# Addison's scale for river rating



## formerflatlander (Aug 8, 2013)

Great post! As a beginner/intermediate paddler I would love to see it.


----------



## Outlaw (Mar 8, 2010)

Great post indeed! I like it!


----------



## cayo 2 (Apr 20, 2007)

That is a good system..it 's been around awhile but doesn't seem to have caught on that much...guess it is weird but I like a good IV -/IV /C -


Check out WaldenRidge Kayaking 's site they have a way of rating well known runs that involves surveying qualified boaters and compiling a spread sheet...I 'm a bit fuzzy on the details but remember thinking people on the Buzz would find it interesting...meant to mention it to Bobbuilds and crew before their trip...Bob you out there?


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

I believe even Corran eventually decided this wasn't the best way to approach rapid ratings. With all the beta available know especially with most runs having video documentation and extensive blog write-ups I feel like anyone getting in over there head didn't do much research. Alternatively they are doing something rarely paddled and should approach with a expedition mindset with expectations for frequent scouts. The simplicity of the rating system is the beauty. You have a very rough idea of the skills required for the run and if you start thinking about the run you will look further into the specifics.


----------



## huck it (Jul 23, 2011)

*Grading rivers/Addison scale*

I've always said some waterfalls are class 2 w/ class 6 consequences. I've never been a big fan of Corrin but this system does a better job of breaking down a rapids true difficulty. I'm sure this has been discussed but this video is pretty new so I thought I would share. 

http://youtu.be/96Xmr5KQPec


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

I sure would have liked to seen this used when I was first stepping into class V stuff. So much is really IV+ with IV consequences and what is really wanted is V- with III consequences. Once you get above IV, the details like this are so critical. Without a standardized way to communicate, we are challenged in our research.


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

lhowemt said:


> I sure would have liked to seen this used when I was first stepping into class V stuff. So much is really IV+ with IV consequences and what is really wanted is V- with III consequences. Once you get above IV, the details like this are so critical. Without a standardized way to communicate, we are challenged in our research.


If you can blow a line without getting beat down then the line wasn't really mandatory in the first place was it? There are a ton of optional lines which add style and grace to a given rapid and likely increase the difficulty. That doesn't mean the rapid gets a harder rating because you made it hard. There are lots of runs with hard moves on easy rapids which fulfill the needs of steeping up and a good crew (which is essential for stepping up anyways) will point out said moves.

On the rare occasion where moves and consequences are wildly different, those providing beta are very forthcoming with that info anyways.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

I think every rating system needs to reevaluated through time. Technology and skill sets change the entire dynamics of most sports. The problem becomes addressing what improvements or deficits exist.

The current International Rating systems is great is many respects: its KISS oriented; it provides a useable format for most people unfamiliar with a run; it addresses risk and difficulty in easily digestible format. To me its a great glance at a new run. 

But as many of us know it sucks in regards to detail and has limited value above Class IV boating in most regards. i get by with the current system for easy class IV multi-day rafting with little concern but I would never use it for anything much above that without significant research.

The Addison system addresses some of the concerns but still seems too vague. I would think they need to reconsider the Danger portion specifically. The subjective nature of average conditions has been the bane of many attempts at revising outdoor pursuit ratings (canyoneers have debated similar issues for years as well). If the desire it clarify the currently murky system then the "Danger" component fails (i think the difficulty and exposure components would just need minor tweaking). 

I also wonder ultimately if it is wise combining systems for average whitewater paddling/rowing and steep creaking? Its really hard to compress the risks associated with dropping waterfalls into a spectrum with Class III family float trips. No rating system is ever gonna do that diversity justice. 

I do think the time commitment/exposure system Addison recommends makes since as it provides quality information at no cost. Both mountaineering and canyoneering have both used a similar 2-3 variable rating system for years. Could help and wouldn't take much effort to revise the vast majority of runs in the US.

Phillip


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

glenn said:


> If you can blow a line without getting beat down then the line wasn't really mandatory in the first place was it?


But this is the weakness with the existing system, it merges difficulty and penalty, often discussed as "mandatory". A line or run can be difficult but not be mandatory. Lines can also be super easy and mandatory. Some people weigh difficulty more, some penalty more, and that IMO confuses the discussions. Add in location, and it is a whole different ball of wax. A V/IV/A is completely different than a V/IV/C or even a V/III/C This is often a discussion around the difficulty of the Selway vs the Lochsa. Barring extreme flows there isn't a huge difference between them. Except how remote the Selway is, that makes it a much different ball of wax. You can climb out of the Lochsa anytime you want and hitch a ride if you find you are in over your head. Not so with the Selway.


----------



## BrianK (Feb 3, 2005)

I used to think the Addison idea was a good idea, but in realty it doesn't really add a lot to the conversation. It still oversimplifies the situation, because the ideas he's talking about are too broad to be reduced to letters and numbers. 

I think the system we have now works well. We have a number that relates to the difficulty of a run, and written descriptions in guidebooks and on the internet that fill in the other information. A trusted guidebook or friend description is much better than a vague number or letter rating. 

For example, instead of saying that the old Frog Rock rapid was a II/V/A isn't it better to have a description that says: Frog Rock is a class II rapid that is located next to an easily accessible camp ground. A straight forward line exists on river left at most levels, but be aware of a deadly sieve on river right. Now you know exactly what the danger is. 

With a little experience, I find that it's not hard to tell by a written description if a run/rapid is right for you. 

A bigger concern for me is the lack of consistency in class ratings from one place to another, or in the same place from one group of boaters to another, but that is a different question.


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

lhowemt said:


> But this is the weakness with the existing system, it merges difficulty and penalty, often discussed as "mandatory". A line or run can be difficult but not be mandatory. Lines can also be super easy and mandatory. Some people weigh difficulty more, some penalty more, and that IMO confuses the discussions. Add in location, and it is a whole different ball of wax. A V/IV/A is completely different than a V/IV/C or even a V/III/C This is often a discussion around the difficulty of the Selway vs the Lochsa. Barring extreme flows there isn't a huge difference between them. Except how remote the Selway is, that makes it a much different ball of wax. You can climb out of the Lochsa anytime you want and hitch a ride if you find you are in over your head. Not so with the Selway.




My point is consequence defines lines. The two are inseperable. Hard lines exist because the most straightforward line has places you don't want to be. If those places don't exist neither does the difficult standard line. Few rapids have legitimately harder lines with an established difference in rating. Those that do are suspect.


----------



## Cutch (Nov 4, 2003)

Interesting takes. Remoteness is a constant regardless of river flow, so separating that rating out makes sense. Attaching a remoteness rating to every rapid ends up being overkill, but works great with generalities of rating entire runs. 

I actually feel that our rating system works best when consequence is intentionally removed from the rating.This is because perceived consequence is drastically different than actually consequence. And, if all rapids (and puddles of water) have the potential hazard of drowning, then it becomes easy and logical to say that every inch of moving water has class VI consequence. Likewise, you could argue that any river that is shallow has higher consequences because you can hit your head, and any river that is deep and fast has higher consequences from risk of flush drowning. 

Glenn has a point in that ugly features define the technicality of the line, but I believe you can rate the technicality accurately just based on the size, steepness, tightness, etc of any given rapid, without having to change the rating to reflect perceived, and probably inaccurate, consequence levels. 

For a few seasons I started to use and promote the Addison scale, but I've since come full circle, and simply try to apply class ratings only on the difficulty to navigate, not the result of a screw up. Swimming always feels class VI to me when it's happening, regardless of where.


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

glenn said:


> My point is consequence defines lines. The two are inseperable. Hard lines exist because the most straightforward line has places you don't want to be. If those places don't exist neither does the difficult standard line. Few rapids have legitimately harder lines with an established difference in rating. Those that do are suspect.


I can see your point, but I don't really agree. Especially when talking about easier stuff, Class IV and lower. This discussion likely shows why the system never took off. Lines vs run, I hear lots of people talk about runs saying it's got Class III moves with Class V consequences, this is the same. Or Class V moves with Class III consequences. If we delve into specific lines of a run, the nuances become endless. 

I started writing up an example of my thought train, but then as I started to compare runs (not lines) I wasn't getting anywhere, except circles. I think I need more coffee. :lol:


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

Thanks everyone for a good discussion on this. I think one should look at the difficulty of the river itself, then start taking into account consequence, remoteness, etc. before deciding whether to run it. 



Cutch said:


> Swimming always feels class VI to me when it's happening, regardless of where.


Kyle reminds me of the funny post I copied from somewhere a long time ago:



> Someone asked an anonymous boater about his class IV comfort level and he answered something along the lines of "I'm comfortable that I can usually find an eddy to swim to." Thus, the interviewer was inspired to offer this International Scale of River Difficulty:
> 
> Class I: Easy
> Fast moving water with riffles and small waves. Swimming is pleasant, shore easily reached. A nice break from paddling. Almost all gear and equipment is recovered. Boat is just slightly scratched.
> ...


----------



## mrett (Feb 17, 2012)

Great Thread, thought provoking conversation about consequences and penalty points on whitewater runs. Good job on the link, great info.


----------



## mattoak (Apr 29, 2013)

Anyone know what drop is at 2:57? Looks like a 2 tier fall that you can't stay on top of into an undercut but maybe its the camera angle. Crazy.


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

mattoak said:


> Anyone know what drop is at 2:57? Looks like a 2 tier fall that you can't stay on top of into an undercut but maybe its the camera angle. Crazy.


Pretty sure that is the Money Drop in Voss, Norway

Money Drop Duo Movie on Vimeo


----------



## mattoak (Apr 29, 2013)

I think you nailed it. Funny video. The panned out angle makes it look less intimidating.


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

mattoak said:


> I think you nailed it. Funny video. The panned out angle makes it look less intimidating.


Mean's of Production has a segment on the drop with a half dozen people swimming under the river right wall.


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

Andy that is f'n hilarious! Thanks.


----------



## KSC (Oct 22, 2003)

glenn said:


> Pretty sure that is the Money Drop in Voss, Norway
> 
> Money Drop Duo Movie on Vimeo


That's the best video I've seen in a long time. Notice how the broken paddle was an AT.


----------

