Excellent Double Spey Video - Good explanation of the technique

[Aitor]

Just to get things clarified, is this up hand or bottom hand?

[springer]

It is bottom hand dominant in terms of how the leverage is applied, I know from knowing the caster. It would be entirely possible for another caster to move their hands through similar planes and be top hand dominant.

[Aitor]

Curiously enough from knowing the caster we should also say that the fulcrum is in the upper hand, although video analysis shows that it isn't.

But, using a video clip, how do we tell a bottom hand dominant caster from another one who uses mostly the upper hand?

[springer]

The starting position for the forward cast in Roberts case clearly shows his bottom hand is in a position where if he chooses to use it in a dominant way he can.

It was clear when freezing the clips of Andrew that his wasnt and he could only effectively flex the rod by using a top hand dominant style.

From Roberts start position he could choose to do one of three things.

1. Rotate the rod around an imaginary axis somewhere between his hands using a 50/50 push/pull style.

2. Push the tip over using his top hand and allow the bottom hand to just follow the rod butt.

3. He could choose to pull the tip over by using a more dominant bottom hand (in terms of rod tip driving effort) while allowing the top hand to move through the casting arc and remain the fulcrum.

He tells me he uses method 3 and I agree with that theory as the best way to flex a DH rod.

Sometimes we have to take into consideration intent and execution to determine the style, other times we can clearly see that regardless of intent something cant be executed as intended because it wasnt possible from that starting point.

Andrew in that casting clip clearly doesnt give himself enough space to move the rod through such a plane as to have a dominant bottom hand style. Im not saying he cant adjust to that if he choses to but its not what I see in the clip. Hence my initial comment about too much top hand and noise.

[crunch]

This link has a slow motion of (only) Switch Cast (with short belly). Balanced use of both hands, controlled body twist, abrupt stop and follow thru:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpM0KdJeJaQ

His other five videos are worth seeing.

[Malcolm]

Curiously enough from knowing the caster we should also say that the fulcrum is in the upper hand, although video analysis shows that it isn't.

But, using a video clip, how do we tell a bottom hand dominant caster from another one who uses mostly the upper hand?

Clearly we can keep the lower hand neutral in relation to the upper hand and get some casting movement. We can also move the lower hand keeping the upper hand neutral and also get some casting movement. If the upper or lower hand is neutral and is merely a support then we have a real fulcrum.

However it seems to me that all good casters rotate their hands around a point between the two hands. In another sport this point was described by Dr Valery Kleshnev as the "imaginary fulcrum" which I think is a really good descriptive term.

Simply put if one hand is heading in one direction and the other is heading in the opposite direction around an unsupported point between the two hands then we have an imaginary fulcrum. An imaginary and real fulcrum cannot exist at the same time on the same lever.

However it seems to me that none of the good casters use a true fulcrum. They all use a combination of both hands although the emphasis is different. So each hand makes a positive (as opposed to neutral) contribution to the bending of the rod on the forward cast.

So Aitor your point is correct that diagram shows a lower hand dominant style with the imaginary fulcrum towards the top hand.

[springer]

Im not sure I agree with this Malcolm.

The top hand IMO can be a fulcrum if the emphasis on driving the rod tip over is the bottom hand and subsequent effort is generated by it. The fact that this fulcrum moves during the forward cast doesnt change the fact that is it still a true fulcrum and creates the 1st class lever.

Of course the imaginary fulcrum scenario can exist if the top hand is used in conjunction with the bottom hand as a means of driving the rod tip. I do however think it isnt as efficient as having a top hand fulcrum.

Equally a bottom hand fulcrum is possible with a top hand dominated casting style but will result in a 3rd class leverage situation.

I think I would be right in saying a 1st class lever is more efficient although Im not a physicist.

[Aitor]

So Aitor your point is correct that diagram shows a lower hand dominant style with the imaginary fulcrum towards the top hand.

Malcolm,
That wasn't exacty my point.
The red dot in the pic I posted is the center of rotation for the motion determined by the two yellow lines. No fulcrum at the top hand.

3. He could choose to pull the tip over by using a more dominant bottom hand (in terms of rod tip driving effort) while allowing the top hand to move through the casting arc and remain the fulcrum.

He tells me he uses method 3 and I agree with that theory as the best way to flex a DH rod.

Alan,
Video shows that what we think we do and what we really do are, a lot of times, very different things.

[springer]

Alan,
Video shows that what we think we do and what we really do are, a lot of times, very different things.

I agree Aitor, I have learned a lot from watching myself and others on video.

In this instance though I would need you to to provide some very compelling evidence that what Im sure Im doing actually isnt.

Robert used a very interesting analogy on another forum to describe the moving fulcrum, Ive yet to think of a better one. I quote

"If there is a see saw on the back of a truck at a parade and the truck is moving, there is no change in the fulcrum on the see saw, or its position on the see saw."

Because I choose to control the movement of my top hand to be that of nothing more than a moving fulcrum while choosing to drive the tip over with significantly more effort from the bottom hand I am fairly certain Im creating a 1st class lever situation.

I would welcome any evidence to prove otherwise.

[Malcolm]

Im not sure I agree with this Malcolm.

The top hand IMO can be a fulcrum if the emphasis on driving the rod tip over is the bottom hand and subsequent effort is generated by it. The fact that this fulcrum moves during the forward cast doesnt change the fact that is it still a true fulcrum and creates the 1st class lever.

Of course the imaginary fulcrum scenario can exist if the top hand is used in conjunction with the bottom hand as a means of driving the rod tip. I do however think it isnt as efficient as having a top hand fulcrum.

Equally a bottom hand fulcrum is possible with a top hand dominated casting style but will result in a 3rd class leverage situation.

I think I would be right in saying a 1st class lever is more efficient although Im not a physicist.

Springer,
You are perfectly correct in much of what you say but the key point is that in either an imaginary or real fulcrum the lever rotates around a point. This can be supported i.e a real fulcrum or unsupported i.e. an imaginary fulcrum.

If we limit this for convenience to the top hand dominant style as soon as the slightest positive rather than neutral pressure is exerted on the top hand the fulcrum becomes imaginary and is evidenced by a rotation point that is below the top hand.

There is another way of looking at this. Why would we want to force neutrality on the upper hand when it can be used to generate a positive force at no cost. It may not have the same benefits as the lower hand but remember that a rod is in effect a lever whose forces are applied the wrong way round and we can use every bit of help whatever the lever class!

[Marc LaMouche]

Why would we want to force neutrality on the upper hand when it can be used to generate a positive force at no cost.

logical and realistic.
a completely inert fulcrum point of a standing human body, specially the arms, is practically impossible anyhow. the forces needed to counteract any movement would be useless and a waste of energy better applied elsewhere.

cheers,
marc

[Aitor]

Because I choose to control the movement of my top hand to be that of nothing more than a moving fulcrum while choosing to drive the tip over with significantly more effort from the bottom hand I am fairly certain Im creating a 1st class lever situation.

I would welcome any evidence to prove otherwise.

Well, I am pretty sure that the lever isn't a first class one but a combination of first class (same work with less effort) and third class (higher speed by with more effort).
To prove othrwise I need to know what I asked before: how do we know by just watching a video which hand is applying the biggest force?

[springer]

To prove otherwise I need to know what I asked before: how do we know by just watching a video which hand is applying the biggest force?

I guess its impossible to measure exactly how much force is coming from any particular hand buy watching a video clip. However I do believe that there are many times when we can clearly see a 'probability of dominance' based on hand and arm positions immediately prior to the commencement of the forward cast.

[springer]

There is another way of looking at this. Why would we want to force neutrality on the upper hand when it can be used to generate a positive force at no cost. It may not have the same benefits as the lower hand but remember that a rod is in effect a lever whose forces are applied the wrong way round and we can use every bit of help whatever the lever class!

Ive spent a good number of years studying my own forward cast mechanics with everything from heads to real long bellies. I havent found that forcing neutrality downward between the hands has not been as effective as maintaining as neutral as possible top hand. I also think distance between centers (the hands) comes into play depending on the length of rod and the physical stature of the caster.

I have always achieved better loop profiles, greater efficiency and distance when the focus on a top hand fulcrum is maintained. Providing my top hand moves over the appropriate distance (without dominance) to allow a sufficient casting arc for the length of line Im casting I feel Ive proven to myself and others it works best.

Of course I can always learn something new and Im happy to look and try new theories, providing I havent been there already.

[Aitor]

Some video analysis tools allow us to know where the fulcrum really is. For this cast the fulcrum wasn't in the upper hand. It never is there.