I agree with those that think the controversy does not lie with the tenets of DIR, but with the misconceptions about DIR.
At times these misconceptions come from both sides of the apparent controversy. I think it's fueled by both the people who seem to be leading the charge against DIR, as well as, those who have just taken a DIR-F class and now feel that they know everything about DIR and how that compares to all other styles and philosophies of diving.
I also think that these days anyone who uses the word "stroke" in reference to another diver in any way besides as a tongue in cheek joke is trolling for controversy and trying to stir the pot to draw people into a fight.
The reality concerning the DIR diving that I've been exposed to in Southern California, has been quite different from the caricature of DIR that is perpetuated by people on the Internet.
DIR is simply a system and philosophy for recreational and technical recreational diving. It's not the only one and most of the proponents of DIR who I have met, think that anyone should be able to dive however they want to. It's their choice. DIR is not for everyone.
The more advanced a dive gets the more important it is to have people on your team who adhere to your team's standards and procedures whether that be a DIR team or something else. Some people are offended by that process of exclusion. To say that a team should not exclude someone because they do not have similar training and dive philosophy, is to impose your own philosophy on them by asking them to change the uniformity and standardization that is at the core of unified team diving. That would be no different than what the team is being accused of in the first place.
Whatever the style and philosophy is that someone chooses, they do so because the information that they have gathered has led them to believe that whatever they have chosen makes sense for them as the best choice for themselves. This is true of all DIR and non-DIR diving. Everyone on all sides of the issue believes that they are "right". That just makes sense or they wouldn't be doing whatever it is that they are doing.
This obviously does not take into account the many people who just don't have an opinion yet and are still gathering information. I believe that this is the category into which a vast majority of divers fall.
I'm still at the early stages of my DIR training and don't pretend to know all of the answers. I do however take it seriously and endeavor to learn as much about the system as possible. For me, it has dovetailed nicely with my original "old school" training that I started with in the late 70s. I see it as a logical extension of that training. I could have chosen a different path to advancing my dive education, but after gathering information felt that DIR training from GUE was the answer for me.
I see DIR as a system and philosophy of diving that has been assembled as an extensive list of "best practices" for diving as a unified team. These recommendations have been passed down from those who have put the system together as a result of rigorous use in a harsh and unforgiving environment. For the most part, they have not invented anything new, but simply codified what they have learned into a system that can be effectively taught to others. Sometimes these "best practices" are developed as a result of someone paying the ultimate price.
The DIR system is still evolving and encourages individuals to be "thinking" divers who understand the reasons for the choices that have been made. As time goes by, changes are made in favor of things that may be better as "best practices". As a system, it is not static and unchanging but evolving and ever improving.
There are those outside of DIR who have put together systems and philosophies for diving as a unified team. Many of these other ways of doing things are valid ways of conducting this type of diving. That said, there seem to be more similarities than differences between the varying systems.
In fact, even within "DIR" circles there are variations in "best practices".
For instance, you have training from GUE (the original source of DIR training led by Jarrod Jablonski), which recommends certain standard gas mixes be used when conducting dives to different depths.
The former training director of GUE, Andrew Georgitsis, is now teaching under the banner of NAUI Tec. Most people would argue that he is still a DIR diver even though he is no longer affiliated with GUE.
Andrew has chosen different gas mixes as the standard mixes that he teaches for conducting dives to different depths. It's still a standard, but the standard that has been settled on by Andrew is a bit different than the standard settled on by GUE.
It's not necessarily a question of "right" or "wrong", but an issue that we can simply recognize as "different". I think it is good to argue on an academic level about whether one set of gases is better suited as a standard than another. I feel that to be divisive on a personal level about the choice of gases is not necessary and that it is actually harmful to the promotion of unified team diving as a whole. The main point, in my opinion, is that people in both DIR camps agree that standard gas mixes are the answer from the standpoint of "best practices". Obviously within a team, one standard needs to be chosen. Reasons for choosing one standard over another is up to the members on that team.
I hope that this helps shed some light on the apparent controversies that exist.
Christian
