Principles - how many

[Marc LaMouche]

No more sterile debates, please.

there's one principle i particularly like and one that Bernd have repeated many times:
"In Fly Casting there is no Straight"

cheers,
marc

[Bernd]

When I teach the 180° concept, I explain the "plane" to be a "red wall". This wall can be 1 meter wide or just a few centimeters. Also it can stay vertical, horizontal or anything between. It depends on the type of cast.
For such a Single Spey cast the wall can't be a few centimers wide but has to be much wider.
Otherwise the change of direction and increasing tension in the D will not be achieved in my understanding.
Still my concept works well. Don't need a different one here.

I prefer that tip path matching ALL key elements as good as possible. And I also understand the key elements to have different priorities.

Why would we define the ideal for the anchor in a way that we alreday know will effect the other key elements in a way that reduces the overall outcome of the cast?

Let's take the D- or V-loop: Would it be ideal to have it in a vertical plane directly below the rod tip?
If I understand your point of view correct, the answer might be yes.
If I watch the slowmos of that expert casters I saw in Norway, the answer seems to be no.

Am trying to work with ideals that can match together in true casting to achieve the best possible overall performance for the cast.

p.s.: Marc, I could also have said: "The only straight in fly casting will be found in the books."

[Aitor]

Let's take the D- or V-loop: Would it be ideal to have it in a vertical plane directly below the rod tip?
If I understand your point of view correct, the answer might be yes.

The answer is no, since one of the principles I use is "rod leg and fly leg of the D/V loop as parallel and as close to each other as possible in the horizontal plane". Obviously that "as possible" is the key element here.

It's no use to debate when both are saying the same, just in a different way.

[Paul Arden]

I saw a lot of curved anchors in Norway as well as a lot of crashed anchors. Many - maybe all - of my distance casts come from a canted rod. Is this to say that a canted rod is best for distance? No I don't think so. I think if those anchors were cleaned up then the casts would go further. Maybe it's not possible to produce clean anchors with the tackle used? Don't know. Maybe it's not possible bio-mechanically to throw with maximum effort using a perfectly vertical rod plane? Don't know that either. But as you know Bernd, just because you're competing at top level doesn't mean that you can't get improve. Hell trying to improve is one of the reasons we compete in the first place.

Many of the anchors in Norway wouldn't pass any AAPGAI instructor exam if they were thrown with standard tackle. I know that. And I certainly wouldn't teach them when teaching Spey casting, because they're less efficient, and sometimes dangerous. Just because principles are being broken, doesn't mean that they don't apply.

Cheers, Paul

[Bernd]

Paul,
Aitor ist right in saying we (all three of us) are pretty much on the same page here. No doubt we are very similiar in our definitions.

However wouldn't we want to have a teaching concept pointing out a theoretically ideal that we always can a) explain how to achieve it and then b) at least come very close to show it?

To me this might be the reason why all those casters may pass the AAPGAI exam with their anchors. It's just that the AAPGAI exam does not ask to show a Single Spey cast of 58 meters on the shoot. Otherwise who knows if the anchor would not need special definition here!?

We both know that those casters have complete different anchors when using the tackle we used in the AAPGAI exam!

I think that in regard of the best anchor in Spey casting it can't be the same anchor for a short head than it will be for a very long head.
Also the size of the change of direction will have it's impact on the ideal anchor as well as the best plane for the whole loop.

If you stay behind me and watch the size of my plane I can keep the anchor + loop + rod tip in, you will find it varying in size when increasing the change of direction. The same goes to increasing the head length.

Short head + small cod = very thin plane.
Long head + huge cod = much bigger plane needed to still have enough tip travel to keep up tension in the whole loop.

I am with you guys, there will always be improvement - even for the winner.

Anyway if you set an ideal that they are far off, you should be able to exlain what they have to change in their technique imo.

Greets
Bernd

[Bernd]

Is this to say that a canted rod is best for distance?

Best for YOUR distance might be to put the shooting line on the table instead of throwing it in the water! :p

Any fish out on the Zanzibar flats?

[Paul Arden]

No fish on the flats, have to take a boat out and if I do that I'll have to drive a moped around Malaysia :p As it is I'm not exactly going to be buying a Range Rover.

With a long head the Sweep should be longer, which necessitates an in-bank cut with a fluid movement between the Lift and the Sweep. I saw a number of people make the Lift, pause and then Sweep. This gives an automatic line sag and it's very difficult to pick the line end off cleanly once it is stationary again. Maybe it's simply not possible to turn those lines around fully to give a perfectly straight anchor, but I think you would agree that if it was possible this would lead to a better forward delivery? (And if that is the case, then it's a principle :p )

Cheers, Paul

[Bernd]

Yes, I agree. If it would be possible to sweep around the whole line and achieving a straight + smooth anchor below the rod tip while having the loop in a vertical plane under highest tension, that would be very effective.

Good point about the fluid movement between lift and sweep. An important element to play with!

Are there no cudas on the flats?

In places in which there was lots of boat (and other) traffic on the flats during day time I have often seen huge fish coming on the flats just before darkness was coming in. Maybe that's an option.
B

[Paul Arden]

Possibly. But it's also extensively netted. I'm not too bothered, I'll be in Malaysia on Saturday.

[victor]

A fly only anchor is going to skip. A fly and leader only is likely to slip so perhaps it's more important to make sure of a solid anchor than how it lays out. Obviously you don't want too much fly line in the anchor although, from the clips I have watched, you can have quite a lot of line on the water so long as it doesn't settle into the meniscus, which in the kiss and go it doesn't appear to have time too because sometimes the forward stroke has almost finished before the anchor is created.

Mike

[Aitor]

A fly only anchor is going to skip. A fly and leader only is likely to slip so perhaps it's more important to make sure of a solid anchor than how it lays out. Obviously you don't want too much fly line in the anchor although...

Anchor lay out is important.
For an anchor that holds with the minimum amount of line you want the anchored line to be as straight as possible. No wrinkles as shown here.

[Bernd]

For dry fly fishing I like to use a piled anchor sometimes - when fishing a fly, that is not one of these high floatant (never sinking) ones. It leads to better floating for my fly since I can make the fly hit the surface very soft on that anchor.
From the casting perspective the straight soft minimum anchor feels best to me, as long as I can form it without decreasing the level in other key elements.

About the length of the anchor, I think I mostly don't hit the minimum length but use quite a long anchor. Well, I want it to be straight and soft at least.
http://vimeo.com/10140572

I define the minimum length to be that length just avoiding the line end from slipping signifcally backwards.
Does that make sense?

[ennio]

Bernd's reference to his and Aitor's video http://vimeo.com/10140572 has me thinking about rod planes in the "backcast" (or Lift/Sweep/Anchor formation) and forward cast.
My inexperienced Dynamic Roll/Switch cast has the rod canted away from my body so that my forward cast loop is canted away from the vertical. I had wondered whether this was correct. Recently I have played with what Bernd appears to be doing: different rod planes on back and forward cast to achieve a more vertical loop on the forward cast.

At the UK FFF event Mike H arranged before Xmas, I asked Leslie Holmes about using two different planes: Leslie reckoned this would be a tracking fault. We didn't pursue this conversation, and I don't want to misrepresent Leslie, but having thought about it later I may have misunderstood the point ... because that would mean a "Belgian" cast was also a tracking fault.

Is there a Principle about rod plane(s)?

Andrew

[Bernd]

Hi Andrew,
I have heard about "that tracking issue" quite often and disagree.
There are pros and cons about changing plane (comparing back cast and forward cast here).
Depending on the purpose of the cast and the type of Spey cast itself I like to say:
Keep the D/V-loop as good in one plane as possible. I like to explain a plane to be a red wall in which everything should be moved/kept. This wall can be vertical, horizontal or anything inbetween. It also can be of different thickness!
Sometimes I use a pretty thick wall to keep the loop, the anchor and the forward cast in (as you realized in the video).

To me the answer is in the type of cast and in the purpose of that cast. I adjust my technique.

A tracking error to me is when I do not achieve the tracking I aim for. Well, it's fair to say I have a tracking error ALWAYS though :p

Maybe it helps you think of it this way:

For the forward cast you want a vertical plane. This helps for distance.
But if you use a vertical plane in the back cast, the anchor will shoot into the trees, if you add significant line speed.
So in order to avoid that, I tilt the rod plane to the side in the back cast. This way I can increase line speed (without the anchor shooting into the trees but getting down to the surface) and due to that having high tension in my back loop. Then I adjust plane to a more vertical position on the forward cast. If I change plane too much, the cons of changing plane outway the benefit I received in the adjusted back cast.

Greets
Bernd

[Marc LaMouche]

But if you use a vertical plane in the back cast, the anchor will shoot into the trees,

it would hit the rod, reel or hand and never develop into an anchor... :p :closedeyes: