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