More important, no. of dives or time uw

[jar546]

If I could go off the dock at a lake to 15' for 15 minutes and come up for a 12 minute surface interval and repeat, I can have a lot of dives under my belt each day.

But really, what did I learn and how did I improve my skills?

If my real average dive is 50 minutes then that 1 dive has 3X the amount of useful experience. So I ask you what is in a dive?

Should we be tallying the total number of hours and minutes rather than the number of dives? Would that make more sense then calculate average dive time if necessary?

Just trying to split some hairs and get some opinionated banter going here.

Thanks.

[fisheater]

I keep track of both.

Which is more important? Who knows? Does it matter?

[Jim Lapenta]

I have been looking at this for years now. At first it was number of dives. Then it was the amount of bottom time. Now, I address this in my new book that will be coming out around March, is it is neither. From the first pool session on I have become convinced it is the quality of the dive and it's effect on the diver. 50 dives mean nothing if the diver does not improve their skills or learn something about themselves. Just as a 2 hour dive is no biggie if it is spent tearing up the bottom or hitting the reef because one's buoyancy skills are lacking.

But that one 20 minute dive where you discover how to do a good modified frog kick, helicopter turn, or back kick can have effects that will not only last a lifetime, but be the breakthrough for discovering other skills. This in turn can lead to an increased knowledge base, better skillsets, and ultimately safer dives. It is not about time or numbers. It is about what you learn during those. The quality of the dive is now the most important thing to me.

[Jax]

I have been looking at this for years now. At first it was number of dives. Then it was the amount of bottom time. Now, I address this in my new book that will be coming out around March, is it is neither. From the first pool session on I have become convinced it is the quality of the dive and it's effect on the diver. 50 dives mean nothing if the diver does not improve their skills or learn something about themselves. Just as a 2 hour dive is no biggie if it is spent tearing up the bottom or hitting the reef because one's buoyancy skills are lacking.

But that one 20 minute dive where you discover how to do a good modified frog kick, helicopter turn, or back kick can have effects that will not only last a lifetime, but be the breakthrough for discovering other skills. This in turn can lead to an increased knowledge base, better skillsets, and ultimately safer dives. It is not about time or numbers. It is about what you learn during those. The quality of the dive is now the most important thing to me.

Love your definition, Jim! That's why I log some pool dives . . .

[stakanak]

I would:
Spend the time under water getting your buoyancy nailed-going up and down does not help that.
Run drills such as: flooded mask, air share, free flow, weight release, etc. Once again take the time and enjoy being underwater.
Exception: Practicing CESA, Buddy share ascent, etc.
Pogoing up and down the water column just to clock dives is not only limiting, it can also be dangerous.
Get Wet!

[awap]

Cut to the chase. Log what you want but track your development in terms of skills you need to work on, skills you worked on and improvements.

[Hank49]

If I could go off the dock at a lake to 15' for 15 minutes and come up for a 12 minute surface interval and repeat, I can have a lot of dives under my belt each day.

But really, what did I learn and how did I improve my skills?

You could learn a lot doing this.
Go off the dock into 4 foot vis, descend and swim across the lake and back 1 foot off the bottom without stirring up the silt. Do a very slow free ascent (all of 5 feet) and hold that stop, perfectly, at 10 feet for 3 minutes and deploy a surface marker buoy.
The do it swimming backwards. They do it swimming upside down.
You would develop some very good skills doing that.

Deeper diving in clear water is easy by comparison.

[cocoajoe]

I have been looking at this for years now. At first it was number of dives. Then it was the amount of bottom time. Now, I address this in my new book that will be coming out around March, is it is neither. From the first pool session on I have become convinced it is the quality of the dive and it's effect on the diver. 50 dives mean nothing if the diver does not improve their skills or learn something about themselves. Just as a 2 hour dive is no biggie if it is spent tearing up the bottom or hitting the reef because one's buoyancy skills are lacking.

But that one 20 minute dive where you discover how to do a good modified frog kick, helicopter turn, or back kick can have effects that will not only last a lifetime, but be the breakthrough for discovering other skills. This in turn can lead to an increased knowledge base, better skillsets, and ultimately safer dives. It is not about time or numbers. It is about what you learn during those. The quality of the dive is now the most important thing to me.

Bingo

[D_B]

I was going to say number of dives done in differing conditions than others you have done, but I think Jim's post addresses that and much more

[MaxBottomtime]

An opposing viewpoint...
I have never looged any training dives nor pool sessions. Yes, you learn a lot while in the water, but for me, diving is all about what you go to see under water. I consider training dives to be like going to work. I wouldn't count trips to the city I work in as pleasurable, but I would count trips to other places if I logged vacations. My log book is filled with dives I've made that were mostly enjoyable. If I want to work on back kicks, I can certainly do that under water, but I would never consider logging it as a dive.