Teaching concepts revisited

[Graeme H]

The initial questions for me are far too broad.

…

Otherwise they need specific “on the water cues” that we use when guiding. But this is certainly not ideal.

Cheers, Paul

I’m feeling the same thing Paul. The number of possible cues is about four times the number of students because each student needs to be taught in their own way.

Cheers, Graeme

[VGB]

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:

The 2 parts remain learning and performance though Paul, you still go through the F&P stages, regardless of destination.

Regards

Vince

[VGB]

Morning All

For the record, I have no problem with physics but if you are going to conduct “human in the loop” analyses, you need to understand the variability of human behaviours and learning theory of the most complex part and account for it.

I would add that you need to understand the difference between mechanics and biomechanics as well.

So would I,

John

And how they interact:

https://www.sexyloops.com/index.php/ps/ ... syPESHTuMk

[Paul Arden]

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?

Hi Vince,

You make a very good point. And I think even if we simply look at competition accuracy, that there is much to be gained from different deliveries and varying casting and loop planes, even for the competitor.

On the back of my boat the targets do actually move around

There are only two specific aspects to comp accuracy that are different to fishing. One is hovering (I certainly don’t do that when fishing) but when coaching we do have people false cast to train. And the other is strip hauling. Very rarely do I do that when fishing.

But everything else is highly applicable: targeting front and back, trajectories, loop control.

I really like it because (a) it’s measurable and (b) I recognise what it’s done for me. I never trained hoops until I saw Steve Rajeff in action in Norway the first time. Then I started training! And it’s definitely made me a better caster and I think mostly by concentrating more on the backcast. It’s really made me realise just how important this is. That awareness is now existing in all my backcasts.

There is another interesting aspect to it… it’s addictive! And if we can get students addicted to flycasting training then great!

Target casting for me doesn’t just mean comp casting. It means all planes, all casts, all deliveries. I think 90% of what we teach should be to randomly placed targets. It’s all very well to make a wriggle cast for example, but if there is no accuracy with fly placement then it’s not a lot of use. With accuracy of fly placement then it actually becomes more interesting to train as well. And then of course we can include accuracy of wiggle placement.

So I use the same hoops for presentation casts and mends, as well as all planes, different deliveries, and rolls and Speys.

Cheers, Paul

[John Waters]

I would add that you need to understand the difference between mechanics and biomechanics as well.

So would I,

John

And how they interact:

https://www.sexyloops.com/index.php/ps/ ... syPESHTuMk

And how they can assist instructors and athletes about learning and performance.

Not all tournament casters come to the sport from a fly fishing background. Some children come from a spin and bait angling background. I had no fly fishing background when I started tournament casting, but then started fly fishing. I would suspect that most fly anglers on any one day are fishing open water using the same casting stroke that is used in tournament casting. Sure, a percentage will be fishing small streams with hawthorn hedge behind, but the majority will use a near vertical stroke with no haul, a single haul or a double haul and will try and cover as much water as possible by casting to their maximum distance for some part of their fishing day. I have not seen much reference to either instructional or performance cues in the fly fishing or competition casting literature. Plenty in research publications but that is not the preferred source of the majority of casting coaches and instructors who are seeking to expand their knowledge base. I suppose time will tell if that ever changes.

John

[John Waters]

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?

Hi Vince,

And I think even if we simply look at competition accuracy, that there is much to be gained from different deliveries and varying casting and loop planes, even for the competitor.

Cheers, Paul

I agree Paul, both are very similar, and distance casting competitions have more similarity to fishing

John

[Paul Arden]

The 2 parts remain learning and performance though Paul, you still go through the F&P stages, regardless of destination.

Absolutely! I agree, Vince.

I’m feeling the same thing Paul. The number of possible cues is about four times the number of students because each student needs to be taught in their own way.

Yes there is that aspect too. And we invent new cues specifically as we go. We have 100s if not thousands of cues. And 100s of analogies too.

I’ve been thinking about writing down Cues, Analogies and Drills that I use so I can collect them all together. Or in fact just going through students notes would do it!

It’s very common to cue, and not get the result. So we cue again. There is no point in using the same cue that didn’t work the first time. So we need a huge collection. And you are right, what works for one student may not work for another.

I get a lot of cues and analogies back from students too. Often between or at the beginning of a lesson where we go through and discuss what happened during the training time. Those notes make fantastic reading. Or they would if I could read my writing.

Cheers, Paul

[Stoatstail50]

Blimey….

Too much to quote.

So much of this is about different objectives. I teach recreational anglers. I’ve stopped mentoring and assessing instructors. I deeply respect the competition casters but I wouldn’t dare suggest a thing to any of them This has a big influence on what, and how I teach because, in my view, recreational anglers need to expand their range of controlled motion whereas assessment candidates and competition casters are looking to create a narrow, consistently repeatable, range of controlled motion.

It leaves us with a nice easy decision on whether to teach a narrow range of motion first and then widen it or, teach a wide range first and then narrow it. My preference is the latter method.

i have said many times on here that I don’t see the competition accuracy casting stroke as being the ideal objective for a recreational caster. I certainly don’t fish like that anyway. Nor do I believe the standard demo of a PULD or a false cast cycle, read in a book, accepted as a pass in an assessment or performed at a show is an ideal model for a recreational caster. They may be an end point for some but they are nevertheless just one very formal expression of a vast range of possible movements. So, I don’t teach it.

However, casters who are self learning read the books, see these formal demos on YouTube and social media and that’s what they try to copy. Of course they do, why would they do anything else ? The results are highly predictable. Feet anchored to the ground, body freezing, big loops on the BC and a whacked FC. You’ll see it every day on lakes and rivers everywhere. If you ask someone to demo their casting in a lesson it’s this just off vertical, feet together, up down, stroke that you’ll see. Most instructors John, still teach it, some organisations actively promote this to prospective instructor candidates as the recommended way…most commonly with the same results.

If someone afflicted with this idea of the ideal stroke ever comes for a lesson, we are left with another nice easy decision…do we directly address the faults we see so that they can reproduce the demo casting stroke more accurately or do we address the faults we see so that they can expand their range of control. I do the latter here.

Most of the goofs we observe are very easily remedied when a caster learns to look. So, my principal overriding objective in using the line as a cue early in the learning process is to begin to train the caster to look. If we’re using side casting as a start place it’s because I want them to be able to look both ways. The added benefit is that this is going help them to begin to filter the useful sensory cues from the not so useful when they get onto that riverbank. Connecting what you see with what you do comes next.

This look both ways start point will eventually take a caster up into vertical and over the other side. At or around the vertical we may well stop looking too, I definitely don’t always look at my BC when I fish but, it’s nice to know I have the option. In this process they are going to have learn to change their whole body position in order to maintain control of the loop. This too is relevant to casting on the water because it’s unlikely to be as forgiving to stance as a cricket pitch.

I use targets too because, as Paul correctly points out, the whole purpose of the cast is to get the fly into a particular spot. I would like my caster to be able to place that fly as close to that target in as many different ways as possible not just one. However, I don’t introduce the target until there is good loop control through multiple planes and trajectories.

I hope my lesson prepares a caster for the kinds of environment in which they’re going to fish because that way the lesson is aligned with my casters objectives, motivations and needs. If I teach them something else I’ll lose them.

For me a cue is just a source of information.

A cue may be used to guide what you decide to do next. For our caster on the bank, the fish is a cue, our optical system estimating the distance we might have to cast. The current is a cue triggering a judgement on where to put the fly to cover the fish. In contrast, birdsong, or a plane overhead, whilst still being a source of information contains no useful information in the context of our cast so we filter it out.

A cue may also be a reference point to check whether what you decided to do gave you what you wanted. Did you judge the distance right, did the current work as you expected. In most cases a caster will review these decisions by observing what happened to the line either during flight or after it’s down. This knowledge of results is going to trigger a change in performance and the cycle goes on.

The better the information you have, the more likely your performance will meet your objective. (This is true for teaching just as it is for casting). In casting, experts already know what are the richest sources of relevant information, novices don’t and, sometimes, they filter out the good ones with the bad. We can help them avoid this by keeping them focussed on the most powerful sensory cues and away from the weakest.

We are a cue for our students, we are a source of visual information to copy, we give audible coaching cues or clue cues. We create visualisation cues. I’ve thought long about how I use analogies, which I love, and discovered I use them astonishingly rarely…haven’t worked out why yet. We mix this up, just as Graeme says, to meet the specific needs of our casters…that’s what I try to do anyway.

[Stoatstail50]

We have 100s if not thousands of cues. And 100s of analogies too

I use quite a small number of cues and almost no analogies it turns out. I’m thinking about that

[VGB]

Hi John

I would suspect that most fly anglers on any one day are fishing open water using the same casting stroke that is used in tournament casting.

For many of them, it’s because they have no choice, and there’s often less fish there because it gets battered.

Sure, a percentage will be fishing small streams with hawthorn hedge behind, but the majority will use a near vertical stroke with no haul, a single haul or a double haul and will try and cover as much water as possible by casting to their maximum distance for some part of their fishing day.

Mark has described the scene that you see all over the country, open bc, punched fc to get the distance or to deal with wind. Some sort of haul might be going on but the line hand is a passenger even then. You can do fault diagnosis from your armchair, it’s so common. You could ask yourself why this scenario is so prevalent?

I have not seen much reference to either instructional or performance cues in the fly fishing or competition casting literature.

I’m scratching my head to think of any fly casting literature that deals with learning, there’s rain forests of paper showing you how to perform every casting variation known to man.

Regards

Vince