech wennie tools. Take the rating with a grain of salt and use your own judgment.


----------



## danger (Oct 13, 2003)

the one flaw i see in corran's rating system is his difficulty rating of 1 to five. this eliminates class 6 (or -VI for purists). so now class 5 is the hardest imaginable move/s. as corran himself stated on boatertalk.com "i've only run a handful of class 5's" he doesn't rate the green narrows a five. so, now it seems that we have to change our thoughts on class 5's. also, he said that you can't handpaddle "his" class 5. this brings lake creek and most other "hard" runs in colorado down to class 4. yule might be class 5 (i haven't seen it), also maybe the animas at like >5000cfs (again, haven't seen it). so, this system seems simple but it will require a thought shift on everyones part.
-dan


----------



## gh (Oct 13, 2003)

Maybe it takes in account a compression of the current class I and II into one class, as the new 1. Leaving the other classes, just moved downward by one notch.


----------



## danger (Oct 13, 2003)

yup, but our entire frame of reference will have to change. both bailey and the big south become class 4. so in this comparison supermax might be a 4.4.b and cool world on the big south a 4.5.b (i haven't paddled lake creek so i won't compare that). i prefer this system to either of our current ones. so what might be a 5.x.x in colorado?

lovin' the off season...


----------



## ski_kayak365 (Dec 7, 2003)

Hey, its great to see these impressive posts. I threw out that question just to see what results may come, and come they did. It is an interesting question that allows people to really look at different views of what we all think something is rated. I appreciate the responses and its good that we can all have a decent off-season post. Have a great winter--- pray for the snow to come to give us a sweet spring run-off.

Josh
-play hard, drink long after-


----------



## ChrisKelly (Feb 7, 2005)

*Rating the Lake Fork*

Just compare it to the following and put it where you think it fits between these rapids.

Class IV-

Zoom Flume Arkansas, Browns Canyon CO
2500 

Jaws Flathead, M. Fk. MT
.5 

Lunch Counter Snake, Alpine Canyon
WY
6000 

Big Kahuna Snake, Alpine Canyon
WY 
10,000 

Spotted Horse Hoback WY 
1.5 


Class IV

Number Four Arkansas, the Numbers CO
1000 (<3) 

Sunshine Arkansas, Royal Gorge CO
2000-3200 

Pine View Falls Cache la Poudre, Pine View Run CO
1500 

Skull Colorado, Westwater Canyon UT
3500-5000


Zoom Flume Arkansas, Browns Canyon CO
3000 

Number Three Arkansas, the Numbers CO
2000-2500 (3.5-4) 

Number Two Arkansas, the Numbers CO
2000-2500 (3.5-4') 


Class IV+

House Rock Gallatin MT .5-1 

Eye of the Needle Piedra, Lower CO med/high 

Number Four Arkansas, the Numbers CO 2000-2500 (3.5-4) 

Snaggletooth Dolores CO high 

Number Five Arkansas, the Numbers
CO 2000-2500 (3.5-4) 

Number Six Arkansas, the Numbers
CO 2000-2500 (3.5-4)

If you think Rattlesnake exceeds these class IV+s then you gotta look at class 5.0. Chris Kelly


----------



## COUNT (Jul 5, 2005)

I don't know enough about Lake Fork to make a qualified post on that, but since it came up, I want to ask what the consensus is on Skull. Having run it a handful of times in that range, I don't think it's a IV. It is very intimidating (I'd call the scout a class IV) but the move is pretty easy, especially in a kayak. Technically, I'd call it a III-III+. Also, at that level the consequences of the hole and Room of Doom are not really great: I've seen people punch through the hole and miss the RoD and I've seen people paddle back up into the RoD, mess around in there, and get out no problem. What you guys think?

COUNT

P.S. Anyone surfed Sock-It-To-Me at low levels? It definately looks doable.


----------



## gh (Oct 13, 2003)

Oh man I was just kidding about Zoom Flume sorry if I got that started, why would it ever be rated a IV or IV-?


----------



## rivermanryan (Oct 30, 2003)

I agree that Skull is III+. The move is easy, even in a raft, after you scout and know where everything is at. It could feel like a IV only if you have never run it and decide not to scout. I have never run Skull at very high water, maybe things change.

Do you really think that eye of the needle is IV+ at med/high water? I would think it would be in the V- range.

Sorry this thread was stolen to debate ratings, maybe a new thread should be started.


----------



## ChrisKelly (Feb 7, 2005)

*That Skull is Class IV is a matter of fact.*

The people who made up the rating system (AW) use it as a benchmark rapid.

You are free to make up your own rating system and call Skull a 7.56(B) if you chose but on the system we have it is class IV.


The reason I make this point is to get folks to appreciate that the system, if used, will mitigate against exactly the kind of bracket creep we see here. The fact that we have many more class V boaters and they people are running more class V water does not change the physical reality of the rapids that are rated class III and IV. 

The rating system has two purposes; first to give a general guide to boaters who have never run a give stream before; and second to give the rest of the boating community something to talk about around the campfire (real or, as here, virtual) . The first purpose is serious and we ought not let the second purpose erode the first. Downgrading is dangerous. Chris Kelly


----------



## Caspian (Oct 14, 2003)

ChrisKelly said:


> The fact that we have many more class V boaters and they people are running more class V water does not change the physical reality of the rapids that are rated class III and IV.


That's probably the best point made yet in this discussion. You can't be downgrading just because it feels easier to you than it did when you were a class III boater.

For that matter, you might call the right line at Skull IV+ in a kayak -- harder to get there, harder to avoid a hefty surf, and harder to boof over the bottom hole. Short, but still demanding on precision and power.


----------



## danger (Oct 13, 2003)

"That's probably the best point made yet in this discussion. You can't be downgrading just because it feels easier to you than it did when you were a class III boater."

i don't feel that class V boaters are more likely to downgrade a rapid. i think they have a better appreciation for the range of whitewater and the skill it takes to run it.

and i still feel that our current systems (either AW or the classical system) need to be modified to better reflect the different components of a rapid or a run. only then will we be on the same page. as it is currently, some of us discuss the difficulty of a rapid while others in the same conversation say, "yeah, but if you mess up...". one's referring to the difficulty of the move (one component) and the other is talking about the consequences (another component).

-dan


----------



## cayo (Mar 20, 2005)

It ocurred to me that a very simple way to add specificity to ratings within the context of the current system,and without changing to a decimal or 3 criteria system is as follows;use of /'s for borderline ratings,for example III+/IV- indicates the highest 3+ and barely 4-.Using this system a class is divided up into more than just IV-,IV, AND IV+, now you have III+/IV-,IV-,IV-/IV,IV,IV/IV+,IV+/V-.This doubles the specificity,it does not eliminate the subjectivity of peoples oppinions,but what system does ,just a thought.


----------



## Schizzle (Mar 26, 2004)

For what it's worth, my vote would be to leave today's rating system alone. Leave some room for personal judgement and healthy portions of humility.

As a transfer from the climbing world, ratings are guidelines that change by location, weather, recent rockfall, etc. Just like rivers change with wood placements, flow levels, and riverbed transformation. Only the arrogant get really fixated on ratings, either to brag about their exploits, or to whine "I can usually clean X-rating, but I got schooled at X-river/climb."

The only kind of rating that's really dangerous is the kind that you take for granted you can do, then get in over your head. That being said, I think a guidebook worth it's salt will tell you when a run has a mean disposition (examples from CRCII "...sieves are everywhere...You might be able to run this drop, but think of how your friends are going to get your broken body out of there"). *Black widow spiders.*

Modern guidebooks will tell you when a run is too low to float and at what levels the difficulty leaps a full notch. It's nice to know when to consider it to be full on flooding, too. I love the CRCII example of hitting the Embudo at 4.1' before people really understood how a few inches flow can make an impact. Someone who doesn't seek out local beta/knowledge might think he's got it made until mile 2-3, then he shits himself and realizes he's committed to the end and the canyon walls just got a lot higher and steeper.


----------



## Cutch (Nov 4, 2003)

> Downgrading is dangerous.


Class V lumping is just as dangerous. The key is to find a happy medium. 



> first to give a general guide to boaters who have never run a give stream before


Yes, which is why accuracy and consistency are important. Our current system has consistency, but has lost accuracy over time. Perhaps a better question, do you still think Gore is for teams of experts and you have a high chance of dyeing, because it's six minus? That was the original consesnsus in the early 90's, via Floaters Guide to Colorado. Sticking to that perspective would create great consistency over time, and horrible consistency of the difficulty rating classes because he have placed a limit to how high the rating system goes. 



> to give the rest of the boating community something to talk about around the campfire


No. Because if that was the case we wouldn't place a cap on runnability, and I'd be running at least VIII+ by now. On a serious note, any boater that brags about being a _+ boater has much greater issues with kayaking and safety (not to mention self esteem) than a rating system will ever fix. Think of the mid west skiers that brag about making it down a black diamond. 

Just my thoughts. See original post for better reasoning in what I just said.

Cayo, awesome point. I've never thought of doing things that way, but you pose an excellent solution to creating a more detailed run analysis. Very cool and creative.


----------

