Hogarthian VS(?) DIR...
- Thread starter KOMPRESSOR
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
veggiedog:
Good comment.
The GUE/DIR folks took the basic Hogarthian system and have expanded on it (mostly for the better) and increased the emphasis on team dynamics and protocols but to say that DIR is a holistic approach to diving while Hogarthian diving is only about equipment is erroneous. Back in the days when "Hogarthian" was new, the focus wasn't just on "what" gear but even more importantly, "how." As it evolved, Hogarthian diving increasingly involved discussion about procedures, standards, fitness and other attributes commonly ascribed to DIR - Main, in particular, was/is a fitness nut and a solid team diver. More to the point, the origins of DIR can be at least partially traced to a political fight over the control of the WKPP project that found the ambitious Irving/Jablonski faction standing at the apex of the karst diving community. History belongs to the victors.
Here are a couple of relevant quotes:
DIR is a rational, if somewhat inflexible, extension of the Hogarthian system. If DIR has one fault, it's that it's leaders haven't yet been able to figure out how to put a sock in the mouths of their accolytes after they complete the DIRF catechism. There is VERY little to criticise about DIR itself.
I'm happy to call myself a Hog diver and would be happy to call myself a DIR diver, except for two things; (a) I'm not (DIR is an all or nothing thing - otherwise you're an Hogarthian diver), and; (b) there are a lot of DIR divers that I would be uncomfortable identifying with. In the end, however, the labels don't much matter and aren't all that accurate, anyway. If we spent the time we waste on "Hog -v- DIR" battles or "DIR -v- The World" battles on diving and learning to dive better, we would all be better off for it.
It's not all bad, though. If DIR does become the gold standard, at least the charters will run on time.
Here are a couple of relevant quotes:
No review of the Hogarthian style is complete without a discussion of the system itself. It is not merely the streamlined nature of their equipment nor the use of the long hose that sets the Hogarthian diver apart, it is the way new pieces are carefully arranged to create a harmonious system.Source.
Hogarth is Bill Main. He is one of our divers, and along with Bill Gavin developed our gear configuration, known as "Hogarthian" in the US cave-diving community. This is best described as a "less is best", buddy is your redundency concept...it is the only way to get the job done. Source.
If Hogarthian diving can be described as limited, bumbling and somewhat chaotic (reasonably accurate descriptions) that is probably because it tended to attract free-thinkers who were intent upon understanding the new ideas they were exploring and didn't always play well with others. Likewise, if DIR diving can be described as autocratic, regimental and overly structured (reasonably accurate descriptions) that is probably because it tends to attract a wider audience that is sometimes more concerned with belonging than understanding and that doesn't always play well with others.DIR is a rational, if somewhat inflexible, extension of the Hogarthian system. If DIR has one fault, it's that it's leaders haven't yet been able to figure out how to put a sock in the mouths of their accolytes after they complete the DIRF catechism. There is VERY little to criticise about DIR itself.
I'm happy to call myself a Hog diver and would be happy to call myself a DIR diver, except for two things; (a) I'm not (DIR is an all or nothing thing - otherwise you're an Hogarthian diver), and; (b) there are a lot of DIR divers that I would be uncomfortable identifying with. In the end, however, the labels don't much matter and aren't all that accurate, anyway. If we spent the time we waste on "Hog -v- DIR" battles or "DIR -v- The World" battles on diving and learning to dive better, we would all be better off for it.
It's not all bad, though. If DIR does become the gold standard, at least the charters will run on time.
Reefraff - well said couldn't agree more.
couldn't agree more.
reefraff:Back in the days when "Hogarthian" was new, the focus wasn't just on "what" gear but even more importantly, "how."
We'll written article. I think the above quote defines one of the differences of Hog vs DIR. As a sidenote the CDS May workshop will be "The History of Cave Diving",maybe a chance you'll get the history of Hogarthian from Hogarth himself-keep tuned for the agenda.
i noticed anytime somone asks a question about DIR
somone always lables them a troll.
seems to me there are some DIR people that are a bit touchey about explaining there DIR methoods to others. like its a members only secret..
more purple kool-aid please
somone always lables them a troll.
seems to me there are some DIR people that are a bit touchey about explaining there DIR methoods to others. like its a members only secret..
more purple kool-aid please
Bill Main, when making the comparison, uses the words "differences between the Hogarthian configuration and DIR."reefraff:
In your own cites, Irvine says "Hogarth is Bill Main. He is one of our divers, and along with Bill Gavin developed our gear configuration, known as "Hogarthian" in the US cave-diving community."
Using JJ as an authority on what "Hogarthian" means is a bit of a red herring; he and Main simply disagree.
You may draw your own conclusions on what's "erroneous."
Rick
Diesel298:
Be careful, I got a thread removed for saying stuff like this (not that I don't agree with you).
Signed up for my DIR class BTW. March 9th, 2006, (I like mine cherry).
JeffG
Contributor
Do you know the secret handshake?Diesel298:
Reefraff, excellent write up. I feel compelled to elaborate from a solo divers perspective.
DIR, IMHO, reeks of dogma. That doesn't mean DIR doesn't have positive aspects, but it appears to be lacking flexibility, hence I tend to suspect it has reduced the system to a common denominator and avoided the critical thinking aspect (the why?, what about the alternatives, ...). I have a tendency to avoid those kinds of solutions with or without the removal of the critical thinking (I have a general distrust of organized groups). From my perspective, the DIR crowd doesn't seem inept with regards to beliefs about gear or technique (many excellent beliefs there), they seem inept with regards to beliefs about beliefs.
I often look at HOG setups for inspiration, and I actually believe the Hogarthian concept can be trivially extended to include redundancy. Simple is better, but that doesn't mean given the constraints (solo diving implies no buddy) that a suitably simple system can't be gathered together that includes on board redundancy instead of buddy redundancy, which, I must point out, leads to a more complex solution than my solo system: I only have one set of fins, one BC, (i.e. no buddy)... and I don't have a buddy between me and my redundant gear. A simple system with redundancy involves bringing backup devices in the event that critical items malfunction or are lost, and nothing else (or very little else (items essential to the dive goal come to mind (repair, recovery, photography, ...)).
Problem with solo diving and onboard redundancy isn't that it isn't simple (given the constraints), it is that it is lacking an assistant, and I submit that assistants (buddies) are double edged swords. Furhermore, it is a wild assumption that I would want a buddy along to begin with.
I admit though, that I when I first encountered the need to buddy dive (my son was recently certified, and he is the exception to my rule about not wanting a buddy), I was of the mind that I would encourage development of my son in a self reliant manner similar to solo diving. I have now retracted somewhat in that position and I going for a more simplistic system with my son (less on board redundancy).
Although I may look at Hog setups for inspiration, I do not feel compelled to adhere to any system other than my own. In fact, I would be embarassed to do otherwise.
reefraff:Likewise, if DIR diving can be described as autocratic, regimental and overly structured (reasonably accurate descriptions) that is probably because it tends to attract a wider audience that is sometimes more concerned with belonging than understanding and that doesn't always play well with others.
DIR, IMHO, reeks of dogma. That doesn't mean DIR doesn't have positive aspects, but it appears to be lacking flexibility, hence I tend to suspect it has reduced the system to a common denominator and avoided the critical thinking aspect (the why?, what about the alternatives, ...). I have a tendency to avoid those kinds of solutions with or without the removal of the critical thinking (I have a general distrust of organized groups). From my perspective, the DIR crowd doesn't seem inept with regards to beliefs about gear or technique (many excellent beliefs there), they seem inept with regards to beliefs about beliefs.
I often look at HOG setups for inspiration, and I actually believe the Hogarthian concept can be trivially extended to include redundancy. Simple is better, but that doesn't mean given the constraints (solo diving implies no buddy) that a suitably simple system can't be gathered together that includes on board redundancy instead of buddy redundancy, which, I must point out, leads to a more complex solution than my solo system: I only have one set of fins, one BC, (i.e. no buddy)... and I don't have a buddy between me and my redundant gear. A simple system with redundancy involves bringing backup devices in the event that critical items malfunction or are lost, and nothing else (or very little else (items essential to the dive goal come to mind (repair, recovery, photography, ...)).
Problem with solo diving and onboard redundancy isn't that it isn't simple (given the constraints), it is that it is lacking an assistant, and I submit that assistants (buddies) are double edged swords. Furhermore, it is a wild assumption that I would want a buddy along to begin with.
I admit though, that I when I first encountered the need to buddy dive (my son was recently certified, and he is the exception to my rule about not wanting a buddy), I was of the mind that I would encourage development of my son in a self reliant manner similar to solo diving. I have now retracted somewhat in that position and I going for a more simplistic system with my son (less on board redundancy).
Although I may look at Hog setups for inspiration, I do not feel compelled to adhere to any system other than my own. In fact, I would be embarassed to do otherwise.
