Teaching concepts revisited

[John Waters]

Hi Graeme,

The cues I refer to are the words and actions that direct the attention of the student to learn or perform a task. e.g. any visual, verbal or physical foci you use when teaching students to improve their casting accuracy or increase their casting distance.

Thanks,

John

Ah, okay, I get what you mean now.

I don’t have a set of cues that I use all the time. I tend to use analogies that are related to the experiences that the student has revealed to me during the lesson.

To be honest, I have had very very few students asking to improve their accuracy casting. The only people I know of who want to improve their accuracy are CI candidates and competition casters. There are none of the latter here in WA, and only three CI candidates here.

Casters looking for a bit more distance are common, but specifically distance casting? Again, it’s CI candidates. All the others are fishermen who want to improve their general casting. For a bit more distance, I focus their efforts on throwing their tightest loops a little bit further. A foot or two at a time.

If they have certain deficiencies like inadequate translation, I’ll work on those individually.

I know this is not quite what you’re asking, but I really don’t deliver a set lesson plan. I’m guided by my students.

Cheers, Graeme

Thanks Greame, appreciate your reply.

John

[John Waters]

Hi Nils,

It looks like the line is the cue of choice for most instructors.

John

[Stoatstail50]

It looks like the line is the cue of choice for most instructors.

Hi John

This is a very interesting conclusion, I don’t think you’re right.

Its not the only cue I might use. I definitely use the line as a cue a lot but that’s because I’m usually teaching recreational casters who most of the posters on here would consider intermediates at best. It is, in my opinion, the most useful source of sensory information for the people I get to teach. It’s not the only one though.

Most of the instructors posting on here are a very small sample of the whole population and are, by and large, way better informed than the majority and, in some cases, by a near galactic distance.

For me personally I believe that no-one in their right minds would come to me for a lesson in competition accuracy or distance, I have pretty much zero experience of teaching competition casters….none. I could speculate but I don’t “know”. In this sense I am slap bang in the set of “most instructors” who have also never taught these kinds of skills. However, I’m absolutely sure that your conclusion is not true for “most instructors”. Because I’m also absolutely sure that most instructors cue from hands, feet, wrists, elbows, shoulders, rod butts, tip paths, targets, tapes, “feels”….and the line, without having the slightest clue that they’re cueing at all.

If I may, I’d like to ask a question. Imagine a caster standing by a river, about to cast at a fish rising on station. How many cues are available to this person ?

[VGB]

I’m going to stick this in here, for the sake of discussion on why instructors and competition coaches do things differently

It’s part of a theoretical construct that I won’t post just yet because it requires knowledge of the work of Gibson, Newell, Wulf, Winkelman and many other luminaries of Sports Science to make sense of. Also, I’ve had a couple of beers .

If you look at the construct, the instructosphere is paddling in the blue and Green bits, the competition world in the red. For instructors, the blue is our bread and butter work, teaching anglers, quick fixes. The green is mentoring and where we want to get our anglers, if possible, a robust set of learnt skills that is not really achievable in the 1 lesson that is all we usually get to give a student. We have different top level objectives and constraints, the individual constraints include the ability of our students and their goals.

To be honest, it would be shocking if we did things the same way but it shouldn’t prevent us having an appreciation of what we are all trying to achieve. To do this, you need to take a bit of a gods eye view to realise that there are no golden bullets in teaching but you need less of them if you know what you are targeting.

Regards

Vince

[John Waters]

It looks like the line is the cue of choice for most instructors.

Hi John

This is a very interesting conclusion, I don’t think you’re right.

Its not the only cue I might use. I definitely use the line as a cue a lot but that’s because I’m usually teaching recreational casters who most of the posters on here would consider intermediates at best. It is, in my opinion, the most useful source of sensory information for the people I get to teach. It’s not the only one though.

Most of the instructors posting on here are a very small sample of the whole population and are, by and large, way better informed than the majority and, in some cases, by a near galactic distance.

For me personally I believe that no-one in their right minds would come to me for a lesson in competition accuracy or distance, I have pretty much zero experience of teaching competition casters….none. I could speculate but I don’t “know”. In this sense I am slap bang in the set of “most instructors” who have also never taught these kinds of skills. However, I’m absolutely sure that your conclusion is not true for “most instructors”. Because I’m also absolutely sure that most instructors cue from hands, feet, wrists, elbows, shoulders, rod butts, tip paths, targets, tapes, “feels”….and the line, without having the slightest clue that they’re cueing at all.

If I may, I’d like to ask a question. Imagine a caster standing by a river, about to cast at a fish rising on station. How many cues are available to this person ?

Hi Mark,

Absolutely agree with you. The sample is far too small to draw any conclusion at all. In response to Nils question about cues there were 3 respondents, one mentioned the line. I was hoping to read more than three responses to the question about what cues are used by instructors and you are correct, my conclusion is absolutely statistically invalid. It was tongue in cheek, given the information posted previously about cues used in coaching. Coaching strategies and their successes interested me greatly. I want to learn as much as I can about what to instruct and how to instruct it. Maybe I see the casting world a tad different to most because I see variations on themes only between competition and fishing. Constraints create different foci in instructional strategies because after all, the what and the how are objective driven. BUT, where I differ is that I think the determinants of a fishing and a competition cast are very similar, if not the same. In fishing we want to place the fly accurately (in the fish's window) at some distance from the angler. Sometimes that will be at the extreme of the angler's casting distance. In competition we want to place the fly accurately (in the hoop) or, at the extreme of the competitor's casting distance. I would suggest most fly fishers (except in overgrown streams) predominantly use a near vertical rod plane for most of their fishing day. Competitors use a near vertical rod plane for most of their competition time, exceptions being wind direction. Of course line wiggles, roll casts, underslung loops, mends etc. etc. look very different the standard overhead stroke but IMHO they are variations on that near vertical, straight line casting technique, the Italian casting schools being the exception. I read all the casting books and watch the casting videos and IMHO, the focus is on the stock standard near vertical to 45 degree, straight line presentation casting stroke. Thus, I think the determinants of both short line casting and distance casting are standard in both fishing and casting.

The FFI tests include specific accuracy and distance tasks, which absolutely replicate those tasks in competition casting. The examiners watch for the same aspects of casting technique in those tasks as competition casters and coaches watch for in their training. I am interested in better understanding what cues instructors and mentors use when assisting candidates to pass both tests. Maybe competition coaches can learn form their experiences and use better cues for casting sport. I would certainly learn more about cues if I knew what cues were used in both the competition and recreational casting world. Maybe I am the only one with that view, but I think not. I'm presuming that's why Nils asked for information about cues.

Now back to cues, because they are an important aspect of instruction. I highjacked the post by Nils introducing this topic, apologies Nils, and targeted his request for cues used by instructors because of my interest in the how we instruct, and my interest in the transition of learning through to performance using cues. In the 70's sports psychology targeting relaxation and imagery was all the go and that, although not specially detailed, was all about cues. I think casting short and long line distances is predominantly the same as other throwing and hitting sports i.e. a proximal to distal kinetic chain of movement. If that is correct, then the cues used by those sport coaches should also be applicable to casting. Your list of cues, above, is both comprehensive and IMHO correct. My next question would be to ask which of those internal and external cues are applicable to the specific determinants of the casting effectiveness. Maybe all are equally applicable to every determinant, but maybe not? In all the discussion about cues, that question has not been answered.

Apologies for this diatribe, now to your question.

There are a myriad of cues available to that angler, but the primary one IMHO would be a cue that results in the fly landing directly on the target, and stay there for the longest possible time without drag negatively impacting that positioning of the fly. That's what I do when I am casting in an accuracy competition also, only replace drag with wind and the elapsed time being long enough for the judge to call it. I use both feel and a mind's eye picture for that type of cue, but then again, I do miss a lot of targets.

John

[John Waters]

I’m going to stick this in here, for the sake of discussion on why instructors and competition coaches do things differently

IMG_2107.jpeg

It’s part of a theoretical construct that I won’t post just yet because it requires knowledge of the work of Gibson, Newell, Wulf, Winkelman and many other luminaries of Sports Science to make sense of. Also, I’ve had a couple of beers .

If you look at the construct, the instructosphere is paddling in the blue and Green bits, the competition world in the red. For instructors, the blue is our bread and butter work, teaching anglers, quick fixes. The green is mentoring and where we want to get our anglers, if possible, a robust set of learnt skills that is not really achievable in the 1 lesson that is all we usually get to give a student. We have different top level objectives and constraints, the individual constraints include the ability of our students and their goals.

To be honest, it would be shocking if we did things the same way but it shouldn’t prevent us having an appreciation of what we are all trying to achieve. To do this, you need to take a bit of a gods eye view to realise that there are no golden bullets in teaching but you need less of them if you know what you are targeting.

Regards

Vince

Good post Vince. The diagram is instructive and shows the transition from start to competition level in any sport e.g. children's athletics to Olympians or junior casters to world champions. Casting sport coaching has the same segmentation and constraints that you have referred to as applicable to recreation fly fishing instruction.

IMHO, far more commonality than disparity exists between recreational and competition casting instruction. We should focus on the commonality of interest that exists across the "what" and the "how" of instruction in the recreational, competition segments of casting and other sports. Some sports are further down the road that we are, and that means we can we can accelerate our progression. If some aspect of the "what" and or the "how" of instruction worked in another sport, the chances are it will work equally well in the world of both recreational fly fishing and casting sport instruction.

John

[Paul Arden]

The initial questions for me are far too broad. Ie what cues and analogies do we use when teaching? What cues to teach for Accuracy and Distance? You can write pages on this. For every casting component there are a multitude of cues and analogies in our toolbox.

This is a bit more focussed:

If I may, I’d like to ask a question. Imagine a caster standing by a river, about to cast at a fish rising on station. How many cues are available to this person ?

3 million six hundred and 24 and counting. But most of them are going to interfere with the cast. Most of the cues that we use during training are to ultimately make a casting stroke, or casting cycle, occur autonomously, ie with no thought over the actual movements themselves.

If we take it down to the very basics, I think taking Shots is an excellent example, because I have two cues and only two cues. One is the front target where the fly should land (not the fish) and the other is the back target where the backcast should be directed. I think that has to happen with every cast we make.

On a river situation you might need to modify the front cue. Ie not just where the fly lands, but perhaps you need a low trajectory to cast under a tree. That modifies the back target position (cue) as well as how we deliver to the front target eg slicing through using a low plane to the target.

Also we may be looking for non-straight line configuration, or very possibly a Reach Cast. This creates an additional cue. If it’s a Reach Cast it creates a cue to reach over after firing to the front target. If it’s a wriggle cast or some curve mend then I’m cueing an image of the line layout landing on the water prior to the cast being made.

A more novice may need to cue parts of the casting stroke itself. That’s why he/she needs to train their casting away from the water so that this becomes automatic. We don’t want to be thinking about the cast when fishing. This just has to “happen” in the ideal world. Otherwise they need specific “on the water cues” that we use when guiding. But this is certainly not ideal.

Cheers, Paul

[VGB]

Where Marks question is valid is that the angler is cueing for performance not learning a new skill, hopefully.

I’m going to drag my sorry arse out of bed to go pike fishing on a canal in a bit, throwing budgies around in a very restricted space. I’m searching instead of sight fishing or prospecting likely lies, canals are a bland environment with hazards close in behind. I will throw far more back handed casts than I usually do, my cue will be a target low down near the shrubbery on my right hand side, my forward target is very vague, hitting the water is sufficient. Casting on my strong side is mostly steeple casts with an imaginary target high and behind me. Subsequently, my cue drops to the falling budgie,to get the timing right for the forward cast. When I get fed up with that, I present the back cast parallel to the bank and throw a big curve cast, breaking the 180.

My biggest mistake with this kit is casting loops that are too tight and with too much line speed, my autonomous movement is for much lighter gear and small dries. If I start to rely on feel, my haul becomes ineffective because the heavy line has a lot more momentum than I’m used to feeling.

Once proficient, accuracy and distance are both performance tasks and not representative of learning. Like most candidates, I fretted too much about the distance one and practiced it too early and too much and should have developed robust control first.

When I practice giving lessons, I try to play the role of student. I’ll teach myself to cast with the wrong hand where I watch the line much more than I need to. I practice behaving like the student, so my demo shows the behaviour that I want them to replicate because if I do something like look around, or don’t hold the line with my line hand that is what they do.

I agree about determinants but that mostly goes on between my ears, you can fiddle with the odd bit but it needs to be related to an outcome. The only real exception to this is if you have a competent student who has developed an autonomous sequence that has a minor error but I find that you mention it and it’s fixed by the student. If the pattern has gone badly awry, then it’s “Old Way, New Way”.

The diagram was taken from here with the health warning that familiarity with the background literature is needed to join the dots

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 01444/full

Regards

Vince

[Paul Arden]

Hi Vince,

I can’t remember ever teaching a competition caster who isn’t an angler first. Most if not all become interested in competition casting as a method of elevating their skills levels when they have reached a high level plateau. There are differences in coaching because they have a high skills base and are robust to change and trying new techniques without everything falling apart.

I see it as two parts:

One is furthering their technique along. When training casters of all levels I use hoops for targets for almost everything. Presentation casts you name it, because what is the point otherwise? And at some point in their progression I get the tape measure out so we can measure improvements along their distance journey.

Whether or not the caster intends to compete, learning these skills may be of interest and benefit to them. I am a huge believer in the 170 for example. Not for competition but for taking shots in Saltwater in all winds. In fact I teach all of my higher level students the 170 because it has other benefits too. I also teach them all accuracy and I ask them to measure it. I ask to measure so we can check their improvements over time. I ask them to train it because they are training picking targets, a straight backcast, trajectories, loop control and so on. All the good stuff.

Using these random targets I also teach different laydowns, presentation casts, all planes, Roll Cast and even Speys at some point. It’s not about scoring competition but about hitting the target. And when fishing there is almost always a target! I think that’s really important to train because we need to be accurate when fishing and that needs to be ingrained.

This is not beginners’ coaching of course because for me beginners is about loop control and developing movement and so on. But when they have reached that development plateau, where most of my students come in at, say around the point that most CIs begin their training, that’s when structure I think very beneficial. And for them it doesn’t matter if they heading down the CI path or not, hitting targets and distance are two key disciplines in fly fishing casting.

So the comp technique is just all of this stuff taken as far forward as we can go. The difference between throwing 50’ and 120’ is technique. It’s a lot of technique, but it’s still technique that almost anyone can learn if they want it. You don’t have to be a competition caster to want it.

The other part, part 2:

Is the mental game. Coaching someone to compete. It’s about how to train specifically. And it’s about how to perform under pressure.

Now this is remarkably similar to teaching shots. We set up the field. We imagine we are on the water, smelling the salt air; waiting, waiting, feeding sheep, waiting. And then the fish appears. Pick target. Think back target 180 degrees away, ring bell, maybe a false cast and deliver. Check the shoot, strip.

Mental preparation and training specifically for the event. And a lot of people get this wrong. I know because I’ve got it wrong quite a few times myself!!


I wish it would stop raining and I could go fishing. Trying to find Snakehead babies in the rain is like looking for a needle in a haystack.

Cheers, Paul

Edit: actually it’s like looking for a specific slightly different piece of hay in a haystack. I often liken a set of babies as looking like a small group of raindrops… Fantastic

[VGB]

Hi Paul

I don’t think that any skills that are learned that are wasted, provided that you have the ability to adapt the technique as the constraints change.

Using these random targets I also teach different laydowns, presentation casts, all planes, Roll Cast and even Speys at some point. It’s not about scoring competition but about hitting the target.

I like the “random” piece of this and maybe if competition was with floating targets, instead of anchored, competition techniques might change? Would putting a hawthorn hedge behind the distance casters change the way they train and cue? Would they train differently if they didn’t know what equipment and task they were going to compete in?

So the comp technique is just all of this stuff taken as far forward as we can go. The difference between throwing 50’ and 120’ is technique. It’s a lot of technique, but it’s still technique that almost anyone can learn if they want it. You don’t have to be a competition caster to want it.

Say, if the Danish games was the format but the events were not given until the day of the competition and the equipment was provided on the day. Would that change your preparation? How would you prepare me for that format of competition?

Regards

Vince

I wish it would stop raining and I could go fishing.

Blue sky day here, about 4 degrees C and waiting for my fishing buddy. The rivers are too high to wade here, I miss this