Non GUE DIR

[bedmund]

Keep in mind that this discussion is really for GUE trained folks or folks that have intimate knowledge of GUE training. If you aren't then it is difficult to understand the scope of the discussion.

Mark

Hi Mark. A you know, I am not.

But as for understanding the scope of the discussion... 10,200 views and 250 replies... holy moly! Nice one!

-Bill

 

[GreenDiverDown]

I'm not sure I follow you here. GUE should drop the DIR name or the DIR name should be dropped alltogether? There is no relevance to the name. You can call the system "Fred" if you want.

Well then, "Fred" would be just as useful as "DIR". It is not the term itself that is important but rather, what that term defines.

Keep in mind that this discussion is really for GUE trained folks or folks that have intimate knowledge of GUE training. If you aren't then it is difficult to understand the scope of the discussion.

I'm glad to see that you chose to use the word "difficult" and not the word impossible. "Difficult" as it may be, I'm pretty sure that I am able to "understand the scope of the discussion."

 

[StSomewhere]

Let's take 5thD-X, which includes AG, Joe T and Delia, out of the picture here for the moment, since they are all GUE trained instructors.

Why would we do that? Since AFIAK those are the only "non-GUE" instructors offering "non-GUE" DIR classes. Including their versions of the long awaited DIR OW class, Essentials, Fundamentals (doubles required), etc.

As to the other agencies, since DIR isn't trademarked -- or trademark-able -- someone has always been able create an SSI or PADI distinctive specialty with their own "non-GUE" version of DIR (i.e. ProDive's ROS). It might be good, it might be awful, and (coming back full circle) that would be 100% dependent on the instructor, the materials, and how the instructor organized and delivered the class.

Even though GUE's classes are all standardized to some high degree (though NWGD's two DIR-F experiences documented here on SB lead me to think not 100%), aren't students still concerned about who the instructor is? I know I am.

 

[Robert Phillips]

As to the other agencies, since DIR isn't trademarked -- or trademark-able -- someone has always been able create an SSI or PADI distinctive specialty with their own "non-GUE" version of DIR (i.e. ProDive's ROS). It might be good, it might be awful, and (coming back full circle) that would be 100% dependent on the instructor, the materials, and how the instructor organized and delivered the class.

Regardless of the trademark, George Irvine is (nevermind anyones opinion of him) the only person who gets to dictate what DIR is. Others may claim it but ultimately, it is his baby.

I have never taken a class from AG except for by proxy (Marc Hall is AG tech trained) but have met Andrew a few times and he is a great guy. I may take his wreck class next year for the knowledge that I can get from him. It does not matter to me if I get labeled a stroke from the East Coasters for learning wreck protocols from AG. GUE does not have a wreck class. I will, however be taking any Tech level classes from a GUE instructor in the future. My diving, my choice. Will you guys still dive with me?

 

[scubaputz]

The fact of the matter is, if you are GUE trained, I know what to expect.

I never understood the huge concern with this. I don't care what agency you're trained with, I'm not going deep or going into an overhead environment with you until I've had a chance to dive with you on a "normal" recreational dive. Some of you guys waste way too much time discussing this BS on the web and way too little time out actually diving. Last time I checked, this was supposed to be fun.

Bruce

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Well, I'll agree with the first part ... but

Some of you guys waste way too much time discussing this BS on the web and way too little time out actually diving. Last time I checked, this was supposed to be fun.

... well, first off ... how would you know? I mean, of the people I've dived with who are involved in this conversation, I'd say almost all of them log at least a couple hundred hours of bottom time a year. What do you consider "too little time out actually diving"?

And "fun" is a rather subjective term ... for most it means being in the water with someone they're comfortable with, regardless of whether it's a deep, shallow, or technical dive.

I don't agree with a lot of what's been said in this thread ... on the other hand, the whole purpose of a discussion board is ... well ... discussion ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[bridgediver]

Yes, I was talking about facts. It's not my opinion, it's a fact. My experience is fact, not opinion. Diference between opinion and experience is obvious. If I (as non-native English speaker) can see it then it's more then obvious to you.

I guess not then... If our opinions are different then its quite possible that our experiences are also different so this cannot be regarded as fact. A fact is a statement independant of experience wouldn't you say?

 

[bridgediver]

Coke owns Coke, they don't own Cola. There were other Cola's before Coke.

EDIT: Oh, and Ford didn't invent the automobile. It was invented years before Ford. Ford revolutionized manufacturing with the assembly line.

Ok... You get my meaning though, right? Theres a reason why we're still not driving around in model T's

 

[MonkSeal]

A fact is a statement independant of experience wouldn't you say?

I guess you're right.

 

[MonkSeal]

I mean, of the people I've dived with who are involved in this conversation, I'd say almost all of them log at least a couple hundred hours of bottom time a year. What do you consider "too little time out actually diving"?

A few years back I found an interesting definition on this subject here on SB. It was something like: "If you have more posts on SB than dives then you've spent to much time in posting and to little time in diving."