Didactics - Different casting styles

[Paul Arden]

I use 90 degree open for teaching a complete beginner, utilising Lee's Triangle Method. I teach closed for accuracy, roll and Spey casts, and open for distance. There's nothing controversial about any of that and I would think most instructors do the same. Certainly there is a great history behind this methodology.

It's not just about foot position either. For closed I teach most of the weight on the front foot. For distance I teach weight shift, from front foot to back foot to front foot.

While I'm happy to be flexible and allow students to do whatever they want, they are paying me for my advice and my advice is to learn these two classic styles; closed stance accuracy and open stance distance. Sure there's lots more to learn but this gives them a solid base IMO.

Cheers, Paul

[Bernd]

Sounds good to me. I teach quiet similuar but prefer to use the open stance mostly in my Spey casting for fishing.
I find it more relaxed not to twist in my hips. So therefore mainly I teach the open stance here.
I absolutely agree it's always very good to try different stances and grips AND different combinations.
It's just that in one lesson there won't be too much time and there are lots of things I want to deliever that I found an advantage in choosing mainly one grip and one stance for most of the time.
Adding some accuracy casting while changing the stance seems to be a good concept to me.

[Paul Arden]

Hi Bernd,

Interesting. I like to square off the stance with Spey casting, because the closed stance acts as a block when forming the D-loop. I think foot position is key when teaching COD Dynamic Rolls so that the caster is aligned with the forward delivery and not the pick-up (of course). Putting the casting foot forward helps align the D-loop with the target.

I have to book Norway tomorrow. We may have a space in the cabin if you haven't booked anything? Lee says he'll bring the Gin.

Cheers, Paul

[Bernd]

I am in! Don't give away that bed to any Norwegian girl. She can stay in your bed!
Gin?
You think you can win if I tank Gin? :p

Well than what about going back three or four days later and fish the fjord or Glomma or both?
(Gin and - as you know - flight is gone anyway...)

[Paul Arden]

Sounds good! I have to be there a few days earlier for a meeting, will hang around after for some fishing. The available bed depends on whether or not Ben comes, not the Norwegian pompom girls.

Does this mean we'll be imaginary SW fishing?

Cheers! Paul

[Bernd]

It means we will go for some big fish!

[Paul Arden]

Here's one example as to why I think teaching "style" is important. Let's say someone wishes to learn the 170. In order to learn the 170 several things are required, not least the ability to carry over 80 feet of line cleanly, straight and with a tight near-vertical loop, particularly on the backcast, with the ability to alter trajectory both front and behind, while carrying this length.

So as a prior condition to learning and teaching the 170 it is necessary that the caster has a good "Rajeff-style" compact vertically aligned open-stance distance stroke. Otherwise it's going to be an extremely frustrating lesson! At least that's how I see things.

Cheers, Paul

[Lasse Karlsson]

So as a prior condition to learning and teaching the 170 it is necessary that the caster has a good "Rajeff-style" compact vertically aligned open-stance distance stroke. Otherwise it's going to be an extremely frustrating lesson! At least that's how I see things.

Cheers, Paul

So when you got me into it in Montana, it was an extremly frustrating lesson? Glad I didn't pay :p

Besides that, originally the 170 was with a closed stance, so why would you favor teaching it with an open stance?

Personally I think the prior condition to learning the 170 is being able to move and in control of your movements, which sadly all to many lack a great deal in.

Cheers
Lasse

[Bernd]

I am pretty sure that a beginner would learn the 170 much faster compared to those who have trained the "Rajeff style" for years!
Changing one's style is by far more difficult than learning it first!?

I don't see any special needs to learn the 170 style. Sure a beginner will mostly not aerialze 90 feet of carry within a day. However most advanced casters I saw using the 170 did not control that amount of carry either .

Do styles like 170, Gebetsroither, TLT absolutely need a special stance? Personally I don't think so!
Sure there is influence by how we position the feets. And there is a basement for each style (agree with Lasse, all old videos I have of Rick Hartman show him using the close stance). But for fishing Hans Gebetsroither and Rick Hartman adapt their stances to the situation, too.
To me a (specific named or well known) style can include more than just one stance or one grip.

The characterstical thing about
Gebetsroither: "oben rüber, unten durch"
170: the arc size

Greets
Bernd

p.s.: If I am wrong here, Rick and Paul are not using the 170 both now.

[Paul Arden]

Well I talk from practical experience, not theory!

[victor]

I believe that most casting problems instructors have to deal with don't often stem from a stance problem. The casting arm gives me far more problems. If someone comes for a lesson specifically about distance then it's usually a feet up lesson. If it's to improve their fishing casting then stance is seldom an issue because I explain that their stance will often be dictated by circumstanses underfoot at the time.

Style is also another variable depending on circumstanses. I'm sure my style will be different if I am fishing a large open water rather than a small stream.

Mike

[Paul Arden]

I'm all for teaching flexibility but I like to teach good solid substance first and then adapt. This is the drill, cast like this. This is the drill, cast like that. Throw in enough drills and you cover it all anyway.

Sure some people don't respond well to structure, but many do. One of the benefits to this approach is they can learn through copying and that's a very fast method of learning. The other advantage, I think, of teaching foot positioning is that the caster becomes aware of their body, too many are focused just on the rod or line.

Cheers, Paul

[sushiyummy]

I wanted to throw this out here as perhaps a clarification and delineation between style and substance. The way this thread has morphed may make this look out of place, but here goes.

I like to think Style is related to a repeated set of motions, a pattern of sequences and timing one adopts to get substance. Examples I know of are the Jerry Siem/ Gary Borger Elbow down, there is Bruce Richard's Side arm casting, the Steve Rajeff baseball like motion, and the famous 170 dg cast seen here in SL. Each has their own pluses and minuses, but more importantly to each their own. This is especially true when we see the value of evolving to solve the problem with less effort, more gain, or both.

As for Substance, I would like to think there are two sides to it: 1) The problem or constraint, and 2) The solution to overcome it.

I would like to think that the constraints would be gravity, form drag, surface drag et al. Stuff that applies to everybody no matter where they are casting.

The solution substance would be 1) Recognizing tight loops does the least work per distance, 2) Energy in line = Tip force x Distance, 3) Lift is proportional to loop geometry and velocity, and others.

I believe the Style embodying the most amount of Substance in overcoming the constraints is one of greater economy.

But because of our human peculiarities of relating to the world in pigeon holes/ known constructs/ or constructs we grab onto to bridge the chasm between the known and the unknown, we seek out styles first, easily overlooking the why.

And thus I think the style and substance should be offered according to the student's receptivity, although at different stages.

For the difference between an Artist and an Artisan is the latter is a slave to recipes (style), the former is not. But one often needs to be an Artisan before they become an artist. Picasso was pushing institutionalized method artwork before he broke out and striked out on his own.

[The Doc]

Hi, most of you don´t know me since I am not very active at the original SL, but a bit more active at the Scandinavian version. It is an interesting question and topic. Didactics and pedagogics are worth debating. My background Is that I am a physiotherapist, nowadays mainly teaching and doing research at a university in northern Sweden.

I find the initial question interesting, but a bit peculiar. The student has a different casting style compared to what we use, or are accustomed to. I would need some more information here before answering the question. Firstly, is it a problem that the caster is using an unconventional style? If not, I would not fix it but try to learn from it. Evolution and development need some unconventional solutions now and then.

If there is a problem with the style, what is the problem? Difficulties in reaching distance, precision in hitting the target, performing various casts, etc? Risk for, or actual, injury due to casting style? Now, the last question has rarely been discussed in this thread but is one of my favorite targets when answering the question whether there is a problem or not with a specific style.

For example, most distance casters look at their b.c. which requires rotation of the head and trunk and/or hips, often to the full range of motion. That can be harmful if performed with a specific style which involves full range of motion of the lower back. I have met quite a few distance casters with low back problems related to repetitive movement to end range of rotation of the lower spine segments when watching b.c. That is a casting style related problem that I would try to change, e.g., by using the hips for movement instead of the trunk. Moreover, using an open stance rather than closed stance would reduce the risk for repetitive movements to the end range of both the neck and lower spine.

What does not impress me is when an instructor teach his/her own style because the instructor find it more esthetical, but has no other value. I had a rather messy workshop for a MCCI the other year. One thing that made me lose confidence and respect for the instructor was that he continuously told me that I was doing the roll-cast wrong using a late rotation (although I was casting in to the head wind with a long-belly #5 weight). According to the instructor I was not doing the cast right before I converted to his style, which was to flip the line over the rod tip with a short stroke. The only argument was that it looked nicer. It was definitely not more efficient in that wind conditions, there was no risk for injury using my previous technique.

So before deciding to change somebody´s style, have at least one decent argument why you want to change it (or the student might end up with a sour feeling of wasting his/her time and money).

Best regards
Ulrik Röijezon

[alp]

Hi, perhaps this is the best answer to my humble dilemma, so far.

On the other hand, I don’t know a better way to get a tennis elbow than pushing a roll cast too far with a long belly line. Tennis sport included. And this can be done so nice, smooth and gentle with any scandi line and compact stroke.

Not necessary, but maybe your instructor hasn’t got only esthetics in his mind?

Sincerely
Aleksandar