Who remembers when everyone measured waves the same way?

Can't find the right forum, then post your general surf-related remarks here!

Moderators: jimmy, collnarra, PeepeelaPew, Butts, beach_defender, Shari, Forum Moderators

Beanpole
That's Not Believable
Posts: 68815
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:21 am
Location: Button Factory

Who remembers when everyone measured waves the same way?

Post by Beanpole » Thu Nov 10, 2005 10:31 pm

It seems so long ago that if someone told you how big the surf was you knew what they ment up and down the coast.
I kind of understand the Hawaiian method but it tends to mean bugger all for 80% of everyday surf. It seems to work well for waves over 8ft up to 60ft on reef breaks. it doesn't seem to offer much useful information about everyday surf on the East Coast of Oz.
I mean sure your average big wave rider thinks its all dribble and not worth surfing but the distinction between 1-2, 2-3,3-4,3-5,3-6,4-6,5-6,6-7,6-8,8-10 actually gave me some idea of most conditions I would be likely to encounter. Maybe I just don't get it but wouldn't most of these conditions just be listed as 1-3,3-6?
Of course if your a clubbie its always 15ft when the ironmen are on :lol:

snakes
barnacle
Posts: 1710
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 4:59 pm
Location: mybrothersbeekeeper

Post by snakes » Thu Nov 10, 2005 10:43 pm

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Nice work Merkin

snakes

Hangten
Grommet
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 10:59 am

Post by Hangten » Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:08 am

I was trawling the internet and came up with this response from Ricky Grigg regarding wave heights - so for all you big-footed surf reporters take note - I guess they have not adapted this system in Ventura County LA as yet 'cause RS reporter is still calling overhead waves at 2-4 feet!


HOW TO MEASURE A WAVE


Written by Ricky Grigg (ultimate big wave & surf legend)
as printed in the Surfers Journal volume 12, number 1, 2003
Ricky Grigg's words……………..

Once upon a time, an old Hawaiian surfer told me that those surfers who measure from the back have already missed the wave. Of course, you could argue that surfers who measure the wave from the back do so on purpose so that they can purposefully underestimate their size. But why would anyone want to do that you ask? Perhaps they are the macho guys. "Shucks ma, that overhead wave is only three feet, at least to me. Its no big deal". But then one day a wise guy like me comes along and says, "Three feet, for an overhead wave? What are you anyway, only three feet tall?" The 5'6" surfer says, "Huh? What?

Are you blind?" "No" I say," maybe you are blind. That overhead wave was way over your fully upright body." "Hey man," he tells me, "you measure waves from the back." I say, "You mean the back of the wave you can't see?" And of course he says, "Right on, dude, right on"
Wish that all this banter was much ado about nothing, but unfortunately it is not. There is a history and a very good reason why so many surfers these days measure from the back. Let's go back about 40 or 50 years in Hawaii and revisit the golden years of surfing and try and find the answer. Back then waves were bigger, bluer, and much less crowded. Surfers at Waikiki rode huge waves all measured from the front. Duke Kahanamoku's famous 1.1mile ride had to have been 20"plus when it first broke at first break (out near Castles). Today's surfers would have called it 10' had they been there. Trouble is, had they been there, they would not have been able to see the wave, at least not from the beach. So how did all this back of the wave nonsense get started anyway?

I was surfing the North Shore in those days, the late 50's, 60's and 70's, and what started to happen very slowly over this time period was a gradual tendency to underestimate waves. As it got worse and worse, everyone started realizing that the smaller the estimates were, the smaller the reports were on the radio and TV, and fewer and fewer people were showing up to surf on any given day. Hey, man, this was way cool. A super cool method began to develop to keep the surf a secret. Eight to 10' waves at Sunset slowly became 4-5' with a few pulses. But how in God's name could anyone call an 8' wave 4', or a 10' wave 5'? Not that difficult. The surfers and lifeguards simply invented an new system of measuring the waves from the back. It worked great, because, of course, waves from the back are about half their size from the front. Since few people could actually see the backs of the waves, few people could disagree or claim otherwise. Fewer Townies went to the North Shore and the local guys had the waves all to themselves. The lifeguards liked it too, because they had fewer people to guard and so they could go surfing longer. The system prospered and more and more surfers grew up believing that measuring the waves from the back was the way to do it.
End of story.

There were a few old-timers around who remembered the old way, the first way, the simple way, the face-value, from-the-top-to-the-bottom way, from the front, from the crest-to-the-trough, the way oceanographers define wave height, the way in which ordinary people can judge a wave simply by looking at it. By its face value. Not only did the old-timers remember, but they also reminded the lifeguards about safety. It wasn't to safe to broadcast to Hawaii's tourists that 8-10' waves were only 4-5'. People drowning and getting slammed into the bottom by shorebreak could sue, and guess what, they did sue. A number of visitors throughout the Islands suffered severe neck injuries producing paraplegia and quadriplegia, all caused by shorebreak waves that were larger than those reported. Several cases were settled or won to the tune of millions of dollars. It was not long before the City and County of Honolulu was under a powerful economic and legal gun to change the system back to the old way of measuring waves from the front by the face. This old way is now called the "new" way, because so many young surfers never heard of the old way, until now perhaps.

The "new" has been adopted by the National Weather Service in Honolulu and is now reported by all of Hawaii's news media: newspapers, radio, TV - everyone. Even the lifeguards are now reporting face values. A special course in how to measure and report surf was designed by the National Weather Service tailored specifically for the lifeguards of the City and County of Honolulu. Over the course of about 15 months (in 2000 and 2001) about 80 lifeguards successfully completed the class. With this new awareness, the lifeguards have embraced the "new" policy. And, there is no question that their first and foremost concern is safety for Hawaii's visitors and residents alike. Its been a rapid transition back to the old way, the simple way, the safe way, and the HONEST way. Its just like my old Hawaiian friend said, "Never measure the wave you missed. It's the one you ride that counts"
……………. The end.

Johnno
Harry the Hat
Posts: 3045
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 1:19 pm
Location: Mid North Coast

Post by Johnno » Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:48 am

Thanks Hangten for clearing that up.

Being from the old school so to speak, I have always looked at it from how far you are going to drop/pitched from the lip............ :wink:

Beanpole
That's Not Believable
Posts: 68815
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:21 am
Location: Button Factory

Post by Beanpole » Wed Jan 04, 2006 10:26 am

Thanks Hang Ten. Now I just have to work out shoe sizes :)

User avatar
oldman
Snowy McAllister
Posts: 6886
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 1:11 pm
Location: Probably Maroubra, goddammit!

Post by oldman » Wed Jan 04, 2006 10:28 am

Thanks for that hangten, very useful.

I've given up trying to describe wave size. It's at its worst when it is small. 1-2 ft and 2-3 ft (which may be interchangeable) seem to cover such a wide range of conditions that it is almost meaningless.

Unfortunately, 2-3 ft covers the description of waves on the east coast 90% of the time, which tends to mean the only way to be sure it is to get down there and have a look for yourself.
Lucky Al wrote:You could call your elbows borogoves, and your knees bandersnatches, and go whiffling through the tulgey woods north of narrabeen, burbling as you came.

maximumgoingoff
newbie
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 2:35 pm

Post by maximumgoingoff » Wed Jan 04, 2006 11:39 am

well said hangten.. , i quite often measure a wave by ... waste height, head , or double over head.. regarding the sets... but yeah if i'm measuring in hawiian feet its just becuase thats the standard that everyone knows..

If teahupoo is 12 ft.. then measuring from the back its probably only going to be about 1-2 ft max.. that wave has no back.. its only got ocean.

foamballpilotqueen
regular
Posts: 254
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 1:00 pm

Post by foamballpilotqueen » Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:11 pm

for me its either - shit, fun, good, or big. mostly its shit and sometimes fun.
munch wrote:
bondiboarder wrote:Im gonna board til im in a wheel chair
why don't you continue on after that, I mean it really doesn't matter does it, if your a cripple or not :?

thats pretty funn i must admit

User avatar
chrisb
Owl status
Posts: 4537
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2004 5:45 pm

Post by chrisb » Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:11 pm

Thanks Hangten. The spectre of legal liability, especially in the USA, crossed my mind early on when lifeguards reported understated wave sizes to the unsuspecting tourist hordes.

After all it is the wave face that you travel on.

PS: foamball...looks like you got away with that rude word. I thought it was automatically ****'d out.

User avatar
macca202
Harry the Hat
Posts: 3097
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 11:27 am

Post by macca202 » Wed Jan 04, 2006 2:15 pm

chrisb wrote:
PS: foamball...looks like you got away with that rude word. I thought it was automatically ****'d out.
shit is a rude word?

well fuck me dead

poka
newbie
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 9:20 am
Location: northern beaches

Post by poka » Wed Jan 04, 2006 6:35 pm

i just find it easier not to use the numbers but rather "head high", "chest high" etc because you never know what scale people are using like front of the wave, back or hawaiin scale

shish
regular
Posts: 138
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2005 6:53 pm

Post by shish » Wed Jan 04, 2006 7:10 pm

When did people stop using the wave back ?? Most surfers know that a '3 foot wave' in all reality has a higher face than that. But you dont need to turn around and look at the back it to realise its a 3 foot wave either, because you already know the size by looking at the face (if that makes sense )
Thats also why people at Teahupoo know their riding a 10 foot wave, even if it has no height at the back, and a 20 foot face. Easy !!!
yeehaa!

User avatar
2260
Local
Posts: 446
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:24 pm
Location: The Claw

Post by 2260 » Wed Jan 04, 2006 7:11 pm

im sure most of us all use the same terms, noone i know really says any different but i wouldnt be suprised what some people come up with. roughly a head height wave 2-3 ft, double overhead 6ft and up. Just be your own guide, tend to err conservatively and try not to be exact. I think measuring from the back is rediculous. for people who are new or are not sure, give your most exact estimation and half it and you will be around where we are.
Example the surf this morning was about 3 maybe 4 ft. But if you used a proper measure im sure would show 5 or 6 or even more in some cases.

User avatar
Bear
barnacle
Posts: 1293
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:26 am
Location: Here, there and everywhere

Post by Bear » Wed Jan 04, 2006 7:18 pm

Yeah but chest high is usually what 3-5 ft and head high is 5-6 ft.... could probs just say that...

I like the word system too.. very simple
Flat
Small
Rideable
Big
My balls aint big enough to go in!

Works every time
Bear

vb
Local
Posts: 653
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2004 8:57 pm
Location: above the bends

Post by vb » Wed Jan 04, 2006 7:28 pm

The Simmons Constant (formula devised by pioneer board designer ... and possibly first surfer to ride Pipeline ... Bob Simmons) is: Reported size of surf divided by two with two feet added.

TheCHIMP

Post by TheCHIMP » Thu Jan 05, 2006 7:21 am

but do you ever use the term

"It was a SOLID 4ft"

if so, is a solid 4ft larger than a normal 4ft?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 232 guests