Your earlier post quoted my statement that many might argue that today's new divers are less competent than new divers from "back in the day". Your post seemed to be an attempt to refute that notion. It seemed to suggest that new divers today are more competent than (or equal in competence to) new divers from back when everyone had to go through a many-week course that was more physically demanding than today's courses and included much more time in the water. I am just seeking clarification on what you actually think.
Why, yes! Back in the day, men were men, goats were scared of SCUBA researchers, and they had that awful
Riunite wine ad on television all the damn time. I think I still have it on some of my betamax recording of "The Incredible March of the Spiny Lobsters." I wish we could go back there.
Let's review why scuba diving instruction was so much more comprehensive back then:
1) Tables? We don't need no steenking tables, when all we've got are twin 44s, that won't last long enough for you to get bent. Computers? Ya, I just trust the needle on my Scubapro bend-o-matic.
2) Ox tox? Analyzer? Nitrox bands? We don't dive no voodoo gas 'round here.
3) Trimix? No, the way we do things is just add a little helium to the air for deep dives. Hypoxic? whazzat? Works for me.
4) Buoyancy control? Old time divers developed great skills in walking on the reef at the beginning of the dive and collecting rocks towards the end of the dive. We don't need no steenking horse collar
4a) Besides, I can tell my buoyancy control is great, because I can see any changes +- only 5 feet by looking at my depth gauge and I'm well within that.
5) Buddy breathing? Manly divers just learned blow-and-gos from 100 feet.
6) Drysuit? What drysuit?
7) The considerable skill required for differential diagnosis of DCS vs. overexposure to two-cycle engine exhaust.
8) Inches, man. All that metric BS is for science weirdos and photography weenies, not for wet suits.
9) Everything I needed to know I learned from Skin Diver magazine, because I learned to dive somewhere besides California.
10) Swimming ability and good tolerance of bullying instructors are the hallmark of a capable diver
11) I read an article about caves so I'm good.
12) SPG, bah. I'm diving my watch. J valves are for people who don't know how to set a watch.
Right. Tongue firmly in cheek, just in case anyone made it this far without noticing.
I don't doubt that there were some great divers and some great instructors. There still are.
I think that when this perennial topic comes up, there is a tendency to conflate high physical fitness and swimming ability on the part of students
prior to entry into a SCUBA instruction program with a program that confers ability in these areas. A program that sets an unnecessary and unrealistically high bar for entry serves no one.
The instructors and students Back Then on the whole worked hard, sure, longer hours, more physical demands, more militaristic approach overall to training. But the training was not as well designed, the equipment required more of the divers, and there is nothing to suggest that the end result was safer, more capable, or happier divers. And I am quite sure that there were a larger number of people who were turned off from diving by the nature of the training of the day.
Another fact to consider is that instruction itself was far more dangerous in the early days, in part because of all those blow-and-gos and the fact that they were not taught with the considerable caution that all agencies use today when teaching what is now called a CSA. Overall the various risks are much better understood and the training emphasis reflects that. The statistics aren't that reliable and don't go back far enough to capture all of it, but there is no doubt in my mind that it is far safer to be a student today.
I actually think we're better off now.