Analysing loop propagation

[Michael Rebholz]

@john

Have u played with the wavespey yet with rod in hand?

Paying attention in this wave context does indeed change the way you move the rod. Have u tried to make a 15 mtr rollcast that is inaudible?

The thinking of casting as vibrations is new (and very old) and got lost due to the concept of the loop.

Tell me pls where is the substance in the concept of the loop? How is the loop quantified, defined and proven? (apart that no one knows where its coming from)

I never said it changes something on the physics, it changes something on the view on how things are.

Cheers and TL
Michael

[John Waters]

Thanks Michael, we are under covid restrictions here in Melbourne that prevent me travelling more than 5 kms from home and my nearest casting pool is more than double that so I have not been able to cast on water for a few months now but I have had a cast locally on a football field. I have watched your videos on Facebook and have used your technique to roll cast on grass. It is certainly different from my roll casting technique but I do a few things differently anyway, namely I do not create much of a "D loop" behind me , and I do not pause the rod in the roll cast stroke. On water we have to roll cast to 5 targets at unknown distance the farthest being 15 metres, two hits at each target within a time limit, so I am always keen to learn how my roll cast can be more efficient. I need to try your stroke on water but at the moment, on grass, it does not provide me with a more efficient roll cast when measured against either an accuracy or time evaluation. That may change on water but I cannot foresee why, but the proof is always in the measured outcomes so I will use your stroke on water when I can get to the casting pool.

The audibility of the roll cast is not a factor for me either as a tournament caster or a fisherman. Nor is it for accuracy but it sure is for distance.
The change of thought process from loop to vibration is terminology only and I have no point of reference for gains in either the cast's efficiency or outcome.

In respect of the substance of the concept of the loop, my view is that it is a term that describes the line shape, no more or less. The same as the substance of the concept of a wave. If you call it a wave you are simply describing the line shape, no more no less. Hence, to my simple thought process, there is no substance to either term, other than both being a term to describe line shape that is generated by the casting action. As neither term defines or impacts the casting action used to produce that line shape, they remain inconsequential to the stroke and thus inconsequential to the claims made about casting efficiency, ease, accuracy or distance. As to who defined the term "loop" and when that occurred, it is irrelevant to me because it is a term only. In exactly the same way, knowing you have defined the term "wave", and "casting as vibrations" in 2020, does not impact my understanding of casting technique because you have shown no interconnectivity or cause and effect, between the change in terms, the casting stroke and the outcomes generated.

My degrees are in economics and accounting, so I defer to people far more knowledgeable than me about waves and vibrations and I always am interested in their thoughts about casting because the physics drive the development of the sport. My interest always defers to the pragmatic i.e show me what I have to change to get a change. I would apply that same examination to any new casting concept, that is why I view casting through the eyes of any athletic coach seeking performance improvement because it always comes down to the movement chain. Changing the term used to describe the resultant line shape from loop to wave does not impact that movement chain, so has no impact on the cast.

If as you say, it does not change the physics, then there will be no change in the technique used. In any athletic pursuit, technique changes that have resulted in sustained and generational performance improvements have always been on the back of insights based in science. That bridge between change and outcome is yet to be established with your concept of casting. I do not understand how "changing something on the view on how things are" will change the action or technique that determines how things are. Hence, "how things are", will not change. To my mind, for me to change my "view on how things are" you need to establish, what will change and how that change will occur. I am missing that bridge linking changing definitions from "loop" to "wave and oscillations" resulting in a change to my view on how things are, driving a change in casting technique, all of which result in consequential improvement in casting efficiency and effectiveness.

I am just repeating myself and am no doubt boring everyone, so I look forward to you establishing that essential bridge between concept, casting action and casting outcomes.

John

[Michael Rebholz]

@john
How do 6oy know that the wavespey exercise doesn't change anything on your casting if u haven't tried it?

The concept of the wave has far more substance than the loop.

I repeat myself too, and I won't get tired:

The loop is not there. It's a made up thing to sell tackle and it sets a lot of people under pressure.

It's not only a term, because u wouldn't call the earth a disc anymore. Would you?... Mind u some still do that.

And its the same with casting, its 3 dimensional and not 2 dimensional. The loop is a brainchild of 2 dimensional thinking and of thoughtless generalisation.

What happened when they discovered that the world was not a disc?

Cheers and TL

The one thing that nobody can and will do is proof that it is a loop. That fails already when u look up its definition.
The oldest source talking about loops says different. A historical document.

What I generally do not understand is that so many people are so anti not even trying to see the potential in this. On the other side that's maybe a good thing (for me) and I have loads of things to do. It's all connected.

You should get a micro practice rod if can't leave the house for a cast that long, I feel sorry for you mate. That's awful.

Cheers and TL

[John Waters]

Thanks Micheal, but I have tried it, albeit on grass. I have copied what you have done in your videos on Facebook and in my humble opinion, have not seen it produce a more effective roll cast. Only three possibilities can be assumed from that,

1. I have not copied your technique correctly,
2. I have performed your technique correctly but did not have the ability, understanding or sensitivity to identify any benefits,
3. I did cast correctly, had the sensitivity to identify any change, but no benefit resulted.

I will try again on water but I look forward to your instructional video and trust it will answer my questions about proof of concept, technique changes and measurable outcomes in casting effectiveness and efficiency.

As to what happened when they discovered that the world was not a disc, one important outcome was achieved. Maritime explorers did not fall off the edge, but it did not change the design of either their ships or the way they sailed them. Why did it not change the mechanisms? Because it was irrelevant to their tools and how they used them.

John

[Merlin]

Michael

The thinking of casting as vibrations is new (and very old) and got lost due to the concept of the loop.

Absolutely not, we are not loop centric, we use the word to figure out a shape in the line, final point. This thread is devoted to loop since Greame explained his views on it, where it comes from, but there is no agreement on that. To me the loop is shaped by rod tip, so we know where it comes from: how can you say the following then?

How is the loop quantified, defined and proven? (apart that no one knows where its coming from)

Vibrations have been on board for years, much before you used your first fly rod, aren’t you rediscovering warm water after all, you should question yourself on this point.

How is the wave quantified, defined and proven then? Good luck for a perfect answer, especially on the technical side.

We do not need to use the loop concept to understand how an overhead cast works, the loop comes along, it is up to the caster to control it for specific purposes, and on the paper, a tight loop is better than a large one, but who cares? Not the competition casters at least. Again, you are 2H rod centric, with spey and roll casts, but the SH rod world exists with the classic overhead cast.

The one thing that nobody can and will do is proof that it is a loop. That fails already when u look up its definition. The oldest source talking about loops says different. A historical document.

You are back to the strict definition of a loop and to an old book published before the fly rod era, just as if it was forbidden to use the same word in other circumstances, it is time to open your mind on this point. How many words do define a one and only thing only: open a dictionary to discover it.

Merlin

[Bianchetti Ivan]

Ok, from today am I going to launch a loop shaped wave, or a wave shaped loop?

[John Waters]

A line with the required shape Ivan,

John

[Michael Rebholz]

You (or we) are loop centric due to conditioning. That's all.


There's a historical source from 1885, that says different. Christal clear and undeniable.

The loop is the path of the rod tip and NOT the line picture. And that is a fact and consistent.
The loop concept as it is is illogical and incorrect.

Someone should have questioned and also found out about it long before. It is entirely unnecessary and made up concept to set learners under pressure and other than that it's other purpose is (and was) probably to sell tackle.

I m sure the ones who believed the earth is flat weren't easy convinced that it isn't....And pls do not forget in this context: it is a over 100 year old (thoughtless) generalisation.

The first ever radio broadcast was in 1888....

Either there is a definition or there is no definition. If there is one in a dictionary it does mention multiple meanings of a word.
The definition of the loop has two Keypoints to it:
1 overlapping or touching
2 (and/or) reoccuring

Yes our lines don't do that, not even when they are tailing.

The tip of the rod does that, as well as our hand. That has nothing to do with a double or a single handed rod. A cast is a controlled rod vibration ( sometimes with added controlled secondary waves in it even) and the resulting image or sequence of the line.

There's different ways of learning and teaching:
Single
Double
And triple loop learning systems



And waves are the consequence if u apply it on flycasting. Inevitably.

Cheers and TL

Michael

[Bianchetti Ivan]

So when you have a tailing loop and the fly snaps, or when a knot forms, is it a closed wave or a failed vibration?

[Merlin]

Michael

We call tip path the "tip path", not your vison of the "loop", and what does it change after all?

If we call it a loop what's new? For an overhead cast, there is a forward tip path, a backward tip path, and a "loopy" tip path for a roll cast or a spey.

Since physics are not changed by wording, I still cannot see the substance of your discovery. Rod vibration was measured before WW II. Maybe your vison has something to do with the "Grand vibration" rods (two handed)?

Merlin