Golf has moved from being taught by expert "players" to now being taught by "scientists" who use high tech devices to measure and breakdown motion. The transition from backswing to downswing is the second most important area of the golf swing. (Impact is number one). The transition is a dynamic motion which begins the sequence necessary to deliver the club with power while directing the club on a controlled path necessary for control. However, due to the analytical and compartmentalized nature of high tech analysis, you can get this for instruction:
- transition.png (25.04 KiB) Viewed 1152 times
Remove sequence, motion, and intent from the definition and you get a collection of positions.
This is the danger of having a "beginning" of the CS. Unless you're referring to a PU or just getting the line going, the CS TRANSITIONS from one stroke to the next. TRANSITIONING from one to the next stroke allows for body motion, such as stepping, weight shift and rotation to be included in the CS. It also then makes it easy to delineate between creep and drift. The intent to form a type of loop with a certain amount of force incorporates drag, drift, sweep and creep. Such a definition also embraces "styles" of casting so to avoid getting stuck in teaching a homogenized method.
Rotation is then the application of force or acceleration. Timing of acceleration within the CS is critical to achieve the desired loop. The duration and rate of acceleration can vary provided the culmination of acceleration and beginning of deceleration occurs at the proper time.
In golf, how can you teach the other areas of the swing without first understanding the "release" and impact. I feel the same for teaching casting. The student first must understand rotation and the timing of acceleration before moving to more dynamic aspects of the stroke. In this way, drift, drag and creep can all have positive or negative connotations.
The most important aspects of the cast then are timing, rhythm and tracking.
One other note. Would you rather have a student who wants to be "taught" or wants to "learn"?. The first will copy what you say while the second will use what you say as a guide to explore variations and empower understanding. If you prefer a student who wants to learn, then the teaching style needs to be more socratic than definitive. A socratic method employs questions leading the student on a shared path of discovery while the definitive is stuck in quantitative and compartmentalized thinking. It's a real problem, in my opinion, in golf instruction.
My two cents as a golf instructor learning to cast a fly.