What's with the UTD haters?

[SanDiegoSidemount]

So, you know little about independent sidemount yet you feel qualified to discuss the pluses and minuses? That's not a very firm basis.

I have discussed the pluses that I like, and I've left the minuses for the rest of you to point out. I've also noted the downsides you've all pointed out are acceptable to me, for the diving I do, with the training I have.

If I'm to be convinced of buying a $1000 manifold just to make a qualified decision on it, I hope that there is a good, logical reason to do so. I still haven't heard one.

I've mentioned the reasons that I like it personally, and others have added to that. I've also said that if these reasons don't matter to you, or aren't enough for you, then you probably don't want to use a Z system. I'm not here to sell you anything, or convert you from how you already dive.

Despite the attitude you may have seen from a few here on SB, UTD is a very accepting and inclusive group, and doesn't "hard sell" their gear as the solution for every diver or type of diving.

If no independent sidemount experience, why did you go straight to the Z-manifold instead of starting out with standard, independent sidemount?

Because of the availability of all the gear and training I want 10 minutes from where I live. I don't know of any independent SM instructors here in SoCal. All the tech instructors are either GUE backmount or UTD.

 

[gearhound]

I'll agree with Victor. If the long hose is in my mouth, I reach up with my right hand and donate it. If it's clipped off, it's clipped off on my right shoulder d-ring, which is in the same area, so I reach up with my right hand and donate it. Pretty simple and no change in protocol.

SanDiegoSidemount has a valid point. He chose it because the training was available in his area. I'd rather see someone with crappy equipment and good training than the other way around. I'm sure you see enough of that in your area Vic. People like Kev that spend lots of money and automatically think that that makes them the better diver. Since you're with Edd, I'm sure you can see how much more vital good training is compared to good gear. Of course the best is good gear combined with good training!

 

[DaleC]

Like I said, not my cup of tea, but I don't think one can make a straight comparison in this regard.

What impresses me (if that's the right word) is that UTD/GUE have a real process of skill development beyond the classroom. It would drive me a little nuts but my take is they tend to practice skills, as a group, almost every dive so that the skills becomes reflexive. They often use the term muscle memory (which I don't weight the same personally). As a group they have a process in which the signal is given and the drill is performed. Universality means they can easily and without personal interpretation, critique whether it was done correctly. This feedback allows immediate tweaking of deficiencies. Makes sense in that context.

So, the donation /configuration issue transcends the acute donation event by becoming a part of the diving culture. I think proponents would argue this culture provides the core strength of their regime, not necessarily the configuration itself (this is often why arguments about equipment miss the point on both sides). Change the configuration and you change the drill. Change the drill and you change the feedback mechanism. Change the feedback and you confuse correction.

I have other "rules" that I rely more heavily on for safety, chiefly: Simplicity, robustness, adaptability and true redundancy but I understand I am an individual.

As individuals, we may say "I am proficient" without using that system but the question an agency wrestles with is how do you create consistency of skill throughout a group of people. It's a tough question and I see how UTD has attempted to address the issue via universality, even though I don't subscribe to it personally.

 

[Garth]

Ok. But can we agree that GUE probably deserves more "credit" as they are the divers who are doing REAL dives.

I know that UTD probably has performed some big dies but not to the degree of GUE. Can we say "not even close?"

Just wondering what everyone thought.




Garth

 

[ScubaInChicago]

Ok. But can we agree that GUE probably deserves more "credit" as they are the divers who are doing REAL dives.

I know that UTD probably has performed some big dies but not to the degree of GUE. Can we say "not even close?"

Just wondering what everyone thought.




Garth

While I'm not a fan of UTD, I won't take that low hanging fruit. UTD has lot of very accomplished divers who have done the BIG dives (some while instructors for GUE). I don't believe this thread is about chest thumping and who does the bigger dives...

I do however like GUE's Project Baseline which finds ways of using divers with good skill sets to accomplish missions locally. Kudos to them.

 

[TSandM]

I don't think UTD, as an organization, has the track record of big projects that GUE has -- but UTD is very, very young. AG himself certainly has the track record. And UTD didn't have the advantage of working with an ongoing project organization like the WKPP.

I have my own criticisms of UTD, but the lack of "big" projects is not one of them.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Like I said, not my cup of tea, but I don't think one can make a straight comparison in this regard.

What impresses me (if that's the right word) is that UTD/GUE have a real process of skill development beyond the classroom. It would drive me a little nuts but my take is they tend to practice skills, as a group, almost every dive so that the skills becomes reflexive. They often use the term muscle memory (which I don't weight the same personally). As a group they have a process in which the signal is given and the drill is performed. Universality means they can easily and without personal interpretation, critique whether it was done correctly. This feedback allows immediate tweaking of deficiencies. Makes sense in that context.

So, the donation /configuration issue transcends the acute donation event by becoming a part of the diving culture. I think proponents would argue this culture provides the core strength of their regime, not necessarily the configuration itself (this is often why arguments about equipment miss the point on both sides). Change the configuration and you change the drill. Change the drill and you change the feedback mechanism. Change the feedback and you confuse correction.

I have other "rules" that I rely more heavily on for safety, chiefly: Simplicity, robustness, adaptability and true redundancy but I understand I am an individual.

As individuals, we may say "I am proficient" without using that system but the question an agency wrestles with is how do you create consistency of skill throughout a group of people. It's a tough question and I see how UTD has attempted to address the issue via universality, even though I don't subscribe to it personally.

It boils down to mindset ... the belief that good skills come from continual practice and continual improvement. It doesn't need an agency to develop that mindset, but it does provide some consistency when the mindset is built into how the agency teaches.

Ironic that the people who have the most developed skills for dealing with emergencies are the least likely to need to put them to use ... due to the way they plan and execute their dives.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

---------- Post added February 16th, 2014 at 07:02 AM ----------

Ok. But can we agree that GUE probably deserves more "credit" as they are the divers who are doing REAL dives.

I know that UTD probably has performed some big dies but not to the degree of GUE. Can we say "not even close?"

Just wondering what everyone thought.

Garth

I'm not sure we can agree to that at all. Some GUE divers have done "big" dives ... but the majority aren't diving any "bigger" than a lot of other people..

Making that claim is a lot like 49ers fans constantly bragging about how their team has won five Superbowls ... nobody on their current team has won even one, so they brag about the accomplishments of the organization rather than the people ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Garth]

Garth

 

[victorzamora]

I have discussed the pluses that I like, and I've left the minuses for the rest of you to point out. I've also noted the downsides you've all pointed out are acceptable to me, for the diving I do, with the training I have.

Pluses compared to what? Also, I have yet to see a cohesive list. Please show otherwise.

I've mentioned the reasons that I like it personally, and others have added to that. I've also said that if these reasons don't matter to you, or aren't enough for you, then you probably don't want to use a Z system. I'm not here to sell you anything, or convert you from how you already dive.

My statement was rhetorical, not at all an insinuation of trying to be sold something.

Because of the availability of all the gear and training I want 10 minutes from where I live. I don't know of any independent SM instructors here in SoCal. All the tech instructors are either GUE backmount or UTD.

And that makes sense. As was brought up by gearhound, I truly believe good training is MUCH better than good gear. Good gear takes a credit card. Good training takes a lot of devotion. However, they are pushing a hard sell on the manifold....or at least on their distribution block. I mean, requiring it for their sidemount courses is a hard sell. Any good instructor I've dealt with has had a lot of flexibility in terms of gear. Heck, even GUE doesn't require any H-branded gear for any of their classes. My distaste for that requirement is beyond the profit (I'm a Capitalist, I get it)....it's the fact that it breeds disciples that aren't capable of responding to the benefits of that equipment in a cogent manner. Everything I believe in terms of Tech diving is something I decided upon, with guidance from my instructors. I can defend the vast majority of my choices as MY choices, not those of my instructors. I have yet to see someone choose the manifold or distribution block of their own accord, and then be able to explain it.

 

[tomfcrist]

Like I said, not my cup of tea, but I don't think one can make a straight comparison in this regard.

What impresses me (if that's the right word) is that UTD/GUE have a real process of skill development beyond the classroom. It would drive me a little nuts but my take is they tend to practice skills, as a group, almost every dive so that the skills becomes reflexive. They often use the term muscle memory (which I don't weight the same personally). As a group they have a process in which the signal is given and the drill is performed. Universality means they can easily and without personal interpretation, critique whether it was done correctly. This feedback allows immediate tweaking of deficiencies. Makes sense in that context.

So, the donation /configuration issue transcends the acute donation event by becoming a part of the diving culture. I think proponents would argue this culture provides the core strength of their regime, not necessarily the configuration itself (this is often why arguments about equipment miss the point on both sides). Change the configuration and you change the drill. Change the drill and you change the feedback mechanism. Change the feedback and you confuse correction.

I have other "rules" that I rely more heavily on for safety, chiefly: Simplicity, robustness, adaptability and true redundancy but I understand I am an individual.

As individuals, we may say "I am proficient" without using that system but the question an agency wrestles with is how do you create consistency of skill throughout a group of people. It's a tough question and I see how UTD has attempted to address the issue via universality, even though I don't subscribe to it personally.

It boils down to mindset ... the belief that good skills come from continual practice and continual improvement. It doesn't need an agency to develop that mindset, but it does provide some consistency when the mindset is built into how the agency teaches.

Ironic that the people who have the most developed skills for dealing with emergencies are the least likely to need to put them to use ... due to the way they plan and execute their dives.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

---------- Post added February 16th, 2014 at 07:02 AM ----------

Ok. But can we agree that GUE probably deserves more "credit" as they are the divers who are doing REAL dives.

I know that UTD probably has performed some big dies but not to the degree of GUE. Can we say "not even close?"

Just wondering what everyone thought.

Garth

I'm not sure we can agree to that at all. Some GUE divers have done "big" dives ... but the majority aren't diving any "bigger" than a lot of other people..

Making that claim is a lot like 49ers fans constantly bragging about how their team has won five Superbowls ... nobody on their current team has won even one, so they brag about the accomplishments of the organization rather than the people ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Bob, your 49ers analogy is factually inaccurate. Bouldin won with the ravens...against the 49ers.