Substance & Style relationship

A minor remark. I'm not from Denmark .Alltough it is not that far from Denmark, according to US distances, I'm from Belgium.

As a reminder if you have never heard about Belgium it 's the one related to the Belgian Cast and .... even more important to the best beers in the world!

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

This addition to Paul Arden's comments :

This is a subject that's come up a lot over the years on the SL discussion board, and I can tell you, having argued it for years we're no closer to agreement than when it first came up!

What I do believe, however, is that you can't separate Substance from Style, you can separate Style from Style and Substance from Substance, but not one from the other. No one else tries to do this, only flycasters! Everything you do is substance, from the angle you place your foot to the grip you use when turning the rod. It's the overall form of all these pieces that defines style, whether or not the results are the same.

Of course I could be completely wrong. What I would say however, is that despite disagreement with the overall concept, I think Al has taken flycasting understanding forward leaps and bounds using it!!!

I'll give you an example of foot substance: When making the Hartman Hop I find it critical to place my leading foot at an almost right angle to the casting direction, with my body weight balanced on the outside of the foot. This has a knock-on effect of putting me in-line with the cast as opposed to facing it, which leads to a more effective haul as well as straighter tracking. An angle difference of 20 degrees will completely change the cast. Same style, massively different results.

Cheers, Paul

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

Paul .... My personal argument woud be that you have described foot style not foot substance no matter how profound the result. I see it as one element of your style. I look at the "Hartman Hop" as an element of his style. It may well be an essential element of style for your most efficient distance cast. but not an essential of efficient casting in general.

Just the way I see it. Arguments like this can go on ad infinitum !

Gordy

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Conversations with Paul are always interesting and enlightening. He makes one think.

When you sent his definition of style I also thought of the constant tension casts along

with roll casts and spey casts vs what might be called standard overhead casts. His

definition allows each of these to be called a different style as they should be.

The area I'm currently a bit fuzzy on is whether changing a single substance item such

as grip constitutes a whole new style.

I know most people consider Joan style casting and Lefty style casting as two distinct

styles where the major difference is the choice of casting plane but I've also heard it

said (by more than one master) that there are only two styles of casting Lefty's and Joan's...

( Definitely one of those landmine questions for the test... :)

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

I think Ally said it best as he pointed out that comparing straight line casting with spey casting with respect to style is irrelevant.

Let's try to take this a stet further out of the fog.

We have casting styles such as Joan's and Lefty's each of which we can break down into style elements.

One must study these in detail in order to appreciate this. Examples :

Joan's default style:

Element # 1.) Vertical to off vertical casting plane.

Element # 2.) Elbow forward.

Element # 3.) Wrist "straight" at the end of the back cast (rod butt 45 degrees from forearm); cocked into ulnar deviation at end of

Element # 4.) Back-drift for long casts.

Element # 5.) Thumb-on-top grip.

Element # 6.) Square stance for short distance accuracy / Open stance for distance.

Lefty's default style:

Element # 1.) Off-horizontal casting plane (Tip of the rod at or below caster's shoulder.)

Element # 2.) Low elbow (Elbow on an imaginary shelf.)

Element #3.) Wrist movement minimal (Almost stiff.)

Element #4.) No back drift or "lay-back". Brings rod tip all the way back in one motion.

Element # 5.) Thumb-on-top grip.

Element # 6.) Line hand side foot forward for most casts.

I could add several more such as forearm rotation, etc., etc. ...... but this gives the basic idea. We could make this list of elements by studying the casting of any fly caster.

As I study other elite casters over the years, I note many other elements to the point that I really don't think that any two casters have exactly the same way of casting. These elite casters, however, all cast with about the same efficiency because they don't deviate from the essentials.

Note my use of the words "default style". This means the style most often used. All efficient fly fishers change elements of style as needed to confront various weather and casting conditions and circumstances.

Thus, casting style appears to me to be efficient deployment of the essentials using a compendium of style elements which best suit the casters strength, size and anatomy.

Style has been called, "self optimization." I think that sums it up.

As to this being a "land-mine question" on an MCCI exam, I think not. It's a "gimme" if the candidate is as well informed as he/she ought to be. This candidate will know the basic elements of the default styles of many world class casters including Steve Rajeff, Joan, Lefty, Jerry Seim, Gary & Jason Borger, and Bruce Richards. The thought process will be organized. He or she will be able to analyze your style and mine as well.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Here is a good short answer from Steve Hollensed :-

Hi Gordy,

In teaching, I think that simplicity is a beautiful thing.

Substance: requirements for a good casts.

Style: options/methods for meeting the requirements of a good cast

Steve

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

From Jim Valle:

Gordy and Group,

I explain the Substance of the cast very early in the initial lesson … I use the five (or 6) essentials…. the basic physics of the cast… to get things started on the right foot, (I mean hand!)

I always add an explanation of Style to make them more comfortable.

I explain that Substance involves the essential elements … the physics of the cast, while Style is about the student’s physiology, How they are put together and what’s easiest for them as an individual person, and I demo the 3 basic styles , elbow forward, off shoulder and raised arm.

You have to start somewhere so I select either vertical (fresh water) or side arm (saltwater) to start. I agree with Paul that it is our obligation as instructors to know and introduce other casting styles to our students, I also agree with Molly regarding the fishing situations that will require a change of style…. And we should prepare our students for these possibilities.

Bottom line any style is ok provided it does not impair the students ability to make the cast properly.

Then Al Crise brings up what I consider a really important point … Teaching Styles … on more than one occasion I have had to move to a different teaching and/or casting style because the students anatomy just would not consider the style at hand… this refusal by the students body can be very real and yet sometimes subtle. The student may not know enough to recognize it … it’s your responsibility to sense the strain and recommend a change ….

Hope that helps,

Jim V

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