|
Walter & Group...
[GH] More final comments before we move to our next casting problem. This does extend our topic further than I intended....or perhaps an interim topic; though all to a good purpose. For one thing, even though CREEP and DRAG have become hot button issues of late, there is precious little one can read about them in the fly casting texts (Jason Borger's text excepted).* The term, "CREEP" is certain to come up on MCI exams, and sometimes even on CCI exams when tailing loops are addressed:
[GH] From Mark Surtees :
Hi Gordy
In my experience “Creep” is a repositioning of the rod which is most commonly both rotational and translational.
There seems to be an entirely unnecessary obsession with naming discrete elements of a cast based on an artificial separation of these two properties, it is a process which generates its own terminological conflicts.
For example there are other “slow rotational motions that reduce available casting arc” that no-one would reasonably consider as “Creep”, the “Lift” in a PULD or Speys for example.
The “slow rotational motion” that reduces available casting arc that we call “Creep” is a control fault and a key feature is that the perp doesn’t know it’s happening. It serves no useful purpose and is most commonly totally unintentional.
It is its uncontrolled nature and its unintentionality that differentiates “Creep”, the fault which reduces casting arc (or stroke length), and “Lift” which has the same effect but is both controlled and intended.
It can be confused with a timing fault where the caster simply begins the casting stroke too soon. In this case the caster is normally aware that they are making the motion but they have misjudged when to start it.
Occasionally a caster will try to rectify this, which gives an interesting double dip, stop start, effect… if they don’t then the fly could crack off.
How many other faults have a name like this ? is it only Creep ?
Mark
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Mark,
No argument from me !
As I observe casters in "real time" as well as the fancy videos, I'm impressed that pure TRANSLATION and pure ROTATION is a rarity if not a, "never".
For one of our presentations on casting mechanics a few years ago, Jim Valle and I actually tried to demonstrate pure translation. Even with our fervent intent to do this, at least some rotation was impossible to avoid. All this fits with your statement, "There seems to be an entirely unnecessary obsession with naming discrete elements of a cast based on an artificial separation of these two properties, it is a process which generates its own terminological conflicts."
SO... to base definitions on separate actions which are (almost) unavoidably combined may have been the wrong path to take!
Also -
I love your word, "unintentionality".
Below, we see that Chuck Easterling agrees with the use of intent.
Gordy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Chuck Easterling's message:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Chuck,
I do, too.
It ignores the movements of translation and rotation as defining elements. That may be a good thing for reasons stated above.
One reason we never embraced that definition was that some of our Committee members were of the opinion that intent (state of mind) should not be considered.
I recall, as well, that some also were of the opinion that defining moves as "fault" or "benefit" was also a problem.
Eliminating intent and fault vs. benefit from the definitions may sterilize the outcomes to the point that they are no longer as useful for teaching fly casting.
These points of view may provide the key distinctions between CREEP,DRAG, DRIFT and LIFT.
Gordy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Mike Heritage is also on board with this concept :
The answer to the creep v drag scenario is INTENT. The reason creep is seen as a fault is that it is done unintentionally. It can be rotational, translational, hesitant or a combination of all three. There can be a secondary pause after the creep or can continue into a purposeful stroke. Either way it has robbed you of POTENTIAL casting angle but not necessarily the casting angle needed to complete a successful cast. Many casters have some creep but have learned to compensate by stopping fractionally later.
Drag is done with intent, mainly to reposition the arm into a more powerful position to rotate the rod. It potentially removes slack, gets the rod and line moving in the direction of the cast and can contribute to faster rotation. There is no hesitation, it is a fluid movement from drag (or sometimes slide, which serves a similar purpose) to rotation.
Mike
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[GH] Mike,
A couple of neat brain teasers here.
DRAG can also be used to delay rotation. Bruce Richards and others have shown that this somehow usually results in tighter loops for distance casts. Does just that for me. I don't know how that works..... perhaps it results in a shorter rotation interval of time so the caster "has fewer microseconds to mess up his smooth acceleration" (????????)
You bring up an important additional point : "Either way it has robbed you of POTENTIAL casting angle but not necessarily the casting angle needed to complete a successful cast. Many casters have some creep but have learned to compensate by stopping fractionally later."
This is one of the reasons the caster doesn't always get a tailing loop when he creeps.
It is also a technique I sometimes use to purposely shorten my casting arc. When? ...I've made a couple of false casts to a distant fish... then quickly note one much closer. Its one way of rapidly converting to a shorter cast. I'll "creep" as I strip in an arms length of line and shorten my arc for the delivery.
Now let's play "devil's advocate" :-
It also leads to the question: If you make an otherwise perfect cast with a this compensation for a bit of creep and meet your casting/fishing objective, is the creep move still a FAULT???
Jason Borger has described the practical use of a purposely formed tailing loop used to flip a fly beneath low branches. He gave credit for that to Michael Maloney. I have used this when trying to place a fly beneath low hanging mangroves. *
When I showed your message to an MCI candidate I'm mentoring this morning, he threw me a curve as he asked, "Well, when you purposely demonstrate creep to a student, would you still define it by lack of intent ?"
A little levity when discussing ponderous matters is a good thing. As Lefty demonstrates, we should never take the fun out of it !
* Jason Borger's NATURE OF FLYCASTING, 2001, 75-76.
Gordy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|