Moderators: Paul Arden, Bernd Ziesche, Lasse Karlsson
How did they get to that point and why do you class them as reasonable casters if they can only cast one way?That’s fine Mark but I regularly teach people with 25+ years of fishing experience, reasonable casters and with very little work would pass CCI if that’s what they want, who have *never* cast Closed Stance!
What does a semblance of stance position mean in your lesson, is it an aim of that task?Paul Arden wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 2:34 pmIndeed. Bringing in semblance of Stance/Position when you start with the TM is a very good way of drawing attention to the feet and balance.
his is certainly a hot topic in motor learning. At the end of the day, we are not puppet masters pulling the strings, so it is all self-organization at a basic level. The question is whether the athlete is learning to self-organize under learning conditions that represent the skill in real life - I call this the National Geographic filter - is this how it is done in the wild. Now, people argue that the more the athlete can “figure it out or solve it” on their own the better. The rationale here is simple, if you learn without understanding how you learned (i.e., not being exposed to detailed - step-by-step - instruction) then you are less likely to over-analyze and succumb to paralysis x analysis. This is why we say “it is like riding a bike” when it comes to moments or behaviors that are engrained at a physical opposed to conceptual level. With all this said, we have to recognize that humans are movement generalists - we can run, swim, and climb, but we are not the best runners, swimmers, and climbers in the animal kingdom. As such, the body is really good at getting good enough. Learning to ride a bike is not the same as becoming an elite BMXer. Thus, instruction is often what is needed to go from “good to better.” However, the health warning here is what led to the debate on whether “to coach or not to coach.” If we over-coach with the wrong information, even with the best of intentions, we can lead the athlete to create a hyper-intellectual or conceptual understanding of the movement that is as physically strong or embedded in their sense of performing it. This is best seen when the athlete says, “I know what to do, I just don’t know how to do it.” This is why having a methodology for effective cue and analogy creation is essential. This methodology, built on the motor learning area of attentional focus, helps the coach understand how to “educate the students attention” in a way that harmonizes with “natural” self-organization, rather distracting from it. In short, it is about better cueing and better constraints not cues vs. constraints.
Exactly Vince. I’m trying to help make the disconnect between where we first get them and where we get them again. And where we get them again could be a lot better!With all this said, we have to recognize that humans are movement generalists - we can run, swim, and climb, but we are not the best runners, swimmers, and climbers in the animal kingdom. As such, the body is really good at getting good enough. Learning to ride a bike is not the same as becoming an elite BMXer. Thus, instruction is often what is needed to go from “good to better.”
Hi Paul, I don’t get too exercised about any disconnects or if I’m seeing them for the first time and they have been self taught. Rather than trying to fix individual errors, I just take them through the dance in accordance with Old Way/New Way. I introduce it as a growth path with a simple explanation of why it’s good for them.Paul Arden wrote: ↑Tue Nov 22, 2022 4:27 pm Exactly Vince. I’m trying to help make the disconnect between where we first get them and where we get them again. And where we get them again could be a lot better!
Hi Will
If they are already fishing, I prefer to start with the fishing application that they are interested in learning or having problems with. I find it helps them to be situated in a scenario and allow them to believe that the new way they are being shown will solve their problem. I think that it’s much easier to engage students with the real world than abstract instructional concepts.Once the basics are acquired (either for a basic or advanced skill) we can introduce more variation to get them to explore wider solutions that represent real-life fishing/casting situations.
Yup - me too! The interesting thing for me is that by varying the stance, the student will learn stuff and find an optimum way(s) for them. I agree with Paul here that it's something they won't easily find out by themselves without us changing the constraints. All of which is a long way away from the traditional "one-true-way" of teaching stance.I’ll usually go between fully open and fully closed and talk about the trade off between tip path length and tracking, modelling good and bad outcomes based on the straightness or otherwise of the fly leg. Provided they have the basic dance right, I let them play with it to find their own limits of control but bringing them back to their safe space if it comes unravelled.
Absolutely. However, this doesn't mean we can't then use constraints based work to move them to where they want to be.I prefer to start with the fishing application that they are interested in learning or having problems with.
Befuddled is my default state.I am quite befuddled at the moment
