Hogarthian diving; the definition.

[Capnsnott]

In lew of the other threads dealing with "what the heck is Hogarthian?", I decided to post the link to an article I read a while back.
Go read this article written by JJ.
"Hogarthian Gear Configuration by Jarrod Jablonski" http://www.sfdj.com/hogarthian/hogarth1.html

This, in all honesty, is really what I feel the definition of Hogarthian diving is.

I used it and another article as the basis of my diving, I also began using DIR guidelines as well. For those of you that don't know, JJ is (I think) the person that started the DIR way of training. I'm assuming G.I. had something to do with it as well.

For those that have Tom Mount's "Technical Diver Encyclopedia" (1998), there is an article in it as well by JJ (thanks to Scubaputz for this info).

I also read an article that gave William Hogarth Main's reasonings behind his method, I can't find the link right now. I will post it should I run across it again. I have to note that Mr. Main has himself tweaked his gear configuration over the years. JJ points this out in his article as well.

I hope this helps everyone set some kind of standard for this seemingly "mystic" idea of Hogarthian diving.
Happy diving.
Greg

 

[DennisS]

A search for "William Main" over on The Deco Stop provides lots of information on hagarthian and DIR diving.

http://thedecostop.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2525

 

[Scuba]

Here is an article that clearly outlines some key points:

http://www.cavedivers.com.au/articles/hogarth.htm

Another one for DIR fans by George Irving entitled "Do it Right or Don't Do it!", which coincidentally contains the origins of the term DIR. Along with a few other DIR morsels.
I mention this as reference for those interested. Not to start a DIR discussion.

http://www.pina3.net/dive/index.htm

 

[Nemrod]

Thanks for the links and info. So it seems that this Hogathism is an outgrowth of appling a system concept to rigging for techincal types of diving. So when applied to open water diving--even advanced types of open water then what would one consider to be a Hogartian type of rig/system/approach? I realize this thread is outside of the solo forum but then if one was diving solo there would be no need for the extra long primary hose would there be or is this incorrect?

When I use a BC, I use a wing style. I have never used the jacket types and when cave diving or wreck diving I have a front type BC that only uses the lower area below the tummy for bouyancy control (Dacor--late 70s). The wing unit I have has a bit more size that the Halcyon rigs (well about like the Explorer set) in the link but it does allow me to remove the rig when shore diving and the use it somewhat as a swimboard to return to the shore.

So then, I think it is that a jacket style BC would never be considered Hogarthian or minimalistic? I guess also that my approach to minimalism for open water diving has not been so system oriented as instead an approach to reducing equipement to the barest minimum that would be practical for a particular dive. The equipement selection for the dive that would be required would be based on solo/buddy or shore/boat or name any of a dozen other variables plus an individuals fitness, the barest essentials is my approach and in some instances that involves no BC. Sacrilege--perhaps--but I should point out that people dived before there were BCs. Some might say that skin diving is the purest form of diving so then to a mask and fins add tank and regualtor and not much more and that is certainly minimal. Thanks again for the info, very helpful. N

 

[Doc Intrepid]

Here is an article that clearly outlines some key points:

http://www.cavedivers.com.au/articles/hogarth.htm

Another one for DIR fans by George Irving entitled "Do it Right or Don't Do it!", which coincidentally contains the origins of the term DIR. Along with a few other DIR morsels.
I mention this as reference for those interested. Not to start a DIR discussion.

http://www.pina3.net/dive/index.htm

Heh, now those are some old classics!

Thanks for the links...

 

[Capnsnott]

Cool!
Thanks for the links. I'm a little short on those. I had to start over again with a new computer and re find all my links.
Greg

 

[Nemrod]

Yes, thanks for the links, very informative. Do you guys have problems with the DIR setups when diving off of "cattle boats"? This and the other thread I started have gotten me thinking on rerigging my equipment and ditching the last vestiges of a console from my "cattleboat" rig. What I mean is that I have several rigs. One is set up to be cattleboat compliant, one is for short cave/wreck penetration and another for solo/adventure diving now off my kayak. What are your collective feelings on a Spareair system and how would that fit into DIR Open water diving? (in lieu of octapus etc and or solo). N

 

[DennisS]

"What are your collective feelings on a Spareair system and how would that fit into DIR Open water diving? (in lieu of octapus etc and or solo)."


You wouldn't be trying to generate buzz, would you?

 

[MSilvia]

What are your collective feelings on a Spareair system and how would that fit into DIR Open water diving? (in lieu of octapus etc and or solo). N

Better to ask that question in the DIR forum, but in my personal opinion, Spare Air is best for giving divers a false sense of security. You're far better off with even a small 19 cf tank with a standard regulator. If I was going to be piloting a rescue helicopter or a jet boat, I might consider a spare air to help exit after a crash, but I think they're close to worthless for divers doing anything more than a very shallow reef tour.

There are plenty of threads related to the Spare Air. I'd suggest giving them a glance before posting about it, as it's been pretty much gone over ad-nauseam.

 

[Quarrior]

Thanks for the links and info. So it seems that this Hogathism is an outgrowth of appling a system concept to rigging for techincal types of diving. So when applied to open water diving--even advanced types of open water then what would one consider to be a Hogartian type of rig/system/approach?

It seems to me the whole idea is to have only what you need for the dive and carry two of them pretty much covers both technical and recreational diving.

I realize this thread is outside of the solo forum but then if one was diving solo there would be no need for the extra long primary hose would there be or is this incorrect?

I don't know that I would go so far as to say the long hose is not needed. What happens if you're out wandering around and come across a diver needing your gas or for that matter, that OOA diver came upon you? Sure would be nice to have that long hose so you both don't have to surface in a very cramped configuration.

When I use a BC, I use a wing style. I have never used the jacket types and when cave diving or wreck diving I have a front type BC that only uses the lower area below the tummy for bouyancy control (Dacor--late 70s). The wing unit I have has a bit more size that the Halcyon rigs (well about like the Explorer set) in the link but it does allow me to remove the rig when shore diving and the use it somewhat as a swimboard to return to the shore.

So then, I think it is that a jacket style BC would never be considered Hogarthian or minimalistic?

There may be some here who would disagree with me, but, I don't see any reason a jacket style could not be minimalistic. Just don't go clipping off or putting a whole bunch of danglies on lanyard/retractors.

I guess also that my approach to minimalism for open water diving has not been so system oriented as instead an approach to reducing equipement to the barest minimum that would be practical for a particular dive. The equipement selection for the dive that would be required would be based on solo/buddy or shore/boat or name any of a dozen other variables plus an individuals fitness, the barest essentials is my approach and in some instances that involves no BC.

Seems to make sense to me. Although I've never done any diving with out a BC, so I can't speak to that particular comment.