Swimming Skills Assessment

[ScubaFeenD]

After commenting, leaving, and then returning to see this thread talking about something a bit different than what it is supposed to be about, I would like to offer my opinion.

I can vouch for Trace, that he is not all about machismo. I am friends with many of his students (i am a proud student of his) and he doesn't just select buff men with spearguns (i am not buff, nor a speargunner). His teaching style demands performance, but it varies a lot with the student he is teaching, but he doesnt coddle any of his students (at least not from what I can tell; I just maybe a particularly poor performer though). He expects awesomeness from every student and works tirelessly to see that happen. His students are probably the best divers (based on skill and control) at our local quarry on any given day.

What I DO know and can tell from the responses in this thread, is that everyone learns differently. Some people thrive in an environment where they have a harsher critic in their instructor. I know I do. I dont want to be babied and often times (often to my own detriment) I need to have expectations set extremely high--then I seem to rise up to meet those expectations. It was like that when I was a new firefighter and EMT, is like that now in Med School/Grad School, and I expect it to be like that later on in life too. Sometimes you need to have the impossible expected before performance can seep out.

THAT SAID, I think people can validly learn other ways too. Some people just respond much better to a quiet discussion, and that is fine too, as long as the standards are still high. Neither are wrong, because peoples learning styles are not wrong, they are just different. Perhaps Trace's style isnt for you. It is for me and I am glad that he has had the experiences he has had and teaches that way--I have been able to learn a lot that way.

Whether this means you need to be an athletic swimmer is questionable. Clearly, from the responses here, most people feel comfortable in the water at some basal level. Triatholon level of swimming needed? Probably not. However, I will say that after I started runnning six miles a day, I didnt feel I was a BETTER DIVER, but i did notice my RMV/SAC went from .75-->.5 (that is working SAC), which allowed me to be far more comfortable in the water.

I still think that some experience in the water and comfort (either gained early on in life or at some basal level) will allow you to be more comfortable dealing with a myriad of emergencies that can take place, but I dont think some high level of swimming skill is always necessary. I would never give up my level of comfort in the water though, because it has made such a huge difference in how I respond underwater as compared to how I have seen others respond underwater.

 

[Blue Sparkle]

I like your post, ScubaFeenD You are explaining your perspective, preferences, and experience, but not intimating that it is or should be everyone's.

I just want to clarify one thing about my previous posts: I don't know how Trace actually teaches, so I wasn't addressing that. Instead, I was responding to what he was saying in this thread about subjects such as swimming; coaching/teaching styles; encouraging people to participate in the sport; who is diving; and why people dive.

 

[Trace Malinowski]

Claus,

You hit the nail on the head with your aircraft landing analogy.

Tim,

Thanks, bro. I appreciate the support. With all the time we've spent together at Dutch Springs, up at the St. Lawrence River, in cave country and in the Florida Keys, in social settings and on the phone, I really had to laugh about your comment regarding "Trace's style."

Every class you've taken with me was prepping you for your goals of being thoroughly trained, diving wrecks off the east coast, passing GUE courses, and being able to hang out and dive with our group of friends. You also specifically told me that you wanted everything in the arsenal thrown at you. With that in mind, you got my style for those who really want to cowboy up and be star players.

You should have seen Jason Tully's face the day he assisted me with a refresher course for Lehigh Valley Dive Center. We had a married couple from South America who had been certified through PADI, but who had not been diving in a couple years since moving to New York City from Brasil. I went into "Julie the Cruise Director" mode. While my standards and expectations had not changed, they were realistic standards for the abilities, experience and goals of that couple. We needed them to pass the minimal standards of the PDIC Review, Update & Refresher Course. They didn't, but they tipped us well and were thoroughly happy with the amount of patience and attention they received and told me that I was far more patient with them than the instructor they had at a Brasilian resort. They tipped us both generously and decided they were going to call a PADI instructor friend of mine and spend some time with him working on their skills in PADI's Peak Performance Buoyancy class. After they left, Jason asked, "What was that? You almost seemed like a recreational diving instructor!" I told him I am a recreational diving instructor.

I need to adjust my style of training for each individual. That style is like sauce for wings - sweet, mild, hot. Telling that couple that I'd have their balls for breakfast if they couldn't do an air-sharing ascent properly would not have worked well. If I told you that, you'd laugh! Especially since I my accent sounds like Jeff Spicolli from Fast Times at Ridgemont High or Crush from Finding Nemo. They needed a sweet approach. Yet, despite patience and lots of work, we just couldn't get the control out of them they needed to demonstrate skills to the minimum standards. I had to teach the wife to kick because she had a horrible bicycle kick and we spent time gently correcting her technique and praising her for every step in the right direction.

I can beat your ass because you're a rising star player and you like it.

(I know. I know. THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID!)

That just doesn't get old.

 

[temet vince]

Btw Trace, I don't think I'm nearly as cocky as you think I am. But maybe me not knowing that I am makes me so? XD

I would like to say that I do think swimming ability is important for scuba diving. Walking is important for being active. But just like swimming, it's not a necessity. There are some very active wheelchair bound people. However, if there is an emergency where people need to move quickly, people who can walk (well, run in this case) will be much better off than people who are disabled. It's just a fact.

Is scuba diving any different? Swimming ability is important, especially in situations that are strenuous. I just don't personally believe it is a necessity for scuba diving, nor do I believe someone should be judged because they are a poor swimmer. By "schooling" a veteran several thousand dive instructor, I really was just trying to imprint the idea that scuba diving is a very broad activity, where swimming ability is not necessary for everything, nor should it be treated as such. Now, as one enters areas of diving that call for it, then yes, swimming ability becomes increasingly important. But to say that it is extremely important for scuba diving in general is erroneously painting certain biases from some types of diving to all recreational diving, imo.

Does this make more sense than my original post? Sometimes I'm not very good with words.

 

[knowone]

I thought there had been a glitch, and was reading the same post.

Perhaps one day when conditions are right the weather will change.

 

[temet vince]

I thought there had been a glitch, and was reading the same post.

Perhaps one day when conditions are right the weather will change.

How sardonic.

 

[Lobzilla]

That may be, but I don't think his posts/points come across that way.



Okay, but it almost seems like you are setting up a false dichotomy. Either one agrees with Trace's view wherein those he-men on the vintage equipment boxes and the tough-love coaches are what make one great; or else one is an uncaring schlub with horrible diving technique, no dignity, and clogged arteries.

I just don't see those as being the only two choices. I take pride in doing things as cleanly and gracefully as possible, even though I have not been trained in your/Trace's style. I love swimming and am reasonably good at it, yet I'm not an athletic lap swimmer (due in part to not having a pool within reasonable distance).

You also imply that people like me (i.e. not like you) are crying out for "politically correct" mealy-mouthed un-earned certification, and that we are calling you elitist. Well, I'm certainly not. I'm simply saying that there is more than one style of learning, and that I think people can become good, dignified, caring divers with more than one of those styles.

Although, that said, I am starting to get the feeling that you may be elitist. But it is NOT because you aim high, nor is it because you are a technically proficient diver, or a fit diver. It's because you are more or less implying that the rest of us are hordes of uncaring slugs because we are not like you. Ouch.

Blue Sparkle,

Since we already were reminded by the mods to play nice, let's stop the ad hominems (like in the last paragraph). I was referring to a group of divers that is clearly recognised by anyone who keeps the eyes open under water. In no way did I make you or anyone I never saw in the water part of that group; but I love your vivid description.

All,

While there are many styles to teach in diving I see two camps formed around how well tasks needs to be learned. One camp thinks that OK is good enough and the other camp doesn't. The demarcation between these philosophies coincides largely with the rec and tec distinction. If fact, the most prevalent argument for 'good enough' is that "I am not diving in a cave, etc.".

Subsequently, the argument goes like this: I do not need perfect trim and buoyancy because I am not in a cave, not much gasplanning because I have a buddy, not much air-sharing experience because I have the surface above me, not much swimming skills because I am not in a high-flow cave. By themselves, these excuses may be palatable but cumulative they will cause things to get awefully tight in an emergency.

You need more than just passing grade in several categories to have some redundancy and robustness. How far will a student pilot get with margial flight planning, shaky navigation, weak communication, and so-so emergency landing skills? If the first two skills are 'bomb proof' he/she may not need much of the other two. OTOH, weakness in only one of the first two categories will necessitate above average skills in the other three. It would be prudent to do a similar analysis for OW skills and determine the personal weakness(es) that can set a chain of dominos in motion without much chance of recovery.

What may come across as elitist attitude is simply my struggle to cross the Rubicon in scuba diving. I am not tec qualified yet and lack the experience to be accepted on that side of the river but I have left the bank with the "good enough for open water" philosophy. On the tec side of the river, the compounding compromises of typical OW training are clearly agreed upon as health hazards and not subject of discussion anymore. (That does not mean that there is nothing but peace and harmony about the rest )

When I first saw this thread about swimming, I thought that one of the perks of scuba diving was not to have to surface swim anymore, which is a serious effort for a lightweight like me. I thought that I could cut that corner. However, upon further examination of the subject it is clear that even, and maybe especially, the OW diver needs solid swimming skills and practice to rescue or to self rescue - if for no other reason than the corners cut elsewhere.

 

[Blue Sparkle]

Lobzilla,

I'm sorry if what I said came across as an ad hominem. I wasn't trying to link the validity of your premise to a characteristic of you and thereby discount it. I was trying to say that I was saddened by your seeming division of divers into two camps, when I don't see it as starkly.

It seems like maybe for some reason you are reading me as criticizing Trace's actual teaching/coaching, and your actual diving, but that is not how I feel. It's more about how you are talking about and categorizing other divers.

While there are many styles to teach in diving I see two camps formed around how well tasks needs to be learned. One camp thinks that OK is good enough and the other camp doesn't. The demarcation between these philosophies coincides largely with the rec and tec distinction. If fact, the most prevalent argument for 'good enough' is that "I am not diving in a cave, etc.".

See this is where I disagree. I don't see it as only two camps. I see that there are divers of varying skill levels and interests across a broad spectrum. It just feels to me like you are trying to "pigeonhole" divers into two opposing camps, and it doesn't really seem accurate to me. It seems needlessly divisive.

Subsequently, the argument goes like this: I do not need perfect trim and buoyancy because I am not in a cave, not much gasplanning because I have a buddy, not much air-sharing experience because I have the surface above me, not much swimming skills because I am not in a high-flow cave. By themselves, these excuses may be palatable but cumulative they will cause things to get awefully tight in an emergency.

Well I'm not a tech diver, and I don't make any of those arguments. So how can there be only two camps? For example, I value good trim and buoyancy and good gas-planning. Yes, in OW diving there is the surface, and of course it is usually more available than if you are in a cave or deco diving, and I might take that into account in planning a dive (i.e. on a shallow reef dive I can potentially plan gas taking into account that I do not need to surface where I descended). But I don't think there's anything wrong with that if it is a valid factor for that particular dive. I mean, isn't that a part of the planning process? Assessing the conditions and taking them into account? For me, that doesn't mean I will just be sloppy and don't care about trim and buoyancy. OTOH, I am not going to plan the dive as if it were a cave dive, either.

What you interpret as elitist attitude is simply my struggle to cross the Rubricon in scuba diving. I am not tec qualified yet and lack the experience to be accepted on that side of the river but I have left the bank with the "good enough for open water" philosophy.

I think this is where I must not have clearly communicated when I said that as the thread progressed I did get a hint of an elitist feel from you. That hint absolutely does not come from your professed desire to improve your diving, to become a tech diver, and/or to utilize some tech diving philosophy in your OW diving. I think that's great. Where I felt it was in your "dividing" divers up into two groups, with the "OW" group being characterized as uncaring, sloppy accidents waiting to happen. THAT was what bothered me and not the actual way you are going about your diving. This would be an example of what I mean:

The majority of divers do not seem to care that they bumble through the water like baitfish with a hook through the spine rather than looking remotely like the 'pinnacle of creation' (or evolution depending on you religious viewpoint) they claim to be with their mouth. Dignity has something to do with how you actually propel yourself through life.

But I guess it is politically more correct if the few people who aspire to the behavioral grace of the marine life we visit are labeled as 'elitist' by those who behave underwater like the hordes in a shopping mall - overweight, overstuffed, unbalanced, and minutes away from a coronary incident.

I am somewhat bothered that you are advising me to play nice, when the things you are writing seem rather insulting. I'm trying to be polite and clear, but I do disagree with you. And as a diver that does not fit into either of your two camps, I feel compelled to respond.

To reiterate: You strike me as a really well-trained, competent diver, so I'm not maligning your diving philosophy or your diving style (in and of themselves). On the contrary, they seem fabulous. It's just that it feels like you're looking down your nose at "OW" divers and the way you express it is a bit bothersome to me.

Blue Sparkle

 

[Lobzilla]

How sardonic.

Vince, don't take it personal; you need to get used to the poetry of knowone.

And then, wormil needs to enter the fray

 

[TSandM]

Trace, there are lots of people who want to be pushed to be as good as they can be. Not all of them learn the same way. I have been throwing myself at the bar since the fall of 2005, but if you lambaste me for poor performance, I'm more likely to crawl off into a corner and mope than to return to try harder. On the other hand, if you remain encouraging and positive, no one works harder and longer than I do . . . That I went from being unable to hold a safety stop for 50 dives to having a full cave certification is evidence of that.

Blue Sparkle, please forgive Claus. I was at one time where he is. The profound dichotomy between what one sees in resort settings, or in poor quality mainstream classes, and what one sees from folks with more demanding training, makes quite a powerful impression. When it comes down to it, I agree with him -- I think most divers aren't educated the way they should be, and don't have the role models they should have. But my ideas have to do with students getting to watch an instructor who is stable and quiet in the water, and who leaves the dive site undisturbed, and not with either the instructor or the students being held to any particular standard of non-scuba swimming.

If you are sufficiently unfit, you are dangerous as a diver. But undemanding reef dives don't require a triathlete. As you move into more demanding diving, you should ask more of yourself in terms of fitness (and whether that's developed by swimming or something else is, to me, irrelevant). Many divers fall short of the fitness standard they should meet, at ALL levels of diving.