\|/ or \\\|/ Push Vs Pull, rotating through the stroke or at the end of the stroke

[bartdezwaan]

What is the reason 2 can result in problems, as opposed to 3?

Cheers, Bart

[Paul Arden]

I suspect to go from 1 to 3 you have to think 2, Thomas! What interests me is the second part of the rotation, which I think is probably the most important part, where we “hit it” as hard as possible through a curve, I think is best made without push/thrust/ additional stroke length.

I’ve often wondered if the pushing creates additional air resistance on the rod slowing its unbending for little benefit.

But maybe I’m wrong in the first premise, after all it happens in 1/10th of a second. However I do feel that from MCL to RSP the shorter the distance we can move our hand the higher the line speed. When I’m really in the groove it feels like clicking my fingers at the very end of the stroke.

Cheers, Paul

[Paul Arden]

What is the reason 2 can result in problems, as opposed to 3?

Cheers, Bart

The tip path can rise above the line, this can create a loop where the line end comes through underneath on roll out.

Cheers, Paul

[Dirk le Roux]

The question may be more about what we think while we do than what we really do. Steve Rajeff may think “rotation throughout”. A video of Steve’s cast which I analysed years ago however shows more rotation later in the stroke. That said, an extreme late rotation focus within Steve’s more compact stroke may indeed likely be a recipe for tailing loops.

Acceleration is necessary to make a good cast. If you are to apply constant acceleration throughout the stroke, concerning not only translation but rotation also, then more of the rotation will occur ever later during the stroke.

Regards,
Dirk

[bartdezwaan]

The question may be more about what we think while we do than what we really do.

Indeed Dirk.
If it comes to teaching I think trying to learn 2 will end up with the caster doing 3.
I never tried to teach 3. I can imagine strange things will happen.

Cheers, Bart

[Paul Arden]

Steve has obviously changed his mind on that. A little over 15 years ago he gave a demo at an FFF conclave where he discussed delayed rotation for 5WT distance and rotating through the stroke for accuracy.

Nothing wrong with that of course. I’ve changed my ideas on delayed rotation too to encompass some rotation which I think is more accurate. I think I’ll drop him a line. Always good to hear what he has to say!

Cheers, Paul

[Geenomad]

Acceleration is necessary to make a good cast. If you are to apply constant acceleration throughout the stroke, concerning not only translation but rotation also, then more of the rotation will occur ever later during the stroke.

That's good rendering of the mechanics and consequently, efficiency.

From a biomechanical perspective fly casting is a specialised throwing action. Efficiency comes from a proximal to distal sequence of body movements. The sequence has to flow which means movement of the parts overlap each other which means translation and rotation can never occur independently as in one stops before the other starts. We aren't supposed to move like robots. People move differently to robots and each other.

Also what parts are recruited will vary with the job a throw is being asked to perform. A lob from keeper to bowler or pitcher is quite different to a long return throw from the outfield. There are both similarities and differences in throwing actions for different lengths, trajectories, paths and landings. Ergo, distance casting does not define all fly casting.

Cheers
Mark

[Paul Arden]

It’s funny the push/pull thing I remember learning from Mel and I shortly after took it to some casters I respected in APGAI such as the late Henry Lowe who helped prepare me for my first two casting instructor exams. He immediately loved it and his first observation was that it made tailing loops far less likely.

I ran with it too. It was quite revolutionary back then in the UK. I remember meeting Pete Sutton at a show once and thought “wow this is a good caster... and a puller”. He certainly was but most unusual in those days.

If you don’t overanalyse it, it certainly can make a significant improvement to one’s cast. Where it fails a little I think is other languages, particularly German for some reason although I don’t know why.

The way I look at it now, 25 years on, is “pulling” brings rotation of the shoulder muscles into play whereas pushing is an extension of the forearm. But more than this it’s really about where the cast “originates”. With pushing it starts with the hand and follows the hand. With pulling it starts somewhere in the body, the hips possibly or even the feet - so it’s also about weight shift and balance. It also lends itself better to delayed rotation.

However what I thought was a very simple and bright description for some reason has led to much confusion in the online world. So I’m much less inclined to use these descriptions nowadays and steer more towards descriptions of throwing... darts, tennis balls, javelins etc.

I do still sometimes use the dragging the concrete block description that Mel used to describe the difference between pulling and pushing.

In my casting I was a confirmed “puller” after meeting Mel, later with the “flip-flop” cast (the flip-flop was originally a pisstake on Loop for reinventing Spey Casting and calling it the Underhand Cast) but after my first lesson teaching Jon Allen he used his old style to outcast me quite considerably. I figured well I’ve been doing the flip-flop for about 5 years, I’m not about to find another 10 feet in the short term, and so I learned his stroke and beat him the following weekend (Ok I practised 8hrs/day to do this ).

That was very good for me because it started the long and thoroughly interesting process of trying to cast ever further and further. So I based my stroke around whatever I could learn about Steve’s stroke. And then I met Rick and tried to ignore what he was doing, because he looked like an elephant casting the first time I saw him, but the second time we met everything changed - Bill has helped sort out his backcast - and he was now a tiger.

We’ve had a few changes since then of course and we are always learning but the 170 was every bit as revolutionary as the pulling stroke. Maybe more so. Quite fascinating really.

Anyone who tells you style doesn’t matter or stroke length is unimportant really just hasn’t learned it yet. Everything is important.

Cheers, Paul

[John Waters]

I use the term "slinging" rather than "pulling" to describe the long stroke cast i.e. every distance greater than that controlled by forward rotation of the forearm and wrist only. If the distance you are casting requires you to move the hand from behind the shoulder to forward of the shoulder then it you need to sling the rod hand forward. Using the term "pulling" forward denotes an arm centric technique and is a term not used by throwing coaches because it does not best describe the action. I have cast with the \\\\\/ stroke, pulling the line forward, for decades, but now know that is incorrect. I have spent the last few years taking a number of steps backwards as a distance caster, whilst I change. I hope I get it right one day, but irrespective, the traditional terms need changing.

John

[Paul Arden]

Hi John,

I think it’s important for students to understand (as well as instructors of course!) that not every description or concept will get the same result between students. For example a term can be a lightbulb moment for one caster and yet downright disastrous for another

Pushing/pulling certainly fits in that basket, but so too does everything else.

What I do when a student suddenly makes an improvement is ask him how it felt. This has several benefits, firstly it gets him/her to analyse his stroke, also it gives him a key to recovering that stroke element when he is struggling later and finally as instructors it gives us potentially a new tool in our box as well.

For example I remember one student saying that the end of his 170 stroke it felt like “dunking a basketball”. I’ve since reused that to good effect.

Certainly the more descriptions we have at our disposal the more likely we are to find one that works!

I think it’s quite probable that the act of teaching “pulling” in a lesson, along with the associated analogies and slow motion pantomime, works far better than a written description which often seems to lead to confusion. I still use it for example to teach Drag. I couple it with “feeling for the line” at the start of the forward cast, leading with the butt etc etc in order to create this \\\/ motion.

I like the term “slinging” very much. I’m pretty sure that Mel used to use this term too. It’s certainly one I also use and I like it because it focuses attention to the line and away from the rod, which may be what is required at the time.

Cheers, Paul