Acceleration....more.

the idea of the rate of change of the rate of change of position (i.e. acceleration). If it's easier to think

in terms of increasing, constant, or decreasing acceleration, then I don't have a problem with that but

any time you have a non-constant acceleration then you can determine the rate of change of the

acceleration.

I have to agree with Bruce's statements, especially:

****And this is certainly where most casters end up, but it is not the

ideal. Obviously, the top casters are that due to a lot of practice and

natural ability. The fact that only a small % of casters are able to

achieve near constant acceleration doesn't mean we all shouldn't strive for

it. Few golfers have Tiger Woods swing either (and his club angular

acceleration is very constant I'm sure), but most would like it....

The only way to get better is to practice but practice alone won't make you perfect or near perfect.

You also have to know what to improve and how to improve it. Bruce and Noel have given us some

great insight on the what in this case.

Cheers

Walter

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

From Mac Brown: -

I like Steve's explanation which is back to what I referred to earlier -it is non-sensible to say it twice. Some other good posts from David and Phil. I realize the necessity for simplicity when teaching a newbie and this discussion would not be happening in that example-except this study group is focused for instructors. Hence, the term constant fits already and it has been used in elementary math/physics classes for years now. If we try to reinvent something complex like mechanics (kinematics) with too much simplicity, where will it leave the teacher who is supposed to teach? It will keep them stuck from aiding or advancing other casters in the long run as they progress along their way.

I have been a foe of rules, over-generalized statements, etc... for a long time now because I think they can be dangerous in stagnating ones learning curve along their journey of casting. In fact, I believe this so much, that as soon as someone wants to make up a rule, I am already thinking of how to prove it wrong with a rod and line. If I succeed in doing so, the rule must have a fault because the real world defied it. Mechanics are simple and clean cut. They do not start with one set of parameters and then later change to fit the journey-they are what they are all the time. Think of all the sports out there which hold true to the foundations of what was taught in the beginning -does not change when it is advanced. They remain the same. I realize having a string attached to a lever can easily lead to frustration for newbies. If we are truly interested in lighting that spark of enthusiasm for their journey-we must not limit the process. For too many years casting has had this allure of mystic, often ego based instruction, that it has damaged the sport much more than aided its progression. I think that is more in the past now because their is a willingness to share and explain, rather than the approach of guarding them like top military secrets. The average caster is also much more advanced than in years past because some of these barriers are coming down.

I had this discussion a while back with a client that was a quick learner. He had some problems with getting too much slack in their deliveries in the early stages which gave them long floats-hence he caught more fish as a newbie than when he progressed to a more advanced caster. This is common for budding casters. He had some problems bending the rod to the amount of line being tossed. He read all the rules and video like the gospel, learned to throw more of a SLP, tight, fast candy cane loops. Result, he practiced it so much that it became his routine on the water and the leader began to turnover straight as an arrow all the time. His muscle memory learned what he percieved he should be doing all the time-hence there lies his problem. Result, now he looked much better, like the suv, aspirin commercials, etc... but he was having no hookup days. Now it took a bunch more practice to learn how to intentionally put slack, curves, etc... into the stroke. If he had not abandoned those early rules, he would have remained stuck.

The post has made all of us think which is a benefit for all. We do not want to reinvent things that are already learned. I think of casting more like art/music. It would smash the creative process to follow rules. I do appreciate the manner which someone like Dr. Liming used kinematics to explain it to me the how, why, when, where, type things of my own casting. Once I understood his point of view, it was like a light bulb went on for explaining it to others. His point of view took me a while to understand, because he kept feeding me more literature on basic kinematics at the time. Before meeting him, I could perform certain casts that I would struggle for explanations of why the results occurred. It aided in my growth of understanding what I could already do! The benefit was that it has since lead me down a road of new discoveries because "what if" seems to always arise. I think the analyzer is exciting new territory for aiding the smooth factor of constant acceleration.

Cheers, Mac

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

Comment: Yes ! The frustration derives from having a string at the end of a FLEXIBLE lever .

The analyzer has given us a real tool for measuring what happens for the most important part of the cast at the butt section of the rod. The video analyses are useful for telling us what happens at the tip. The line tells us the result !

Gordy

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