|
Walter Simbirski & Group...
[GH] I'LL BE AWAY, AGAIN, FOR A FEW DAYS.
A few Ideas to ponder over definitions.
Gordy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>From John Till:
I have been looking with some interest at this thread and accompanying threads. For years people have been discussing and we discussing what is meant by various flycasting terms.
I will not go into tons of detail, however, suffice it to say that when a person is using a specific definition it is critical that the meaning of that definition be conveyed to the particular students; hopefully CCI and certainly MCI's will question the meaning of a particular definition when it is used. I believe that the confusion among the experts only serves to point out that when you are instructing a student, you should demonstrate what you mean by a casting arc--and if a casting stroke means something different from a casting arc, that should be demonstrated also in slow motion. It is then wise to have the students pantomimed that which has been demonstrated with and without a fly Rod.
In any event, I wish to express my gratitude for those people who have worked hours and hours arriving at definitions which most of us use.
Have a great summer my friends,
John
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] John,
Makes sense. I agree that we should be able to demonstrate anything we define whether a casting move or a fault.
I can see a circumstance where the casting arc and the casting stroke are one and the same. This happens in the rare instance that I make a short cast with pure rotation.... no translation at all.
Of course, that is a special circumstance. Almost all casts require both translation and rotation which should be easy to demonstrate singly and in combination so that a student would understand.
Gordy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>From Jim Chestnut:
Hi Gordy,
Here is my attempt at a definition. I like simple, and think having a
“Stroke” and a “Casting Stroke” both contained within a Cast is too
confusing for a newcomer (and me too)and difficult to keep straight.
I also think different people have inherently different ideas regarding
sequential and co-occurring events as to where one ends and the other
begins. So rather than try to make everyone think the same way (I’m
thinking of students trying to learn) might not keeping definitions more
general help in that regard?
The “single-handed” Fly Cast is:
The act of propelling a fly line in a pre-determined direction. It starts
with the first move by the caster in that direction.
At its minimum the fly cast is comprised of :
1) A stroke : The total length the rod butt moves in the direction of the
cast until the stop.
2) A casting angle/arc: The included angular change of the rod butt
within the "stroke". It begins when the rod butt is rotated against the
weight of the fly line.
3) A stop: The stop occurs when the rod, which was bent during the
casting angle against the weight of the line, straightens. This forms the
second leg of the casting angle.
The cast may also include other components including drift or
follow-through, sweep, creep, pullback, rod directional changes, hauls,
D-loop formation…….etc.
Cheers,
Jim
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From Walter Simbirski:
Gordy,
You've left out the class of casting stroke definitions that are my personal favorite. The ones that
allow you cast the line without ever making a casting stroke.
We can have an overall stroke, we can have a pre-stroke, a post-stroke, a poke-stroke, and a stop
in the middle and eat a sandwich stroke but to me the casting stroke is the thing we do to cast the line
and any definition that allows me to cast a line without a casting stroke is lacking something.
We all agree that using translation only is a pretty poor way to cast a line and that rotation is the
main motive force so the casting stroke needs to contain the rotation portion of the cast. Trying
to remove rotation for the casting stroke is a non-starter in my opinion. I think part of the
problem is that we want definitions that work in real time. We want to be able to watch a cast
in progress and at some point have a trigger go off in our brain that says, "AHA! The casting stroke
has officially started!", but we can't do that because we we can't tell if this motion will ultimately
end in the line being cast, or the rod breaking, or the caster releasing the line with their line hand
prematurely causing the cast to fail, or the caster being hit by a meteor in mid cast. We can't build
a machine that will tell us with 100% certainty that we are at the precise beginning
of a motion that will end in the line being cast and we can't do it for ourselves. We can only
do it after the fact. In an attempt to get around this we see definitions that say the casting stroke
starts when we can be absolutely certain that this motion will end in the line being cast and that
leads to the idea that I stop the rod at the precise moment in time I've now made a cast without
ever making a casting stroke.
Ramblings from this side of the pond... :)
Cheers!
Walter
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Walter,
Well.... that is one of the problems we've had with the "sufficiency" way of defining a casting stroke.
We have elements of hand and rod motion which when combined are "sufficient" to cast a line ...or "sufficient" to form a loop; yet one of those elements acting alone (such as pure translation) may not result in a cast or loop formation.
A loop is formed and a cast made.... so we go back and see what moves made this possible. An "after the fact" decision, indeed.
If I put them all together as what i think is a casting stroke and fail to apply enough energy to cast the line, have I made a casting stroke ?????
Maybe we could simplify all this to the "N th" degree and use your definition :-
CASTING STROKE: THE THING WE DO TO CAST THE LINE.
That would even cover "way out" things like the extended bow & arrow cast and hand casting with no rod !!
HOWEVER -
I fear this distilled and sterilized generic approach would be useless for teaching purposes.
Equally useless for teaching students would be definitions which are strictly correct from a scientific standpoint, couched in physics terms and explained with mathematical formulae.
I think we need definitions in plain language which are reasonably useful for most casts and reasonably accurate without straying too far from sound physics.
Gordy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To be removed from this mailing list, please click here to unsubscribe
|