|
Forum: Flycasting
Topic: The big hitters
started by: flycaster
Posted by flycaster on Sep. 13 2003,12:01
Hello all you fly casting junkies out
there.
It has been a fascinating exercise for me watching the film of Rick, Jim, Lance
and Ryan strutting their stuff and I would like to extend my thanks to those
guys and to Paul for making it all possible.
Here is a brief overview of the four casters and what *I* see as the common
thread running through all the casts.
1. They all track the rod very straight.
2. They all have a very long back stroke ending with the casting arm
straight or nearly straight and the two hands wide apart.
3. The rod is then 'dragged' forward untill the rod hand is somewhere
about level with or just in front of the shoulder, at which time the two
hands are close or fairly close together.
4. The main power application comes now with the rod hand pushing the
rod forward and the wrist turning it rapidly over whilst the line hand hauls
fast but smooth.
5. They all finish with the hands wide apart.
6. They all use some body movement back and forth to assist the cast.
7. They all display very 'fast hands' on the final, delivery stroke.
Here are some further thoughts;
The very long back stroke helps to carry the huge lengths of line in the air
and the 'dragging' movement is to 'gather' all that mass of rearward moving
line and change its direction smoothly and without shocking the rod. The
'drag' also serves to put the line under tension and remove any iota of slack
before the main application of force. There is no haul at all during this
phase of the stroke, just a repositioning of the hands. The main application
of force comes when the casting hand is at or about level with the shoulder,
and this force is delivered with a long forward push of the casting hand and
a long smooth pull with the line hand, the wrist turns the rod over very
quickly at the end of the forward push, the haul and rod stroke finishing at
the same time.The finishing position is with the rod extended straight in
front in a flat or almost flat position and the two hands wide apart.
All the casters use some body motion to extend the stroke further and add
power, Rick's is most obvious with his 'step' and his total stroke length
appears to be amazing.
Jim seems the most laid back or casual and Lance looks the smartest and best
turned out (he also looks the smallest!), Rick looks the most obviously
aggressive and Ryan carries his rod the lowest, in fact his back cast looks
really low to me, he also pulls the best face during casting.
All in all amazing and very interesting thanks again guys.
Cheers, Pete.
ps Paul, is there any film of a top caster with an obviously different style
for comparison, and when are you going to get a faster camera so I can better
see the slo-mo stuff?
Posted by Ancient on Sep. 13 2003,15:58
Hi Flycaster:
Flyfishing is very 3 dimensional, and yet most videos are taken from the
side, so that even though the rod tip appears to follow a straight line, it
may have gone through all kinds of gyrations when viewed from overhead.
In fact when the proper view is available it appears that when many
people rotate their necks and shoulder to see their back cast, they are going
out to the right from the path they were on. In the portion of Lance
Egan's video taken from behind you can see that his hand goes about 1.5 ft to
the right of his body on the back cast and then returns to directly in front
of his shoulder on the forward cast. Since the target is presumably 120
ft away it must be essentially in a nearly straight line with the hand and
shoulder at the release point for an accurate cast. Clearly this is not
the path taken during parts of Lance's back cast. My question is, what
does tracking mean when viewed from 3 dimensions.
Ancient
Posted by Torsten on Sep. 13 2003,16:03
Hi!
Very interresting, looks like Lance Egan uses nearly the exact style that i'm
using now for 3 years.
He has the same foot position, and i feed also the line (last backcast).
Hmm, maybe i should try a XXD/TCR, if it wouldn't be so expensive :-\
Bye ..
Torsten
Posted by Maxg on Sep. 13 2003,16:28
Now thats a pure and simple shooting
head huck. Lay it back, pull the arm straight through until it reaches your
ear and then roll it over hard and fast. But you need to be up two weights
and don't false cast. Goes a long way, Magic, and I thought it wasn't casting
at all. Silly me, it's a cast after all.
Just goes to show that I can cast. I've been living in this limbo hole for 35
years because some "caster" told me I couldn't cast worth a dam. I
got out of that by telling him "but I catch a lot of fish", but it
hurt. Now I'm free of that horrible load. Golly GEE I can cast after all.
Thanks for that Max
Posted by Ryan Barnes on Sep. 13 2003,16:42
Flycaster & Ancient,
You both make very good observations about our cast, and I thank you for the
input. Ancient you bring up a good point about tracking, it is the one thing
that I have worked the hardest on in the last few months. With the long
strokes there is a tendency to rotate the body, which in turn knocks your
traking out of line. Good tracking with the rod in the differance between a
100-105 and a 120+ cast. Of course the are a number of other variables, such
as hand speed, aplication of power, and hauling that all make a diferance.
But without good solid tracking you will never achieve good distance.
Flycaster I do pull the best faces, I was hoping that no one would notice.
Posted by Ryan Barnes on Sep. 13 2003,16:45
I also forgot, I welcome any input on
my stroke. It would be nice to have everyone look at the flaws as well as the
things I do well, Rick that mean you need to keep it clean.
Posted by Rick H. on Sep. 13 2003,17:29
Ancient,
Lances hand appears to be further out to the right on his backcast because
with an open stance, and a long stroke, when you drift and look back you can
turn out of square, and the hand appears further out to the right than it
really is because of the shoulder dropping back to the inside. Notice
when he comes back forward the right shoulder is pulled back in square again
and the elbow and hand are in line again. while he might be out a little to
the right it wont be a 1.5 feet. Also if you drift, and the hand goes
out of line somewhat after the power application, It can still be
pulled back in line for the forward motion. Believe me watching these
guys in person there tracking is excellent. Their backcast and forward
cast is darn near 180 degrees both vertically and horizontally. It has
to be to throw the distances that they are throwing.
Have fun,
Rick
Posted by Rick H. on Sep. 13 2003,17:37
Pete,
Pretty darn good analysis. It also takes a keen eye to pick up on the
faces that Ryan makes  .
Once Paul gets a camera with more frames per second You can actually
see that he quickly sticks his tongue out like Michael Jordan.
Have fun,
Rick
Posted by robk on Sep. 13 2003,18:38
The videos are fascinating.
Ryan. It "looks" like you almost come through with a semi- side arm
delivery on the fore cast. Is that so, or is it an optical illusion?
Lance. Like Torsten, your style most closely matches my normal style (not my
Rick variation). Do you keep this same style with heavier sticks?
I agree with Pete's overall assessments. There are some basic common elements
in each version. This leads me to another question. What rod design
compliments these common elements. I would tend to believe a fast, stiff rod
would provide the best transfer of power given the rapid acceleration at the
end of the cast. If so, how would you guys "improve" the TCR?
Rob
Posted by Ancient on Sep. 13 2003,20:40
Their backcast and forward cast is
darn near 180 degrees both vertically and horizontally. It has to be to
throw the distances that they are throwing.
Have fun,
Rick
Rick,
I can't argue with your on the site observation, but in the following
case straight tracking appears to be violated and yet the casts are very
long( 120 ft I think in the ESPN games ): Many saltwater casters bring
their hand up, out and back, and then "drop the elbow and come over the top".
When viewed from overhead such a cast would have a clearly oval path.
So again I ask what does tracking mean when viewed in 3 dimensions?
Thanks for the reply,
Ancient
Posted by Dave Alexander on Sep. 13 2003,21:44
Hi everyone,
Please correct me If I am wrong, but tracking specifically refers to
"birds eye view" of the path of the rod from forward to backward,
which is what I believe Rick is refering to when he speak using the term 180
Degress. If you were standing on the casters head looking down the path of
the rod & hand are travelling, the backcast would be "180
degrees" opposite the forward cast.
Ancient you are write I believe in stating that the side on view doesn't
really show this. What you really see from that view is the difference
in "casting stroke styles" which is not the same thing as
"tracking" ie. closed stroke, verses more open stroke (where the
rod is stoping on the casts), or a different angle of pulling the rod.
Paul has some good material on the this specific issue "angle of the
pull" etc.
So I guess to answer your question about "3D view" is a Top View,
Front View, or Back View, would reveal the tracking component of a casters
stroke, while a side view reveal the casters style of stroke.
Hope this isn't too confusing
Cheers,
Dave
Posted by flycaster on Sep. 13 2003,22:51
Hi all
The first of Bill Gammel's five essentials to good fly casting says that the
rod tip must travel along a straight line, and anyone who has ever seriously
attempted to cast very long distances will appreciate just how important this
is. Any deviation from a straight line will reduce the distance cast by a
considerable amount.
Ancient, I can see how you are led to think that Lances rod does not follow
this straight line by the way that it appears as though his hand moves out
away from his body at the end of the back stroke but this is an optical
illusion caused by the turning back and forth of the upper body and
shoulders.
About half way through the stroke when the casting hand is about level with
the shoulders, it is probably only a few inches away from the shoulder to the
side. As it travels rearwards and the shoulders turn side on to the target so
the hand/arm *appears* to move out away from the straight line path, but in
fact it is the shoulder that has turned inwards away from the straight line
path followed by the rod and hand thus causing the illusion. That is devilish
difficult to explain in only words, I could show you easily in 30 seconds, I
hope you can understand what I mean, (I need one of Carl's diagrams).
Dave, you are correct in saying that when tracking is spoken of it is the
'birds eye' view of the straight path that is meant. The other straight line
path is the horizontal one, it is important for the formation of properly shaped
loops and is affected by the way the rod bends and the path the casting hand
follows.
As Rick says it is necessary to have the straight line in both plains in
order to make long casts i.e. viewed from the side and from above.
Ancient, the 'saltwater cast' you describe sounds to me like an 'oval loop'
cast where the rod is deliberately taken back and forwards on a different
plain and usually without a defined stop at the end of the back stroke. It is
as Mel Kreiger describes it a kind of 'swing around' cast and whilst this can
be a good cast to use when casting very heavy flies or in strong winds it
would not be good for casting very long distances when huge lengths of
line have to be carried in the air. I don't think it could be done!
I think that it is possible to see that all the casters on film do track the
rod straight but you need to look hard.
Hope this helps to explain things.
Cheers,
Pete
Posted by Frank LoPresti on Sep. 14 2003,00:41
Hi All,
Just an observation about straight line paths of the rod tip, there are 180
of them. Interesting I thought.
Frank
Posted by Lance Egan on Sep. 14 2003,02:06
Thanks for the input......
I'm not sure I should be listed as one of the "heavy hitters", but
I'm flattered....
To me tracking can be simplified as moving the rod in a straight line.
It could be straight up perpendicular to the ground, parallel to the
ground, or anywhere between as long as the rod travels in a straight line.
Tracking is certainly very important to a distance cast.
Rob....
I don't use this style at all while fishing. My fishing stroke is near
straight up. I haven't thrown enough rods over 7-8 weight outfits for
distance to work on changing styles. My arm strenght isn't such that I
get more distance out of heavier rods. I can cast a 5 as far as an 8...
Torsten....
Try that XXD/TCR combination, you won't be dissapointed...
Tracking is something that as my stroke evolves, I have to continually work
on. Two years ago, my tracking ws better than it is now, however, my backcast
is now better than it used to be so I'm reaching about the same distances.
The goal now is to put the two together and be more consistent. I
had this going together very well the other night....
Posted by Paul Arden on Sep. 14 2003,22:28
Tracking is the bird's eye view. All
the casters shown have great tracking. Very refined and they have obviously
all worked hard on it. I looked for this. Ryan, Lance and Jim had a slight
crosswind for which they had to alter their stroke slightly. They all have a
180 degree backcast and their hand drives directly forward and doesn't come
to the front of the eye like so many casters.
I hope to have a video of another (the other) style next week. One thing they
all have is very fast hands and turnover appearing very late in the stroke
combined with a fast haul.
It's not the camera, Pete; I have to convert to MPEG for the web. That's
where the quality and the number of frames is lost. I have some other ideas
on how to deliver this content...
Paul
Posted by Maxg on Sep. 15 2003,04:35
How long are the heads in this
exercise, and how heavy, and of course what rod weight. Very interesting
though because I use a standard 30' SA HiD head and a short, 4' twisty leader
and get around 100' in fishing mode. Same kind of system, though. Mind you
the rod is a 12#, and the line is 2 weights up.
Max
Posted by Paul Arden on Sep. 15 2003,05:20
This is a 120ft long 5-weight XXD WF
line on a 5-weight Sage TCR. Actually there are three choices of rod but
almost everyone chooses the TCR, which is probably nearer a 6 1/2 weight than
a 5.
Paul
Posted by Lance Egan on Sep. 15 2003,05:37
Paul,
You keep mentioning that the TCR is a 6 or 7 weight. It obviously casts
well with a 5 line. I fish it quite often and have no trouble loading
at any range. That said, what makes it a 6 1/2 weight??? It is a
very fast action, but as long as it still loads with a 5 line, what's the
difference??
Posted by Paul Arden on Sep. 15 2003,05:40
Actually Lance there *is* a bit of a
tracking error on that last cast in the MPEG but I'm not sure if you're
compensating for the wind there - try borrowing a camera and set it up facing
you on a windless night.
Here's what I think you should try: I think you should delay rod turnover
until the very end of the stroke and attempt to apply as much force as
possible at this point and less during the stroke. Your stroke is
interesting; it's sort of in between Steve R. and Rick - and I would say that
they are the extreme of each style. I use a similar stroke to you and try
very hard not to take the rod hand much behind the shoulder (Steve style).
Another thing to try is a greater shift of body weight from rear foot to
front foot. Rotate from the waist. I'll be more comprehensive shortly.
Possibly in Spanish.
Thanks to all you guys, Lance, Rick, Jim, Ryan and Ian for allowing me to use
these clips of your casting.
Paul
Posted by Paul Arden on Sep. 15 2003,05:51
If you measure the deflection of the
TCR for a given weight in comparison to other rods it is closer to the
deflection curve of a 7 than a 5. All rods will handle multiple line ratings.
Since you are carrying close to 90 ft of line in the air it makes sense to
use a light line/ stiff rod combination. The TCR doesn't roll cast a 5-weight
very well. It feels way too light.
Paul
Posted by Lance Egan on Sep. 15 2003,06:14
Paul,
You are correct in that the TCR is not a great roll casting rod. No
fast actioned rods are.
You'll have to forgive me, I may not fully understand deflection measurements,
but I think it's a bit subjective. One manufacturers 5 is anothers 3,
ones 4 is anothers 6 and so on. For example, a Winston WT 9 ft 5 will
probably cast a wf 3 at 30 feet, so is it a 3 or a 5??? As long as it
casts a 5 where do you draw the line???
To reverse this theory, if I considered the TCR the ultimate true 5 weight,
then are all softer rods really just 3's and 4's???
Posted by Ian Walker on Sep. 15 2003,06:44
In my opinion the ideal line weight
for a rod is very much a function of the physique and temprament of the
person who is using it. A stronger more aggressive caster can accelerate and
decelerate the line and rod faster and will be happier with a stiffer rod
than would be a more layed back caster.
I know of one expert caster who makes very pretty casts and is very
comfortable fishing or casting all day with a 5wt line on particular rod. I
on the other hand don't feel comfortable fishing a 5wt at close range on this
same rod. I really enjoy fishing and casting it with a 6wt.
Ideally all rods would be rated for the "average" caster.
Unfortunately I'm not aware of any data about who is the average caster or
how fast does he want to accelerate the rod. In the absense of hard data,
most rod manufacturers rely on testing by a selected group of field testers
(usually not randomly selected) to determine the correct line rating
for their rods.
Posted by robk on Sep. 15 2003,19:47
Folks:
Regarding the rod rating issue. The folks at Rodbuilding.org have been trying
to work out a system to effectively compare rods. Their "Common
Cents" technique uses a static deflection and angle measurement approach
to compare rods.
A common cents rating for the 5 wt TCR has not been published yet. The 8 wt,
however, has and comes out at about a 10 wt rating. Having cast the 5 wt TCR
for about 5 minutes, I would have to guess it is close to a 7+. For
reference, my 6 wt SP+ rates out as almost an 8 wt and that is a somewhat
softer rod.
The common cents test is not dynamic, so it has some possible limitations.
However, it is a LOT better than the current ambiguous and conflicting
information coming out of the rod companies.
Rob
Posted by flycaster on Sep. 15 2003,20:47
Rob - I think you make a very valid
point.
The AFTM system of line rating often comes in for a lot of criticism but I
believe that the way rods are rated is far more subjective and much more
misleading. We all know that the AFTM system of line rating has its
limitations but provided we understand the system and accept those
limitations it is quite useful because it a system of measurement. Rod rating
on the other hand, as I understand it, is not a system of measurement at all
but an assessment wherebye the rods are cast by a number of people using a
number of lines until some sort of concensus of opinion is reached, e.g. 'We
think this rod is best with a 6 weight line, agreed? OK we'll call it a 6
weight rod'. It is a very subjective thing.
I think the 'Common cents' system mentioned by you sounds much more objective
and therefore much more uniform. How exactly does it work btw?
Cheers,
Pete.
Posted by Dave Alexander on Sep. 15 2003,21:39
Hi Rob,
I just had a look at Rodbuilders.org, and I was wondering were the Common
Cents ratings are located, I found that site a bit hard to navigate.
I found references to CC rating in various bulletin board messages, but
couldn't find a link to any type of table, explanation, calculation etc.
Is that the rating system that uses pennys (one cents coins)?
Thanks,
Dave
Posted by Lasse Karlsson on Sep. 15 2003,22:23
Hi Dave
There isn't a complete guide to it yet, it has been published in rodbuilders
magazine, but so far thats the only place.
You can find some data on various rods < here >
And yes it's the system that uses one cent coins
Cheers
Lasse
Posted by Dave Alexander on Sep. 16 2003,00:41
Thanks Lasse
Dave
Posted by John Wilson on Sep. 17 2003,14:59
Paul:
Have you had a chance to cast the new Loomis 5 weight Max Line Speed yet?
Wow!
John
|