I agree (strangely) with Paul that having two sets of conflicting definitions would be a disaster and
would lead to a greater rift rather than healing it. At the same time I don't like the idea of an external
group dictating anything to the FFF BoG or one of their committees. It would set a very, very bad
precedent.
In my opinion the issue isn't whether one set of definitions is better than the other, it's the perception
of the policy and procedure associated with this activity. The perception is (in my opinion) is that we
have a small, albeit very select and very capable, group that is producing a set of definitions. Rumours
have spread that the output of that group is going to be unpalatable, for whatever reason, to the majority
of the MCI group (note - this is perception and rumour I don't really know if that is reality) but we will be
forced to accept it and won't be able to change it because once the inside group has approved it it is pretty
much a done deal and it will take approval from the BoG to form another committee to review and ratify
the original definition set.
I think Guy is on the right track. The way to defuse the situation, hopefully, is to open up the set of
definitions, as they exist, to the MCI group as a whole and solicit feedback. We may want to consider
having a majority of the MCI group voting yes to the definitions, rather than just the committee, before
they become formally approved. Let's show people that the definition set is not the result of back room
activity but is done openly with the approval of the MCI group as a whole.
I know the definitions committee has already laboured long and hard on an activity that nobody could have
foreseen the difficulty of and opening things up isn't likely to speed up the process. I think we have a bigger
issue to deal with than who has the best set of definitions.
My two cents worth...
Walter
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: Conflicting view of definitions
Hi Guy/s,I think it would be an absolute disaster to have two sets of conflicting definitions using two different models and I can't think of any reason why this would be good for teaching. The only thing it would be useful for is teaching MCIs. It is my opinion that the FFF proposed set will take FC instruction back in time and lock it to definitions that do not work practically and are wholly two-dimensional. You cannot compromise two models; that simply doesn't work, especially when one doesn't work.
Personally I'd much rather fight the FFFDC privately than the entire FFF publicly. But if I end up fighting the FFF to take FC forward then that's ok too. After all the ultimate goal is to teach people to cast and the FFF set doesn't do this nor have this objective.
Paul Arden
On 28 Apr 2011, at 23:55, Guy Manning wrote:
Among other things I learned of interest, one that stuck out for me was the Definitions Committees report mentioning the qualitative vs. quantitative approach of coming up with definitions between FFF and Sexyloops. It is of enough concern to the CICP that there is worry about another split between the European community and the North American community. There is a recommendation that all members of the committee read the Sexyloops definitions and consider them. This leads me to believe that once again our committees have a tendency to work in the dark (A belief I have held, and a concern I have expressed over a number of years). If there were discussion of a rift, I would assume concerned committee members would have taken it upon themselves to read the other side without urging, and they should have been seeking feedback from the MCI community at the very least.
I think the committee needs to consider that, by withholding its definitions from view, they are not allowing a public reaction or critique and comparison of the differing definition sets. As it is now, I can read and judge the usefulness of the Sexyloops definitions but have no way of doing the same for the FFF definitions. This leaves me in the dark until I might have to deal with consequences forced upon me by any committee decision.
Wouldn’t it make more sense, at this point a decade after the committee began, to let those who would be using the definitions in daily life actually get to judge their usefulness or which is better. Some of us might choose to use the quantitative definitions during one discussion while using the qualitative in another. It may be quite useful to have two sets of definitions for illustrating casting under differing circumstances.
There is a real danger here that members of the differing views are so invested in the work they have so generously contributed, that they don’t want it to be tossed out and given up for dead. I know I wouldn’t. This could lead to poor decision making based upon emotion instead of what is best for the casting community.
I hope the committees do not fall into the trap of deciding they have to promote one system over another. In the possible actions mentioned in the FFF committee report, one possible option was not included, to wit:
Approach five: ENDORSE BOTH SETS OF DEFINTIONS. The end result would be a larger tool set for all instructors. It would avoid any conflict between the 2 originating groups and would avoid any feelings of animosity and wounded pride.
So why can’t we have 2 sets. They are both useful in differing situations (I am making some assumptions here as the FFF has yet to release their document to even the MCI level members). I use measured angles and strokes on stop-motion videos in teaching prospective CIs but would also find the Sexyloops model useful in teaching beginners. Why spoil a good thing because of pride?
Guy Manning
FFF Certified, Master Casting Instructor
Cc:
Bruce Richards
Chuck Easterling
Gordy Hill
Bill Gammell
Don Simonson
Tim Rajeff
Frank Lopresti
Paul Arden
Magnus Angus
Lee Cummings
Ben Dixon
Grunde Løvol
Stefan Siikavaara
Walter Simbirsk,
Mark Surtees