Back Casts

[VGB]

Thanks Gents for the good wishes. It’s funny that 2 years ago, Covid was a potentially life threatening issue but for most of us it’s now an uncomfortable inconvenience. Incredible progress given the short period of time and hats off to the medical industry for making it happen.

For me that’s about the body applying force to the rod butt, in order that the rod tip applies force to the line. And that’s what we do, teach and, at least for those of us in Casting Sport, we look to optimise body movements.

Can’t argue with this but it’s only half an answer, addressing only the action part of perception action coupling. Unless you are continually getting external feedback, you need to use your senses to obtain feedback to create a self optimising system.

For me, style and substance debates are a bit of an unnecessary sideshow. There’s a fighter pilot maxim called the OODA loop, Observe, Orientate, Decide, Act - then back to observe. The process we go through is little different but as instructors, we need to develop a solution that accounts for the individual, task and environmental constraints and provides feedback information on task performance to the student.

https://apexskating.com/blogs/blog/the- ... y-athletes

Both are about optimising efficiency. Of course the argument comes up that there are sometimes trees and we need to look behind us so we can cast through a gap, or a novice can’t learn to throw a tight loop if he is Closed Stance, or there are times when we can’t throw 180 degrees because the river doesn’t allow it and we need move our targets to another positions, and so on…

Is plucking your fly from trees, or making repeated identical errors because you cannot make changes efficient?

I’ve never heard anyone in swimming argue against optimal form because there are times when we can’t use it. But for some reason in flycasting I hear it all the time I’m not even sure why one would go to an instructor unless it is to learn “good form”.

What is the common definition of optimal form? Is it fitness for intended purpose, or pleasing to aesthetic eye? Optimal swimming form goes out the window if there are hazards in the water such as going head first into a rock or overhanging branch in a fast flowing river, potentially getting run over by a jet ski might make you move away from your most hydrodynamic form and be more intent on watching out for upcoming hazards.

Are you instructing what interests you or what the student needs? Most of mine want to go fishing in environments where there are lots of trees, maybe fishing from boats or kayaks. How does “put the casting foot forward, block with the shoulder and so on, using a very rigid technique” help them in these situations?

In the systems engineering world, there’s a format of requirement and compliance statement that describes how your solution satisfies the need expressed in the requirement, you don’t try and make the question fit the answer.

Regards

Vince

[John Waters]

Hi Paul,

Yes, totally agree. It all starts with body movement, which in turn creates the rod movement. My rods are inert, they sit very obediently in a rod rack and remain so until I grab one and initiate some movement with my hand or other part of my body. Maybe my view is outdated, following the release of the latest model rods. The new models always cast more accurately and further than the previous models, but maybe they now bend and action perfect line profiles all by themselves. Hope so, I'll get one, it will save me getting out of the car when I next go fishing.

You analyse flycasting, I am absolutely sure you could do the same across all casting events.

I saw a quote from Einstein used recently in a casting presentation by Professor Ulrik Roijezon, "Nothing happens until something moves". Sums it up perfectly for me.

John

[VGB]

I saw a quote from Einstein used recently in a casting presentation by Professor Ulrik Roijezon, "Nothing happens until something moves". Sums it up perfectly for me.

Hi John

Would you say that intent is required before the movement, unless the movement is random? Moreover, I would suggest that outcome measured against intent determines the efficiency or quality of the process.

Body movement starts above the neck not below.

Regards

Vince

[John Waters]

Hi Vince,

I have said in previous posts that the movement we use to activate the rod depends on the objective you have for the cast. e.g. different movements for short line and long line etc.etc. so yes, intent is required before the movement - I intend to cast my fly 10 feet vs I intend too cast my fly 100 feet, or, I want my fly line to have a wiggle shape on the water to combat river current etc. I would suggest the movement is not random.

John

[Paul Arden]

Most of mine want to go fishing in environments where there are lots of trees, maybe fishing from boats or kayaks. How does “put the casting foot forward, block with the shoulder and so on, using a very rigid technique” help them in these situations?

Your students and mine have different aspirations, Vince. I’m actually of the opinion that everyone can be an “elite level” caster. I’ll help take them wherever they want to go. If their aspiration is simply to acquire make-do fishing-casting skills, over here in Malaysia I recommend other instructors. Why pay five times the Malaysian Ringgit price to learn the same thing? Overpriced for them and not very interesting for me.

However, be that as it may, in my opinion there is a “correct way” to do something. There are essential elements to make it happen and these elements are always the same. When there are variations, I often teach all the variations. Delivering a Switch Cast is a good example of this and I teach pull-back, cradle-grip and torque-twist. In this particular case the outcome is quite similar although the use of the body is quite different. I teach them all to a high-level student.

When I teach I have a “good form filter” I place between myself and the caster and try to mould the student to this good form. It’s not possible otherwise. At the core of Overhead Casting I teach Closed Stance Accuracy, Open Stance Distance and 170.

The benefits your student may experience in learning “core techniques” is that he/she can become a very high level caster. But if they are not going to practise and they are not particularly interested in excelling, then apart from putting a low ceiling on their own aspirations, they are not going to become very good. There are lots of people like that in life. I don’t think they’re going to pay me for a course in lessons, so I don’t need to worry about it!

Cheers, Paul

[VGB]

Understood Paul, I’ll see if I can find a discussion group for the proles who just want to go fishing and leave the competition stuff to the elite.

Regards

Vince

[Paul Arden]

Ok, Vince, I think there is more to it.

We have two methods of teaching. One is to create avenues for self-discovery and the other is to mould the student to good form. They are not mutually exclusive.

Let’s take Closed Stance Accuracy as one model. The reason that this is a good technique is because it is built around straight repeatable tracking. It also makes efficient use of the shoulder in a down/up motion. For teaching students - of any level - I think these are two sound casting skills to have. This is why for me, casting to targets is excellent training for short fishing casts as well as sight-fishing shots. It incorporates good solid casting technique that can then be manipulated afterwards to deal with problems, wind/obstructions and so on.

That’s why I teach it to all students.

Cheers, Paul

[VGB]

For me, it is a cast with advantages and disadvantages for fishing and teaching that I acknowledge and use as appropriate. I don’t believe that it’s the answer to a maidens prayer and when I teach it, I provide a health warning.

Regards

Vince

[Mangrove Cuckoo]

I cannot decide if I am at a loss for words, or if I have been biting my tongue? Maybe I should stay that course?

I have started numerous responses over this 10+ pages of discourse. But only to delete them since on proofing I sounded like too much of a naysayer.

But I will admit that this discussion has made me evaluate my approach to teaching, and the best I can come up with is that my technique is much more free-form. I start with the student and their intention. I watch what they do and then I try to determine what they can do. I then explain in words and by demonstration what they need to do within the realm of their abilities. And then they try. If they succeed, we continue, if not, its back to words and demonstration and them trying again...

I do not believe their is one way to teach, nor do I think there is a finite number of ways to teach, as there are no students that are the same. I can only assume that, if any of you read it, you must completely reject Lefty Kreh's later book on techniques for older casters who may never have been athletes and/or now may have less than perfect shoulders?

I find the vast majority of my students have physical limitations, and the older they are, the more likely. And I do seem to have a lot of, lets call them seasoned anglers.

But, I also have begun to realize that the fishing we have here in South Florida requires techniques beyond the norm, so maybe that has a lot to do with it?

And, as you all are aware, I mostly give lessons that are related to catching fish.

Having said that...

I missed the FFi Zoom yesterday. Did any of you catch it? I expect it was about teaching techniques?

Does anyone know if it will be available as recorded and how to get it?

[Paul Arden]

I got interested i accuracy late, Vince. About ten years ago or slightly more. Up to this point I dismissed it. I think I may have said “it was for the girls”. And then I saw something remarkable, which was Steve Rajeff throwing at rings. And then I realised actually that this was for me too!

Now I’m not very good. The Americans, Norwegians and Australians are light years ahead of everyone else. But what it has done is make me really think about my form, tracking, trajectories and loop control. It’s definitely made me a far better caster.

Shortly after I started training this, I also started introducing it to others. For me it is now one of the cornerstones to flycasting.

As a practise tool it has other advantages too; namely improvements over time are measurable. So I encourage all my students to spend time practising target casting – every session. I include it at the beginning of every lesson and every subsequent lesson. Even lesson 20 starts with casting at rings as the warmup, and over time the transformation in the student becomes very obvious.

So it’s a platform. But it’s also a building block to other techniques. As I wrote earlier, Closed Accuracy actually becomes Open Stance Distance with change of stance, weight shift and torso twist. So it assists in learning distance too.

Single lessons maybe it’s not so important. But in a course I build these base elements and continue to develop them by returning to them every lesson.

I’ll give you an example. Let’s say I have a lesson to give on Presentation Casts. I will start with revision of the previous lesson’s topic, to see how that has developed and iron out any problems, then we move to Accuracy, then Open Stance Distance, and finally we will move on to Presentation Casts.

I’m sure there are other ways of doing things but I know this works for my lessons.

Cheers, Paul