Casting definitions 11

Walter & Group...

[GH] Due to a computer glitch, the message CASTING DEFINITIONS 8 was never sent. I combined the entries and comments with subsequent messages including this one..

Gordy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[GH] Jim Chestnut sent a long, detailed message on definitions. I placed it in an attachment.

Gordy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From Ally Gowans. A bit of humorous philosophy:

Hi Gordy,

Time for some humour:

Are fly casting definitions necessary?

(A definition is a passage that explains the meaning of a term (a word, phrase, or other set of symbols), or a type of thing.)

(Necessary or necessity may refer to:

Need

An action somebody may feel they must do

An important task or essential thing to do at a particular time or by a particular moment)

It is believed that the origins of fly fishing stem back some 2000 plus years. Fly casting probably began in some form or other a few hundred years ago and for the past three generations apart from engaging with the advantages of modern materials it has probably changed little in essence.

And yet it appears that we have still not broken down casts into infinite elemental minutia and defined every single iota. Now I am wondering how we ever succeeded in making a cast without definitions, worst still I am in deep quandary as to how we succeed teaching others to cast and enjoy fly fishing. So it seems to me that the quicker those busily engaged in becoming specialist experts about little or nothing of importance gather around a table wearing brightly coloured anoraks and speak mumbo jumbo to put this matter to rights the better it will be for them.

Meantime fly fishers will go on fishing and instructors will carry on teaching just like I imagine they did 2000 years ago. Are fly casting definitions necessary – those that appear to need them now somehow learned without them!

Best regards,

Ally Gowans

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[GH] Ally...

On the more serious side...................

Over the past few years, I've actually thought about that. There are a few pros and cons:

In favor of having FFF definitions:

- We've been requested to come up with definitions quite often by instructors who wish to use them for teaching.

- Many MCI and even some CCI candidates thirst for them.

- Some examiners want them to use on the MCI oral exams.

- Several years ago, the FFF CBOG voted positively on a motion to form a Glossary Committee which was charged with the task of forming a list of definitions. That was charge was never rescinded.

- Fly casters, instructors and some CBOG's wanted them so that as discussions on fly casting and casting mechanics proceed, the participants would all be "speaking the same language".

Difficulties in having our own set of definitions:

- While useful for some when teaching, each definition may require explanation which may or may not confuse the student. Simple ones might well stand upon their own merits even if not scientifically exact.

- During an MCI oral exam having our FFF definitions would tend to encourage rote memorization in lieu of in depth understanding. (I'll venture a guess that once we have them, every candidate will commit them to memory).

- Some FFF instructors, examiners and MCI candidates are also members of other fly casting organizations around the World. Some of these have their own sets of definitions. Are our examiners likely to flunk a candidate on an oral exam if the candidate uses a different set of definitions ? If so, would that not be unfair?

Frankly, I think that the pros outweigh the cons.

Gordy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From Peter Morse:

Gordy I make a point of using the basic terms and definitions to my students and I'll use them all day long (rotation, translation, concave, convex, fly leg, rod leg etc - and the 5 essentials) and I'll explain and demonstrate them in as many different ways as possible during the course of a day. If we don't use them then we'll never embed them as acceptable, universal (FFF anyway,) terminology. Explaining a concave and a convex path of the tip of the rod is not rocket science. I use a flexible strip of plastic about an inch wide and a meter long. It can be bent into all sorts of shapes to represent the path of the tip of the rod - and is especially useful for demonstrating what tracking is.

What creep is and its impact upon the resulting cast (yep for it to have an impact upon the outcome - ie the loop shape - I feel it MUST be considered to be part of the stroke - in most cases unintentional, but a part never the less) is not rocket science either and anyone with the credentials "FFF instructor" should be able to explain, demonstrate and correct this problem, and if the first method doesn't work then they should have a second and a third up their sleeve.

Except for the creep issue I think the Sexyloops team have come up with a great working model of definitions and I feel the sooner its officially adopted the better. It will gradually become universally accepted.

Peter Morse

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[GH] Peter,

I agree. My own "working definitions" do include both drag and creep within the casting stroke. Otherwise, they are pretty close to the Sexyloops model.

When teaching, I still like the concept that creep shortens the available casting arc. Since it is usually rotational and has some translation, I get around the obvious dilemma by telling students that it shortens the EFFECTIVE casting arc which I see as rotation yielding angular rod change made with acceleration.

I know that won't fly in many quarters, because then we need a formal definition for "effective casting arc" which would muddy the water.

Perfect ?? NO. Usable for my teaching ? YES.

Gordy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To be removed from this mailing list, please click here to unsubscribe