Your right about that. Here on the board I'm the minority by far. But in the real world I'm the majority by a land slide. I don't think that a soccer ball is 24" in diameter is it? That's one big ball now.
Just curious about how well marketed "GUE" concept is in various parts of the world?
- Thread starter Mossie
- 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
- Messages
- 94,600
- Reaction score
- 93,829
- Location
- On the Fun Side of Trump's Wall
- # of dives
- 2500 - 4999
This is exemplary of a mindset I find somewhat objectionable as well. In truth, there are no skills in GUE that aren't taught by other agencies. The fundamental skills are dive planning, buddy awareness, and buoyancy control.
What DIR does that other agencies don't do is explore these skills in a level of detail that makes them easier to comprehend and master ... and more importantly they really push the importance of practice on a regular basis ... particularly in terms of task-loading yourself and practicing more than one skill at a time.
However, I don't think this is unique to the DIR way of doing things. I know divers out there who've been following that regimen for years ... many doing so in equipment that DIR deems to be "unsafe". That's the part I really have issues with. While it is true that a Hogarthian rig provides a level of simplicity, streamlining, and balance that enables the diver to more efficiently use the skills they possess, it doesn't inherently make anyone a better diver. Nor does it necessarily mean that anyone who doesn't dive that style is in any way less skilled, or less safe as a result.
Diving isn't, and should never become, a "my hose is longer than your hose" mentality. Too many folks get caught up in that ...
... Bob (Grateful Diver)
diveski01
Contributor
I found out about bp/wings and DIR when getting back into local diving. One of my new dive buddies looked awesome in the water while I felt like an upside down elephant! After the dives I was listening to accounts of his experience in a DIR Fundamentals class, and after finally trying his bp/wings (I resisted for several weeks), I discovered for myself how much I liked the system. I was amazed at how far I could glide after just one frog kick vs my jacket bcd. The set up is so flexible!
Most of the divers I know locally have learned about GUE/DIR through DIVING with good divers who are very willing to share their knowledge with others: "Try my gear, try this kick, try to use less weight based on this test/calculation, try to not silt up the bottom by kicking/trim/bouyancy contol, let's go play around in the pool/quarry to see what your issues are, maybe consider a DIRF class, we're going to spend X minutes of this dive practicing Y skill then we'll tour the quarry, ...." NEVER have I heard any of them say: "Everyone MUST get GUE training and Brand H gear to be a good diver."
Am I a great diver because I've taken the DIRF class? NO!!! I'm a much improved diver because I dive frequently with like-minded safe divers and we PRACTICE the skills shown during the class so we can UTILIZE the skills during FUN DIVES.
This poll is clearly a TROLL! Notice the originator hasn't been heard from?? Sniff, sniff - smells funky to me Mossie!
Fine
detroit diver
Contributor
- Messages
- 3,410
- Reaction score
- 13
You were doing great until:
"That's the part I really have issues with. While it is true that a Hogarthian rig provides a level of simplicity, streamlining, and balance that enables the diver to more efficiently use the skills they possess, it doesn't inherently make anyone a better diver. Nor does it necessarily mean that anyone who doesn't dive that style is in any way less skilled, or less safe as a result."
This is precisely why you cannot seperate one piece of the DIR system and still be DIR. Equipment is only one SMALL part of the equation. It comprises a number of things, including team awareness, signalling, bouyancy and trim control, and a lot more. The rig does not make you a better diver, or a diver at all. But you said it yourself-it is simple, streamlined, and balanced. People get hung-up on the equipment thing, because it is so different from a typical BC. It's hard to understand why less is more unless you really try it.
The rest of your post is quite accurate. One of the first things you are told when taking a DIR Fundy class is that the skills you will be taught are all mentioned in the PADI OW manual-somewhere around page 4, I think. The problems is, except for a few exceptional instructors, the skills are never properly taught so that the diver has mastery of them. And these are skills that are very important to diving. The DIRF class puts it all together and shows you how to get to that higher dive skill level. Once you get there, the dives are simply more fun because you feel more competent and confident in the water.
MHK
Guest
I suspect I may regret jumping into this thread, but I'll give it one post and if it gets any more acrimonious I'll bail out and if anyone has questions they are free to e-mail me at mhk@gue.com
To expand upon what Detroit Diver is saying, it's is difficult to piecemeal the system when in fact as he notes, the system is partially about gear. The problem I find often in cyber debates is that there is a mypoic fixation of the standardized configuration and the true essence of the system is lost in the rhetoric.
Trying to explain in it in such a piecemeal fashion simply isn't realistic. It's but a minor part of a holostic approach.
Taken in a different light, if you were to teach someone to play the piano and all they wanted to learn was one song, a piano instructor would likely want to teach the fundamentals first, play repetitively the cords and teach how to play piano, not just teach you one song. Whereas the other side of the coin is the student may not want to learn how to play Chopin or Mozart they may just want to play their favorite song. In short they are speaking two different languages. I'm incapable of teaching one part of the system to the exclusion of the other parts because it's an incomplete discussion. Those that have taken the class understand that concept so they argue in favor of the entirety of the class. Those that haven't seen the class argue that it's standardized gear and the same skills as other classes. That type of intangible will be debated until the end of time much like who was the greatest baseball/basketball/heavyweight champ of all time.. It's that type of debate that will always be inconclusive so we accept it and move on..
To speak to an earlier poster's point that we teach the same skills as other agencies, I would say partially correct and partially incorrect. We teach several skills in our Fundamental class that are rarely, if ever, introduced in equivalent egencies classes. Moreover, I would argue that we teach in more detail and expect more precsision. I'll note my class this weekend in Dallas, we had two platforms right next to each other. One platform A was my classes doing skills horizontal position with nuetral buoyancy, platform B was another agencies class all standing or kneeling on the platform doing the same skills.. Do we do the same skills? Some.. Do we do teach them the same way?? More often then not, absolutely not..
The debate will always be there, but what bugs me sometimes is that you always hear that the DIR side of the debate is loud or obnoxious, when if you actually look at some of the trolls that are started it's generally from those that want to provoke an exchange and then when they get what they want they say
"See, there goes the DIR bullies again".. It's like the bully on the schoolyard, he always wants to start a fight, then when he gets punched back he goes crying to the principal..
I have no interest in debating anyone, but if you have a question I'll answer it..
Later
To expand upon what Detroit Diver is saying, it's is difficult to piecemeal the system when in fact as he notes, the system is partially about gear. The problem I find often in cyber debates is that there is a mypoic fixation of the standardized configuration and the true essence of the system is lost in the rhetoric.
Trying to explain in it in such a piecemeal fashion simply isn't realistic. It's but a minor part of a holostic approach.
Taken in a different light, if you were to teach someone to play the piano and all they wanted to learn was one song, a piano instructor would likely want to teach the fundamentals first, play repetitively the cords and teach how to play piano, not just teach you one song. Whereas the other side of the coin is the student may not want to learn how to play Chopin or Mozart they may just want to play their favorite song. In short they are speaking two different languages. I'm incapable of teaching one part of the system to the exclusion of the other parts because it's an incomplete discussion. Those that have taken the class understand that concept so they argue in favor of the entirety of the class. Those that haven't seen the class argue that it's standardized gear and the same skills as other classes. That type of intangible will be debated until the end of time much like who was the greatest baseball/basketball/heavyweight champ of all time.. It's that type of debate that will always be inconclusive so we accept it and move on..
To speak to an earlier poster's point that we teach the same skills as other agencies, I would say partially correct and partially incorrect. We teach several skills in our Fundamental class that are rarely, if ever, introduced in equivalent egencies classes. Moreover, I would argue that we teach in more detail and expect more precsision. I'll note my class this weekend in Dallas, we had two platforms right next to each other. One platform A was my classes doing skills horizontal position with nuetral buoyancy, platform B was another agencies class all standing or kneeling on the platform doing the same skills.. Do we do the same skills? Some.. Do we do teach them the same way?? More often then not, absolutely not..
The debate will always be there, but what bugs me sometimes is that you always hear that the DIR side of the debate is loud or obnoxious, when if you actually look at some of the trolls that are started it's generally from those that want to provoke an exchange and then when they get what they want they say
"See, there goes the DIR bullies again".. It's like the bully on the schoolyard, he always wants to start a fight, then when he gets punched back he goes crying to the principal..
I have no interest in debating anyone, but if you have a question I'll answer it..
Later
I may even start a new thread on this...are there any BSAC trained divers out there who also have experience with DIR?
I'm open to a lot of things, but if quality of teaching is our metric then BSAC is it (and so probably is DIR). Want to learn how to get good buoyancy control...practice in a pool for 10 weeks. Afterall isn't that is what we all agree is missing in these courses? The teaching period is too short and people are stupid enough to think they can dive after what 8 hours pool time and 6 hours class room time.
The true diver continues learning...by one method or another.
I'm open to a lot of things, but if quality of teaching is our metric then BSAC is it (and so probably is DIR). Want to learn how to get good buoyancy control...practice in a pool for 10 weeks. Afterall isn't that is what we all agree is missing in these courses? The teaching period is too short and people are stupid enough to think they can dive after what 8 hours pool time and 6 hours class room time.
The true diver continues learning...by one method or another.
cornfed
Mindless lemming
BSAC has a multi-tiered mentored approach, correct?
Similar threads
