How to cast a tailing loop ‘on command’

[Morsie]

Stone and Wood Pacific Ale in pint bottles - Cricketers Arms Keeper Lager- as good as beer can get. No headaches

Would it be the improper positioning of the rotation, the relatively wide arc, the bad timing, the over forcing of the hole cast? For me this is a no. It still would be the too uneven force application at the end.

Always difficult Bernd, and as Mel said "almost every answer to every question in fly casting begins with "it depends"". How much line is out? You can form perfectly acceptable loops with a fully rotational stroke and 30 feet of line - I have seen guys do it with 50, but it gets a bit shitty when they want to go further, (and I'm talking everyday casters here) but my first move would be to get them to stand side on and watch their rod tip, to back the power off and tighten up their arc - then they'll begin to feel the tip of the rod working, and they should have tension and therefore it will makes their stroke smoother. Then I'd take it further from there depending upon what changed. Concepts of drift, dragged strokes and delayed rotation come much later.

Morsie

[Bernd Ziesche]

Sounds all fine and plausible to me, Morsie.

About rotation only, Frank L probably would claim to cast over 100' that way (if he would still be on board here).

Mel was right!
Cheers
B

[Geenomad]

Its hair splitting and every student is different, we need to read it. As you know, very student is very different, but there are common broad problems.

Material there for a much longer conversation. On hair splitting? Not conducive to seeing the common broad problems or the general principles that let us adapt readily and travel light.

Leaving the world of possibilities and returning briefly to planet probability. Sixty feet away is the target for a covering cast. Skinny water, nervous fish. One shot deal. Two false casts would be a generous allowance. Hauls and shoots permitted. Let's assume 60' is well within the comfort zone of the caster. Who in their right mind would use a 40' stroke for a 60' cover? When exactly, in a fishing context, would it be otherwise? Paul, your snakehead deal might be an exception. Any others?

Anyone with buck fever. I heard a story of a widely celebrated casting technician who went to pieces recently when confronted with schools of surface breaking tuna for the first time. Last cast syndrome, two perfect false casts and this is the one - a rushed forward cast (creep) and a tail results - in the real world, not the world of fly casting forums but the world of fishing out on the water in the wind with a heavy fly not a piece of fluff, its as common as the sun coming up each day. Experience gives you ice in the veins and the ability to hold it together in front of fish. Amateurs practise until the get it right, professionals practise until they can't get it wrong.

More long conversation material. Ahh. Brings back memories, some sufficiently distant to be fond. Adrenalin is not too helpful with subtlety of choice and movements. Miss it sometimes but still remember admiring older heads who rarely duffed the shot. No gain without loss.

Of course coming a bit unravelled on the delivery is not quite the same as making a considered choice to use a 40' stroke for a 60' shot. Know where you are coming from though.

Cheers
Mark

[John Waters]

The bloody cause of all these casting issues are those who cast with, or, instruct with fluff. I have been guilty of this but will never teach with a piece of fluff, again. From now on, I will insist my students use a very, very heavily weighted fly in every lesson in the park. There is too much molly-coddling in fly casting instruction, get rid of fluff and make them experience the “real” world.



Harry Callaghan

[Graeme H]

There is too much molly-coddling in fly casting instruction, get rid of fluff and make them experience the “real” world.



Harry Callaghan

... and ya know what? I can't remember if I've made five false casts or six. So, do ya feel lucky, punk?

[Geenomad]

I can't remember if I've made five false casts or six. So, do ya feel lucky, punk?

Looking good Harry. Well, at least until Elvis left the building.

Cheers
Mark

[John Waters]

Loving it Mark and Graeme, you both must have ice in your veins. Me, I’ve only got red and white corpuscles, that’s probably why I’ll never be a “professional” in this game. To quote Harry again, “a man (me) has gotta’ know his limitations”.



John

[Morsie]

Of course coming a bit unravelled on the delivery is not quite the same as making a considered choice to use a 40' stroke for a 60' shot. Know where you are coming from though

Who's talking about it being a choice.......?

John, Although you are a "widely celebrated casting technician", I wasn't talking about you, no need to get upset and sarcastic.

Yep, Frank was a legend.

[John Waters]

Never occurred to me that you were referring to me Peter, your reference to whoever that individual was could not have been me. I have never been in that situation to even think you may have been referring to me. You are wrong there mate.

I was just responding to your statement about fluff and those who use it, the real world, professionals and amateurs. All words used in your statement. Lighten up mate, I was certainly not upset by your comments as I know they could not have been about me. I do tend to get a tad irreverent about some statements I read, but hey, I’ve seen you do the same on a few occasions.

Love to catch up for a cast and a chat one day, give me a yell and I’ll buy you that beer you have referred to above.


John

[Geenomad]

Of course coming a bit unravelled on the delivery is not quite the same as making a considered choice to use a 40' stroke for a 60' shot. Know where you are coming from though

Who's talking about it being a choice.......?

Hi Peter
Seems like we might have some crossed wires to separate. In sequence, I posted earlier (#35) about a caster taking a 60' shot....

"Leaving the world of possibilities and returning briefly to planet probability. Sixty feet away is the target for a covering cast. Skinny water, nervous fish. One shot deal. Two false casts would be a generous allowance. Hauls and shoots permitted. Let's assume 60' is well within the comfort zone of the caster. Who in their right mind would use a 40' stroke for a 60' cover? When exactly, in a fishing context, would it be otherwise?"

Your following post (#36) mentioned "Anyone with buck fever", which I took to be in response to my questions.

I didn't define the full implications of being well within a casting comfort zone but I would take it to include a fair range of choice over how the shot was taken. In my comfort zone I can choose what combination of stroke arc, hauling, carry and shooting would be used. It is done by a process less plodding than conscious, cognitive choice but it is definitely a choice. In the scenario I outlined accuracy would be the primary consideration so I couldn't and can't imagine why anyone would choose to punch the shot instead of deploying a smoother delivery combination.

I certainly don't know what, exactly and exhaustively, is going on when buck fever leads to a duffed shot that would otherwise be routinely comfortable to execute. In fact it raises some very interesting questions of sensory motor control, cognition, impulse and so on. What I do know is that exposure reduces the influence of impulse and adrenalin so that implies systemic adjustment including sensory motor and cognitive adjustment. Last cast syndrome is also interesting, even in the absence of any buck fever stressors.

So the answer to your question is that I was talking about choice and in the context I outlined. When buck fever breaks out it would certainly change the context and quite possibly constrain choice and it is certainly common enough in a fishing context. Introducing it, however, does change the comfort zone context, hence my comment that coming unravelled on [a buck fervered] delivery is not quite the same. When buck fever takes over it does challenge the ability to stay in one's right mind!

Cheers
Mark