DIR vs Hogarthian

[eelnoraa]

HID canister light definitely still has edge over canister LED in terms of focus and light penetration. Canister LED may have edge on run time. Handheld LED however, is still far from their canister big brother in terms of both light output and run time. Yeah, at night or dark places, you may not need that much light, but in day time open water, I sometime wish I can have a 35 or even 50W HID.

Don't get me wrong, if some one can make a handheld run on AA or C cells, product as much light as 21W LED, same run time, even at the same cost, I am definitely having one.

And BTW, canister is not an absolute requirement for GUE. You can take their recreation class without one.

 

[Sevenrider860]

It includes a can light with the canister worn on the waist, (left side I think), with the light attached to a Goodman handle worn on the left hand.

Heresy! The canister is to be worn on the right side.

 

[ajduplessis]

HID canister light definitely still has edge over canister LED in terms of focus and light penetration.

Sorry not true. LM, Hollis, Hog 21W LED's will blow any HID out the water, especially the LM!!!. 12W LED will blow 15 W HID out the water. They have the same light output in term of lux and lumens, they have the same tight beams (7-8 degrees), they have longer burn times and they are more robust.

 

[danvolker]

Bill Hogarth Main was a cave diver that was part of the inner circle of divers involved in the WKPP back in the early 90's. He was a "tinkerer", an engineer type, and he was always looking for a better gear config...always.....like almost every dive
George Irvine used many of Main's better ideas, in the vast compilation of 30 years of diving ideas that he as the Director of the WKPP dive club, would 100% mandate to every member of the WKPP that wanted to dive..... this would become labeled as DIR--by a reporter that had asked George why WKPP divers were not dying like flies in north fla caves like the other groups were--and George's answer was that WKPP divers were not dying because they were DOING IT RIGHT. It was not a slur aimed at others.

Irvine liked Main, but found his constant tweaking and changing of configurations antithetical to the needs of a team based group, where every diver needed to know how to help whoever was buddied to them--they all dived the same gear, and the same way. With the zero death record George had as director of the WKPP in his tenure, with several world records in deep cave penetration, the compilation of smart diving practices the WKPP became known for, also became compelling to other divers. The DIR name was a double edged sword--some liked the feel of this name, some hated it because they thought it was directed at those not diving the WKPP way.
George himself was both loved and hated, depending on where a person's sensibilities were lying. He used a form or guerrilla marketing ( which I helped him with, god help me ) to position the DIR method against what were popularized as severe threats to diver safety--and many of these threats were mainstream manufacturers, or big name industry personalities--this was accomplished in a manner closer to WWF Wrestling, on the Cavers list, the Tech list, and on rec. scuba.
Main's Hogarthian search for the ideal gear and configuration, led to DIR....It never actually represented a completed system, because Main never finished changing things

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

I never know to laugh or cringe whenever this topic surfaces on ScubaBoard ... but some years back, Cave Diver wrote a pretty nice article explaining DIR in terms most recreational divers can comprehend ... http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/dir/44823-what-dir.html

There is only a little bit of equivalency between hogarthian and DIR, in that the former is a gear configuration while the latter is a systematic way of diving that utilizes that gear configuration. But DIR encompasses much more, as has been described by several posters already ... equipment, technique, and a mental commitment to standardization. It's predicated on the concept of "predictable behavior" ... DIR divers avoid the dreaded "instabuddy" by training in such a way that they are completely predictable and interchangeable ... you always know what to expect from a DIR-trained dive buddy, and they from you.

Like everything else in diving, there are advantages and drawbacks. It's a system that works extremely well for people who are "system oriented" thinkers ... and it feels very rigid and limiting to those who prefer doing things "their" way. Most fall somewhere in between ... and can adopt some of the ideas and techniques of DIR ... but because the system is designed as an "all or nothing" approach, there's a tendency to resent that they can't be part of the tribe without going all-in. The name itself also tends to produce some resentment, because of a natural tendency on the part of some to assume it means if you're not DIR, then you must be DIW. I take the attitude that it's a marketing slogan, designed to be somewhat controversial in order to get your attention.

Although it's a system that was initially designed to meet the needs of one specific project, in one specific locale, and one specific environment, it can be applied (or more frequently, misapplied) to pretty much any environment. That doesn't mean it's necessarily the best solution in those environments, nor that it won't be "overkill" in some of them ... but it works very well for those who are used to it in pretty much any condition they can dive in. Anyone who tells you it's strictly for "technical diving" either doesn't understand the system, or they're trying to sell you something ... but they are partly correct in terms of the environment it was initially designed for.

By far the most popular, and widely adapted DIR course is "Fundamentals" ... what started out as a remedial workshop and eventually got mass-marketed as a way to get introduced to this style of diving. It's a good class ... one of the best I've ever taken, despite the fact that I decided shortly thereafter that the DIR approach, while it offers many advantages, was somewhat limiting for my personal diving goals. Much of what I eventually became as a diver was built off the skills and mental approach I learned in that class.

And that's really the point I'm going to make ... whether or not you ultimately decide to adopt the DIR style, much of what it will teach you is adaptable to pretty much any diving style you eventually decide best suits your needs. It isn't the philosophy so much as the added perspective ... the answer to many of the questions about diving that begin with the word "why" ... that so many find useful.

And to put that into the context of your question ... DIR will teach you how to make good use of a hogarthian rig ... while just diving a hogarthian rig will teach you little to nothing about DIR. If you really are interested in understanding what it's about, avoid the hot-button terms like "religion" and "cult" ... those make for interesting internet discussion, but do little to answer your question. Focus instead on the "why" of what most diving education teaches ... and ask how this can apply to helping you become a more skilled, more comfortable diver. Question everything ... any instructor who can't explain everything they tell you in terms of "why" doesn't really understand it. The DIR instructors I know ... both GUE and UTD ... do a very good job with the question "why". You may ultimately decide that their reasons aren't compatible with your goals ... but the answers to those questions will benefit you in developing an understanding of what you want to do and where you want your diving to go. And that alone is worth the price of their training ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[boulderjohn]

Main's Hogarthian search for the ideal gear and configuration, led to DIR....It never actually represented a completed system, because Main never finished changing things

And he still hasn't finished. Although I have never met the man myself, I was part of a conversation that included a thoroughly-entrenched DIR individual who knew him and was lamenting the fact that he had changed some of his practices. When confronted, Bill told him he had moved on.

All my original tech training was DIR. When I later switched to TDI to complete my tech training, I found myself diving with people who had never even heard of DIR or GUE. They were Hogarthian, though. If you did not know what you were looking for on the dives, you would have had a hard time spotting the differences in our gear.

 

[MKrauter]

I never know to laugh or cringe whenever this topic surfaces on ScubaBoard ... but some years back, Cave Diver wrote a pretty nice article explaining DIR in terms most recreational divers can comprehend ... http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/dir/44823-what-dir.html

There is only a little bit of equivalency between hogarthian and DIR, in that the former is a gear configuration while the latter is a systematic way of diving that utilizes that gear configuration. But DIR encompasses much more, as has been described by several posters already ... equipment, technique, and a mental commitment to standardization. It's predicated on the concept of "predictable behavior" ... DIR divers avoid the dreaded "instabuddy" by training in such a way that they are completely predictable and interchangeable ... you always know what to expect from a DIR-trained dive buddy, and they from you.

Like everything else in diving, there are advantages and drawbacks. It's a system that works extremely well for people who are "system oriented" thinkers ... and it feels very rigid and limiting to those who prefer doing things "their" way. Most fall somewhere in between ... and can adopt some of the ideas and techniques of DIR ... but because the system is designed as an "all or nothing" approach, there's a tendency to resent that they can't be part of the tribe without going all-in. The name itself also tends to produce some resentment, because of a natural tendency on the part of some to assume it means if you're not DIR, then you must be DIW. I take the attitude that it's a marketing slogan, designed to be somewhat controversial in order to get your attention.

Although it's a system that was initially designed to meet the needs of one specific project, in one specific locale, and one specific environment, it can be applied (or more frequently, misapplied) to pretty much any environment. That doesn't mean it's necessarily the best solution in those environments, nor that it won't be "overkill" in some of them ... but it works very well for those who are used to it in pretty much any condition they can dive in. Anyone who tells you it's strictly for "technical diving" either doesn't understand the system, or they're trying to sell you something ... but they are partly correct in terms of the environment it was initially designed for.

By far the most popular, and widely adapted DIR course is "Fundamentals" ... what started out as a remedial workshop and eventually got mass-marketed as a way to get introduced to this style of diving. It's a good class ... one of the best I've ever taken, despite the fact that I decided shortly thereafter that the DIR approach, while it offers many advantages, was somewhat limiting for my personal diving goals. Much of what I eventually became as a diver was built off the skills and mental approach I learned in that class.

And that's really the point I'm going to make ... whether or not you ultimately decide to adopt the DIR style, much of what it will teach you is adaptable to pretty much any diving style you eventually decide best suits your needs. It isn't the philosophy so much as the added perspective ... the answer to many of the questions about diving that begin with the word "why" ... that so many find useful.

And to put that into the context of your question ... DIR will teach you how to make good use of a hogarthian rig ... while just diving a hogarthian rig will teach you little to nothing about DIR. If you really are interested in understanding what it's about, avoid the hot-button terms like "religion" and "cult" ... those make for interesting internet discussion, but do little to answer your question. Focus instead on the "why" of what most diving education teaches ... and ask how this can apply to helping you become a more skilled, more comfortable diver. Question everything ... any instructor who can't explain everything they tell you in terms of "why" doesn't really understand it. The DIR instructors I know ... both GUE and UTD ... do a very good job with the question "why". You may ultimately decide that their reasons aren't compatible with your goals ... but the answers to those questions will benefit you in developing an understanding of what you want to do and where you want your diving to go. And that alone is worth the price of their training ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

i really appreciate this answer, I feel it has clarified for me the differences. I am at work currently by will edit or add another post to follow up on the points made in this thread.

Thanks all!

 

[elmer fudd]

If you really are interested in understanding what it's about, avoid the hot-button terms like "religion" and "cult" ... those make for interesting internet discussion, but do little to answer your question.

I would be much more inclined to typify is as a military approach than as a religious one.

 

[MKrauter]

I would be much more inclined to typify is as a military approach than as a religious one.

Why would you typify it as such?

 

[elmer fudd]

Why would you typify it as such?

An emphasis on teams, uniformity, mission, training, etc...