PLEASE NOTE: In order to post on the Board you need to have registered. To register please email paul@sexyloops.com including your real name and username. Registration takes less than 24hrs, unless Paul is fishing deep in the jungle!
Micro Skagit/Spey
Moderator: Lee Cummings
Micro Skagit/Spey
I really like the discussion here, so thanks Ed and everyone.
Ben, I think you are on a good track there.
I often think of Skagit stroke as being somewhere between long belly casting and spin casting (gasp).
But it's not that crazy, right? a 1/2 oz sinker on a spinning rod is really just the extreme version of the short/heavy head with monofilament running line concept.
When you cast a spinning rod you don't fire a backcast and then span off the forward cast. As Ben describes in Skagit vs Long belly, you alter the pace, power, length, etc of the back cast/d loop stroke etc to most efficiently deliver the line to the target.
I'll end with a plea: It's been a long time since I posted regularly here and I had a rule to avoid the tech talk of casting where possible. I hope I'm not too far off track here. Please be gentle.
Ben, I think you are on a good track there.
I often think of Skagit stroke as being somewhere between long belly casting and spin casting (gasp).
But it's not that crazy, right? a 1/2 oz sinker on a spinning rod is really just the extreme version of the short/heavy head with monofilament running line concept.
When you cast a spinning rod you don't fire a backcast and then span off the forward cast. As Ben describes in Skagit vs Long belly, you alter the pace, power, length, etc of the back cast/d loop stroke etc to most efficiently deliver the line to the target.
I'll end with a plea: It's been a long time since I posted regularly here and I had a rule to avoid the tech talk of casting where possible. I hope I'm not too far off track here. Please be gentle.
- Paul Arden
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19583
- Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:20 am
- Location: Belum Rainforest
- Contact:
Micro Skagit/Spey
I think this is where Skagit really comes through, because not only does it perform a function that can only be accomplished with Skagit (sunk flies fished deep in fast water with no back space) but the very nature of the tackle actually allows people to get into fishing with these casts very quickly. When you shorten that head up it starts to feel a little bit like spinning tackle. This incidentally is something I've been thinking about trying for Snakehead, lengthen the rod, shorten up the head (even more than Skagit) and we've eliminated false casting. And Snakehead is 90% about speed of delivery. Sorry topic diversion!
Cheers, Paul
Cheers, Paul
-
- Posts: 1488
- Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:57 am
Micro Skagit/Spey
It seems to me that Ed has plainly accepted the evidence on more than one occasion. Personally, bearing in mind that some of Eds more vocal followers are going to be shitting hedgehogs when they find this out, I can't say that I'm at all surprised that we may be exploring a palatable way to reconcile this present state with what went before...they might fkn kill him...However slo-mo shows crystal clear that this continuous load doesn't exist, and there comes a time when it is impossible to keep denying the evidence anymore....
For me, cognitive dissonance is a state of being, from a purely human point of view I think there's more to applaud in this thread than criticise.
Casting Definitions
Many men go fishing all of their lives without knowing that it is not fish they are after.
Many men go fishing all of their lives without knowing that it is not fish they are after.
Micro Skagit/Spey
Well, fortunately for Ed, Sexyloops is happy to take in casting refugees.Stoatstail50 wrote: It seems to me that Ed has plainly accepted the evidence on more than one occasion. Personally, bearing in mind that some of Eds more vocal followers are going to be shitting hedgehogs when they find this out, I can't say that I'm at all surprised that we may be exploring a palatable way to reconcile this present state with what went before...they might fkn kill him...
Micro Skagit/Spey
Most of my fishing/casting compadres would be skeptical at first, as was I, but with presentation of evidence and time to mull it over in their minds, I feel that they too would eventually "see the light". I do know of one or two though, that might never believe the "rod load is insignificant" fact.
Aitor,
You may be right that my preconceived ideas are influencing my interpretations. Personally, I feel, that at least for this discussion, that I've been using a fairly objective perspective. I hope that it's obvious that I now do see and believe that rod load is not the enabler in casting... I thought my previous post illustrated that. And, that I therefore don't believe that formation of rod load during the Sweep/D-loopStroke/Backstroke has any contribution of energy to the forward Cast. I do however believe, that there is a difference in the Skagit Sweep/D-loopStroke/Backstroke technique, from "standard" Waterborne Sweep technique. This may be due to the shorter lengths of Skagit lines. Or their heavier weight relative to other casting styles. Or perhaps, a case of my "splitting hairs" as far as what constitutes "new technique" or not. Or it could be that I/we misinterpreted the instructions from which we started our Speycasting journey so many years ago. Or it might be that the instructions we had back then in North America were not current with modern knowledge based in the "old world". I dunno...
Addendum - Let me clarify that though I think there is a difference in technique of Sweep/D-loopStroke/Backstroke, I believe that the objective of all types Sweeps/D-loopStrokes/Backstrokes is the same... to form a taut, "well shaped" D-loop.
Aitor,
You may be right that my preconceived ideas are influencing my interpretations. Personally, I feel, that at least for this discussion, that I've been using a fairly objective perspective. I hope that it's obvious that I now do see and believe that rod load is not the enabler in casting... I thought my previous post illustrated that. And, that I therefore don't believe that formation of rod load during the Sweep/D-loopStroke/Backstroke has any contribution of energy to the forward Cast. I do however believe, that there is a difference in the Skagit Sweep/D-loopStroke/Backstroke technique, from "standard" Waterborne Sweep technique. This may be due to the shorter lengths of Skagit lines. Or their heavier weight relative to other casting styles. Or perhaps, a case of my "splitting hairs" as far as what constitutes "new technique" or not. Or it could be that I/we misinterpreted the instructions from which we started our Speycasting journey so many years ago. Or it might be that the instructions we had back then in North America were not current with modern knowledge based in the "old world". I dunno...
Addendum - Let me clarify that though I think there is a difference in technique of Sweep/D-loopStroke/Backstroke, I believe that the objective of all types Sweeps/D-loopStrokes/Backstrokes is the same... to form a taut, "well shaped" D-loop.
-
- Posts: 747
- Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:22 pm
Micro Skagit/Spey
I totally agree, the fact that Ed has come here to talk about it is applaudable indeed. And more so taking into account that his followers still see nothing in that last clip of him that rings some bell.Stoatstail50 wrote:It seems to me that Ed has plainly accepted the evidence on more than one occasion. Personally, bearing in mind that some of Eds more vocal followers are going to be shitting hedgehogs when they find this out, I can't say that I'm at all surprised that we may be exploring a palatable way to reconcile this present state with what went before...they might fkn kill him...However slo-mo shows crystal clear that this continuous load doesn't exist, and there comes a time when it is impossible to keep denying the evidence anymore....
For me, cognitive dissonance is a state of being, from a purely human point of view I think there's more to applaud in this thread than criticise.
However being politically correct isn't one of my virtues, Mark.
Matt,
I like that comparison with a sinker. I use it all the time to stress the difference between Skagit and other styles.
And this is my farewell. I have already written too much, now will allow some elbow room to the experts.
Cheers you all.
-
- Posts: 1488
- Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:57 am
Micro Skagit/Spey
Really ??However being politically correct isn't one of my virtues, Mark.
Casting Definitions
Many men go fishing all of their lives without knowing that it is not fish they are after.
Many men go fishing all of their lives without knowing that it is not fish they are after.
-
- Posts: 747
- Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 10:22 pm
Micro Skagit/Spey
What was the problem then?
Micro Skagit/Spey
Ed,Addendum - Let me clarify that though I think there is a difference in technique of Sweep/D-loopStroke/Backstroke, I believe that the objective of all types Sweeps/D-loopStrokes/Backstrokes is the same... to form a taut, "well shaped" D-loop.
That makes sense and I agree with that 100%. With regard to constant load (bend), simply doesn't happen with modern rods and if you tried to make it happen all you'd get is major blow outs, the term load really is fairly irrelevant in terms of casting.
Changing the subject slightly, why do you guys over the pond use such heavy lines for throwing dry flies and fishing floating tips?
Cheers
Ben
Micro Skagit/Spey
Aitor,
Thanks for your contributions, your guidance and patience. I hope that you will continue to add to this conversation, if/when you feel it is necessary.
Ben_d,
We don't all use heavy floating rigs! There is a fair share of Traditional/Longliners and a pretty large following for Scandi/Underhand type casters over here, besides the Skagit casting thing. However, some of the "heavy" circumstance that does exist can be attributed to the fact that it seems like anglers new to Spey-type casting and/or those that only participate in it a few times during their angling year, find it easier to produce fishable casts by using heavy line systems. The other reasoning would be a convenience factor, whereby a multi-tip line system is being used to allow for changing up tips to accommodate desired angling presentation. In said case, most of us will choose a shootinghead "body" that is heavy enough to cast the fastest sinking and/or heaviest sinktip that we think might be needed for use. Then, if/when a floating line presentation is required, we will then swap out the sinking tip for a floating tip. This allows us the convenience of matching "all" conditions with one line. If instead, we selected for a lighter floating head that produced a more "classic" casting feel and casts, then if conditions dictated a deep presentation, we would have to change out an entire line. As regards steelheading, even in the extremely low water conditions of late Fall, one can find circumstances where steelhead may be holding in a riffle that is only 18" deep and thus requiring a floating line presentation and then, around the corner at the next piece of water, conversely find steelhead holding in a boulder studded, heavily flowing run that is 6' deep. So, "versatility" in presentation capability can be a major factor.
Thanks for your contributions, your guidance and patience. I hope that you will continue to add to this conversation, if/when you feel it is necessary.
Ben_d,
We don't all use heavy floating rigs! There is a fair share of Traditional/Longliners and a pretty large following for Scandi/Underhand type casters over here, besides the Skagit casting thing. However, some of the "heavy" circumstance that does exist can be attributed to the fact that it seems like anglers new to Spey-type casting and/or those that only participate in it a few times during their angling year, find it easier to produce fishable casts by using heavy line systems. The other reasoning would be a convenience factor, whereby a multi-tip line system is being used to allow for changing up tips to accommodate desired angling presentation. In said case, most of us will choose a shootinghead "body" that is heavy enough to cast the fastest sinking and/or heaviest sinktip that we think might be needed for use. Then, if/when a floating line presentation is required, we will then swap out the sinking tip for a floating tip. This allows us the convenience of matching "all" conditions with one line. If instead, we selected for a lighter floating head that produced a more "classic" casting feel and casts, then if conditions dictated a deep presentation, we would have to change out an entire line. As regards steelheading, even in the extremely low water conditions of late Fall, one can find circumstances where steelhead may be holding in a riffle that is only 18" deep and thus requiring a floating line presentation and then, around the corner at the next piece of water, conversely find steelhead holding in a boulder studded, heavily flowing run that is 6' deep. So, "versatility" in presentation capability can be a major factor.