|
Walter & Group...
[GH] Seems this has become a hot button issue. I daresay w'll all emerge having learned more about this.
Tomorrow: An interesting analogy on this topic using a garden hose, by Guy Manning.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Questions on the table :
1. Does the line always follow the rod tip ?
2. How can the same motion described above with the keystrokes yield 2 totally different line layouts with curves landing to the left or the right at will??
3. When we make a snap cast, the line suddenly goes in the opposite direction to that of the last movement of the rod tip. How does that happen ?
[GH] Gary Eaton has obviously given this a great deal of thought. Here are his opinions. He relates them to the MCI tasks. Gary divides casts into straight line casts and "all other casts". He, then, goes into related injury prevention and, finally, the use of "bandaid-quick-fixes". A lot to digest. After studying his detailed message, I highlighted his answers to questions 1., 2., and 3. in red :
Gordy,
Aitor’s video, as all two-dimensional captures, suffer from their flatness. Best video analysis is with simultaneous, two-camera, 90-degree projections. I have been frustrated enough by this mode, which inherently cannot be a complete depiction, enough that I refrain from conclusion-type commentary based upon them. However, I direct attention to the end point of Aitor’s simulation on the grid, that the loop is completely reversed and the fly becomes closer to the rod tip height as it is allowed to progress to the end frame.
This mechanism demonstrates the planar appearance of loop formation in overpowered/positive dynamics. Make it vertical and you have a tuck cast, make it horizontal and it is a hook. The rod has no flex and the line has no matching mass to rod action – not directly applicable to fly casting.
There is a nascent loop formed and the fly leg then deviates to non-parallel behind it. The absence of longer parallel legs of the loop describes no energy stored in the stick and no concept of constant acceleration that loads a rod. I see this as suggesting there is a vector formed by rod movement, like in hand casting, that informs the loop trajectory – perhaps we will, with more complete data, alter our rule-of-thumb to say, “The loop trajectory follows the average vector of the end-acceleration of the rod tip”, as an answer to question number one. The oversimplified terminology may substitute for students not yet ready for the detailed mechanics, if they are even discernible. I am ready to say to students, "the loop goes where the tip projects it."
Now, apply this as a timing issue – wait too long and your fly has inverted to be closer to the rod tip — reverse this cast and you are pulling it out of a hole — perfect set-up for a tailing loop, essentially too short of an arc for line length and position. Herein lies the answer to your questions 2 and 3 - timing affects progression of a wave propagated and duration of that time before resting layout may reverse it - sometimes a propagated wave has secondary harmonics and reverberation that may be usefully applied.
Likewise, the on-the-water depiction suffers from flatness. Even more hazardous for commentators, the entire line is not visible throughout the cast and the set-up back cast is not available. Any commentary devoid of this information suffers. Other data absences include line and rod match, rod action etc.
The line end-crinkle may appear from many sources and the apparent tailing-loop could arise from aberrant timing, SLP, power application, mis-balanced line selection, a wave arising from back cast mend/trajectory/wave propagation etc. I believe this is exactly why we examine with more than one observer and more than one position on repeat casts —to glean the actual occurrence informed by viewing form multiple angles as a way of overcoming parallax and projection errors of two-dimensional images.
Mac’s description failed to generate images that I could comment on. Only thing worse than two-dimensional images of dynamic activity is nothing to look at.
I, like Mac — apparently — teach casting in two large subsets of casts. Straight-line casting is one group and all other casts, fit into the other. Most of these rule-of-thumb (ROT) platitudes address straight-line-casts (SLC). The simpler the cast, the more closely those rules apply.
All-other-casts (AOC) deviate further from the ROT in proportion to the complexity of the intended layout and specificity of deviations along the course of the layout. I doubt I have used the terminology “line follows rod tip", in years - and certainly not outside of SLC.
Spey casts represent truly unique set-up and yet aggressive similarities of final delivery that most closely represent dynamic Roll Casting. Fundamentally, TH casts end with this SLC delivery and after that they apply similar constructs of the AOC permutations.
I think it important to assert that all casts arise from momentum principles informed by SLC — no cast arises (except hand-casting) absent rod bend, and energetics of the Gammels' Essentials; regardless of the terms selected. An intermediate, and intermediary, concept deserves inclusion – Each half-cast, either forward cast or back cast, may more closely fit SLC or non-SLC casting in delivery of the same layout. The amount one half-cast follows SLC mechanics may have little bearing on the expected subsequent half-cast’s following of the same mechanics — and vice versa for AOC mechanics.
Followed by this corollary: The plane of a half-cast, may or must, be considered to potentially influence adjacent half-casts, if the adjacent half-cast arises in a significantly different plane. Plane change does not equal style change as essentials of rod loading depend not solely on plane of loop. [Mac’s written descriptions of side-arm aka horizontal plane, providing faster loop speeds are more a function of longer tip path & duration of acceleration than the orientation of the plane in relation to gravity]
So some line of differentiation between SLC and AOC applies and, some level of "deviation" or "difficulty" must also arise. As in Olympic gymnastics and diving, a degree-of-difficulty might be assigned to specific tasks based upon —
1) Number of deviations from straight-line layout expected
2) Deviations in plane of loops from one-half cast to the next one-half cast
3) Total number of changes in loop-plane required to complete the entire task
4) Specific distance requirements to place layout features & their expected dimensions
5) Total distance for fly placement
6) Total number of line layouts required to complete a task
7) Total length of fly line required to be carried through transitions to forward and back casts & the number of such false-casts designated
— In these terms, the degree of difficulty of SLC tasks may not be less than the AOC tasks.
As there appear dozens of methodical layout potentials and infinite combinations thereof — I select the MCI exam to categorize some examples, befitting the title of this study group.
Items commonly applied as SLC with each half-cast fitting into a construct of SLP in all planes, stacked tracking in what is usually expected to be a more vertical than horizontal orientation, etc fit mostly under SLC category. Also included as more SLC leaning are tasks where concerns for loop width, tailing-loops, straight line layout between two points are listed as faults or requirements. Note an asterisk (*) denotes tasks where each half-cast may crossover from SLC to AOC as specific expectations are added regarding loop size, loop shape, or layout describing a mend arising from an apparent SLC. Thus, complete separation of SLC from AOC may seem as impertinent as trying to make one Gammel Essential most important, they are called Essentials because they are indispensable to the task or art form. The Gammel model applies most directly to SLC yet cannot be ignored in AOC execution.
SLC Primary –
Task 1. Demonstrate your ability to vary the size of your casting loops.
Task 2. Demonstrate a series of casts progressing from the vertical position to the
horizontal position. Task 6. Demonstrate a roll cast in which the leader straightens completely at
approximately 50-feet (15.2m). Task 10. Beginning the series with fly in hand, present the fly to targets . . .
Task 11. Demonstrate continuous double hauling while casting approximately 40-feet. Continue double hauling while extending line to approximately 60 feet.
Task 12. Demonstrate a cast at a minimum distance of 85 feet (26m).
Task 13. First, explain and demonstrate a saltwater quick cast . . . presenting the fly at a minimum distance of 60-feet (18.3m) . . . Hauling required.
*Task 14. Explain and demonstrate the casting technique used to cast a heavily weighted
fly or sinking-tip line. Hauling permitted. *Task 15. Explain and demonstrate change-of-direction casts. . .
*Task 16. Explain and demonstrate casting with a strong head wind, tail wind and wind
from either side. Hauling permitted. Task 17. Explain and demonstrate how to cast loops with parallel legs. . .
Task 18. Explain, demonstrate and teach, at a minimum, the following causes and
corrections for tailing loops on the forward cast . . . Task 19. Demonstrate casting with the non-dominant hand. First, demonstrate casting in
the vertical plane. . . AOC Element required -
*Task 3. Demonstrate controlled aerial mends . . .
*Task 4. Casting approximately 50 feet (15.2m) of line in successive casts, present the fly with aerial mends . . .
Task 5. Using the same hand, demonstrate an overpowered and under-powered curve . . .
*Task 7. Demonstrate a Switch Cast using a single haul . . .
*Task 8. Explain and demonstrate a Single Spey cast
*Task 9. Explain and demonstrate a Double Spey cast . . .
(*) denotes tasks where each half-cast may crossover from SLC to AOC as expectations are added.
So, as in almost all complex endeavors, the most accurate answer to whether the fly line follows the path of the rod tip remains, “It depends” — reserving my potential for loop trajectory and tip vector relationship. I doubt the line layout is often determined completely independent of the rod tip movement around the time of loop formation. Paraphrasing Tim Rajeff, it matters not whether the caster dances a jig, or wiggles their ears or snaps their fingers as long as the rod tip moves in the manner required to make the cast and layout the line as intended.
On the injury prevention front - I vehemently object to Mac’s insistent implication that only the wrist moves the rod at this critical time in the cast. Perhaps that is tolerated with diminutive line mass at relatively short distances over very few repetitions, but it does not fit within the ultimate discipline of Master Certified Instructors as purveyors of best methods — least potential for injury. In my experience, casting-injured wrists arise from not using more massive and more muscular proximal structures to make rod movements in the short time intervals inherent in the span of loop formation. This applies more stringently as line mass, loop speed, and repetitive actions increase.
Likewise, the currently popular Kyte & Moran defined style as a relationship between elbow orientation and shoulder reference point, seems absurd to try and apply across the range of casting tasks commonly used — it is not merely an oversimplification and it is not a convenience — it simply does not apply across the breadth of casting elements required for diverse angling. I also, as noted in my articles, have serious biomechanical concerns for some of the proposed K&M styles and potential for significant injury.
Lefty Kreh advocates that injury and tailing loop arise from some element of style. This too needs to be corrected. Tailing loops do not inherently arise as Lefty writes, from starting a cast with a high elbow and going to a low elbow. Neither does his advocacy of stopping an overhead cast at a lower point address the fundamental flaw of the cast in tailing loop formation, premature rotation leading to concavity of tip path — though the longer arc involved may widen the loop so much that the tail does not result in a tangled leader.
This band-aid approach smacks of undisciplined convenience. Would it not better serve the professionalism of Master Certified Instructors to substitute dissemination of techniques that 1) apply across all similar casts regardless of distance, line weight, wind conditions etc AND, 2) do not need to be un-learned to progress to broader angling venues or higher performance casting?
Certainly, band-aid-quick-fixes need to be clearly differentiated from curative corrections of flawed casting strokes. Likewise, incorrect descriptions of the mechanics of such inherently problematic things as tailing loops and loop dimensions need to be confronted in the way of demanding objective proof as may arise in high-quality video of actual casting. This appears to be a fundamental difference between common approaches of fishing guides with small windows of contact with their clients and, dedicated Instructors, focused-on improved techniques that arise through practice of specific skills and analysis of each layout over a longer relationship as mentors and students.
Gary Eaton
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Gary,
Now let me place your answers to questions 1., 2., and 3. as though I am a Master candidate taking the oral exam. I'll try to make them as short as possible, insuring that they will lead you as examiner to ask for more detailed explanations:
1. Does the line always follow the rod tip ?
Answer: It depends.
2. How can the same motion described above with the keystrokes yield 2 totally different line layouts with curves landing to the left or the right at will??
Answer: Waves affected by different timings.
3. When we make a snap cast, the line suddenly goes in the opposite direction to that of the last movement of the rod tip. How does that happen ?
Answer: Timing affecting wave propagation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|