Posted by Wayne on June 06, 2001 at 11:13:30:
In Reply to: Re: I think you are missing the point posted by MHK on June 06, 2001 at 10:23:52:
But, a lot of times it depends on the context and application. I do not want to be a defender of anyone -- even myself, I guess -- but let me give an example of how I can see it differently.
You said:
"If you need to continually exert yourself by constantly swimming to keep off the ocean floor or sinking into oblivion than you are overweighted, plain and simple.. "
Here is where I disagree. I would not call that overweighted, I would call that being negatively buoyant (and I am not trying to play with semantics).
Let me explain: Us wet-suit-wearers can be properly weighted (able to maintain a safety stop with a near empty tank and almost no air in the BC) and still be heavy at depth.
The technique of being neutral is important for most dives as it keeps down reef damage and reduces silt in silty locations. But I also recognize the suitability of being heavy at times. For example I remember Seahunt discussing scooting over a reef while hunting. It is not possible to fin at the speeds we can pull ourselves along. So if the plan and purpose is to cover much ground, and the ground is not fragile like coral, I think it is a suitable approach.
So anyway, I am just trying to say that different dive techniques can apply and without seeing him at the end of the dive, we cannot say if he is overweighted or not.
Wayne