TX101:The point of the whole post is this: I think I had better skills & buoyancy control at 25 dives than I do at 50. Going to Australia and diving in warm water, excellent vis and no drysuit was too easy. Perhaps I picked up some bad habits..
So is # of dives a good way to measure skill?
I dont think # of dives is a good way at all.
I know of instances with at least 5 different divers who were doing repetitive dives with 20 minute bottom times just so they could get four or five dives in their log to build up a required number of dives.
So these divers have 100+ dives logged that year. Does this make them skilled or experienced? Not in my book.
I think that experience comes in two distinct types. A breadth of experience and a depth of experience.
Breadth means that a diver has completed dives under a broad range of conditions. Warm dives, cold dives, deep dives, shallow dives, good viz, low viz, etc. etc.
Depth means that a diver has a lot of experience with one particular type of diving. 100 reef dives. 75 wreck dives. 200 spearfishing dives.
The most skilled and experienced diver, IMO, is one that has both types of experience. A wide range of different types of dives, and many of each type to their credit.
There is also some debate as to what actually constitutes a dive. I've taken a page from one of my former instructors with 20+ years experience. He doesn't log a dive if it's less than an hour.
I think that's a pretty good philosophy, because total time spent in the water is more indicative to me than number of dives.
I'd most likely rate someone higher that told me they had 100 hours in the water last year over someone that said they had 100 dives in last year.
YMMV.