Fence Post

[Frank LoPresti]

There was never any written formal question or answer, as examiners can ask whatever question they would like. So I do not know that you are referring to in that regard. This is simply one of those annoying little questions that an examiner can ask. Your probably going to want to ask me what is the relevance of such a simple question. Well it goes to how you would explain to someone who has never fly fished before how the fly gets to the target. I'll admit it's a vexingly simply question. And yet there is a ridiculously simply answer. The problem is that when you can't even answer a question as simple as this then it can be a little unnerving, especially at the start of the exam.

So the question still stands. But you have only partially answered it.

[Aitor]

OK. You are looking for the exact precise wording you use. So this is it:

The LOOP UNROLLS and delivers the fly to the target.

[Frank LoPresti]

Not because of the exact precise wording you would use necessarily, but because the way you have simply stated it is precisely how you would expect one to explain it. That's why it's a hard question to answer because the answer is that simple, no more no less

[Aitor]

That is how you would expect a candidate to explain it. And I hope that it is only you who expects that, since it is a silly question for a test, with an answer that is even sillier; a question that can't shed any light on the understanding of the casting mechanics by the candidate; though I concede that it tells a lot about the understanding of the examiner about that issue.

[gordonjudd]

Gordy's questioning about what I meant when I said the action of the fly rod amplifies the action of the rod hand, and then, how would that apply to a broomstick, much in the same way you are asking me the same question.

Frank,

And when I asked for what you meant by "amplify" the only thing you could come up with was:

As to your never ending question is there no difference between a fast rod and a slow one and a broomstick in regards to answering your repetitive question.

That did not seem to be a serious answer, so I kept asking the same question over and over just to see if you are confident enough about your understanding of the physics of casting to admit that "I do not know". Obviously, you are not.

In my experience people who have demonstrated some technical ability are more than willing to admit they do not know the "why" behind something , and are very open to considering the opinions of others especially when that opinion is backup up with some data.

It is no big deal to admit that you have been wrong about some long held belief. That admission just demonstrates that you are willing to learn something new and expand your knowledge about a topic that you find interesting.

I am sure that you are beginning to think that this back and forth with me is pointless, and I would agree.

I am reminded of one of Edgar Bergen's routines with Mortimer Snerd where Edgar says,

"Mortimer, this is the dumbest conversations I have ever had."
Then Mortimer has the wisdom to respond with, "Yep, but I am only responsible for half of it!"

I will admit to my half of this dumb interaction, and before I fall into the trap that Will mentioned:

I worry that I might actually be starting to enjoy this! Is that wrong?

I will have you add my name to your censored list, and quit trying to see if I can get you to change your mind about something.

More importantly I will stop taking a guilty pleasure in trying to show that your understanding of the physics of casting is minimal, and to see if I could get you to answer a straightforward question with a simple:

I do not know.

That probably says more about me than it does about you, so I will sign off before my Curmudgeon tendencies get any worse.

Gordy

[Stoatstail50]

Hey Frank...I'm back.....

...two whole days and you still haven't anwered it...I'm shocked.

I had an excellent couple of days thank you and interestingly some of the recent threads on here came up in conversation. Conversation, I might add, that I have been privileged to have had with fishermen who are infinitely better casters and instructors than I will ever be. All top ambassadors for their sport and their organisations and wholly unafraid to constantly challenge both themselves and the commonly held understanding about "basic casting mechanics" in order to make themselves better instructors. Not one is afraid to change their mind if the evidence or the argument shows their current position to be weak and they seek every opportunity to improve their understanding.

I asked you a perfectly sensible question that raises a challenge to a long held FFF teaching tenet. And, for some bizarre reason, you seem to think that I should provide you with an answer to a question put to you on the basis that this is some sort of structured learning process that I will presumably find of great benefit. Sadly, I am unable to tell you how to match the arc to a bend in something that doesn't bend, it doesn't seem possible to me that you can, but, seeing as you are an FFF MCCI, it also didn't seem unreasonable to think that you could explain it to me...apparently not. A position in stark contrast with the experiences I had with other instructors this weekend.

I trust the readers of this site to judge the merits of the argument as the record speaks for itself

I trust them to do that too and I'm absolutely certain that that is exactly what they do.

[Frank LoPresti]

As to your never ending question is there no difference between a fast rod and a slow one and a broomstick in regards to answering your repetitive question.

That did not seem to be a serious answer, so I kept asking the same question over and over just to see

Gordy,

But is a serious answer. And the fact that I've related the possible differences as to why one might choose a fly rod over a broomstick is pretty obvious and I don't just mean that it simply amplifies the action of the caster either. So take it or leave it, and lets assume we both know what I mean.

Your date driven dialogue is not the issue, and your insisting that I not be open to knowing the why behind the data as it goes to other opinions, more specifically yours, essentially implies that your argument is a data driven argument, and mine is not, with the lone exception of the CA. And your point would be ?

But what I do know is, the heart of this debate is about translation, as it has a direct bearing on loop formation. And despite all of your data, we only seen to know 1 thing for sure, and 1 thing only. That applying force over a longer distance will increase line speed.

I have enough technical understanding of the cast to know that much. What I also know is that you have essentially failed to show how translation has any sort of impact or direct bearing on loop formation as it goes to tip path despite all the data and theory waving.

It's a simply fact that pure translation bends the rod very little, don't really need any data to support that claim. Just go outside and see how much speed you can generate by translating your hand without rotating any body parts or see how fast you can move your hand forward and how much the rod bends. Very little would be the correct answer. Again no need to back that up with data.

It's not about getting me to change my mind about something, it's that your arguments have simply failed to do just that. Superimposition/inclined hand path as it goes to tip path and loop formation/RSP to MCF determining the size of the loop/the stop having nothing to do to do with the size of the loop, etc etc........

For all of your data driven analysis what we get is speculation, and of course it has to be speculative by nature because as you yourself have said, angular acceleration is the dominant force as it goes to loop formation. Now you want to contradict all that by trying to tie translation into the mix as having something to do with to some significant aspect of loop formation as it goes to tip path, and you have not done that either, data driven, or otherwise.

This is not a question of some long held belief on my part, not at all, not even close, so your off on that count as well. I know why you think that as also, and your 100% wrong on that count, I can assure you of that.

This isn't about a physics course in fly casting mechanics, what ever gave you that idea ? I haven't made any incorrect statements that I am aware of unless you take them out of context which you've done half a dozen times or more.

Translation as it goes to fly casting is not rocket science. The big push from the definition board on this site is to push for translation as being part of the casting stroke as it goes to loop formation. We have been having the same debate for 5 years now. In those 5 years Gordy, not one single shred of data or example give, by the "translators," can refute the fact that translation has no direct or possibly even indirect bearing on tip path as it goes to loop formation. Show me the money ! True, casters do translate and rotate the rod at the same time, but absent that translation, you got bupkis, add it back and you still got bupkis, with the lone exception of adding line speed and possibly lengthening the duration of the stop in milliseconds, oh boy !

I have not seen any hard data to support contention that translation has a direct impact on tip path as it goes to loop formation, nor have I seen any practical examples to support that position either. Now since Paul has given me this little forum I can also state with 100% percent certainty that the more the translation team begins to realize that translation has no direct bearing on tip path as it goes to loop formation, the tar and feather approach seems to be the only worst way to possibly to respond; to wit the ad hominem arguments, and the reiterated question etc....

Now as to admitting when you are wrong I always maintained that this debate is not about that. But clearly no one who has participated in this debate for the last 5 years or so has been willing to concede, for whatever reasons, that they are indeed incorrect to think that translation has a direct bearing on tip path, as it relates to loop formation, as it goes to the casting stroke that applies a force to the line in order to form a loop.

That rotation and translation often and do occur at the same time is the weakest argument and the other arguments I have read over the years fair no better. If they did, quite honestly I'd have to admit I was wrong along, and I have no problem with that. The problem is that I can't do that for all to obvious reasons, the arguments to support that contention are simply not there. And no, it's not a matter of not being able to interpret the data or diagrams, this is another fallacious argument that goes to complexity.

I've seen it all and heard it all more than I care to admit to. But I'm okay with that because in the end I've at least done more than my share of listening and answering questions. More than my fare share. I'm just not going to play around any more with the insanity of answering inane questions that I've answered for over 5 years now. The last question from Mark in this thread, although well intentioned has interesting answer, as it goes to teaching methodology, as it pertains to getting a simple point across to your caster.

As it goes to the fence post no, you can't see it bend, as it goes to the broomstick, no you can't see it bend either, so you cannot match the size of the arc to the bend. Praise jesus what an amazing revelation ! What I do know is that fly rods bend and we can see them bend, and we can see the size of the arc that they bend about, when angular acceleration is applied to the rod butt in the form of an arc. Whats so important about that you might ask ? Well it's a visual and verbal indicator of whats happening. You can't really see acceleration as it applies to the size of the arc for a broomstick or a fence post, you can only feel it more or less I suppose, I suppose you feel the force as it's applied to the rod. Although you'd have to move broomstick or a fence post a heck of a lot quicker so you might be able to notice that if you were paying close attention and you knew what to look for.

So Gordy if you don't think I'm capable of answering your question as to how a fly rod magnifies the actions of the caster then your either fooling yourself or your, as they say, shit out of luck, if you expect a straight answer from me, because quite honestly, you don't deserve one. But don't get me wrong I like you and think your a nice guy.

Frank

[Frank LoPresti]

I trust them to do that too and I'm absolutely certain that that is exactly what they do.

I agree 100%

And oh by the way it has nothing to so with FFF teaching methodology either as there is none.

Glad you had a great weekend !

Frank

[Magnus]

This is not a question for you Frank, rather its for those others who trudge through your posts - anyone else find it damned near impossible to understand Frank's mangled English and distorted logic?

[Frank LoPresti]

That is how you would expect a candidate to explain it. And I hope that it is only you who expects that, since it is a silly question for a test, with an answer that is even sillier; a question that can't shed any light on the understanding of the casting mechanics by the candidate; though I concede that it tells a lot about the understanding of the examiner about that issue.

Well I about figured that would be your exact response so you have obviously missed the import of the question. Given two dozen candidates I guess only a third would answer correctly right off the bat. So what might that tell you about the other two thirds :p That and a guy out of nowhere simply wants to know how you get the fly to the fish. He does not want theory or casting mechanics, what does he care about that since he knows nothing about it. What are you a member of the church of Scientology :p You want to give the guy a dissertation, a lesson in the physics behind the cast ? Christ alive all the guy wants to know is how does the fly get to the friggin target. The loop delivers the fly as it unrolls towards the target. If I wanted to ask you to shed some light on how that happened, I would, but I did not. The question tells you more abut the examiner than meets the eye. Nor was that question on my own invention. It was passed on to me by an extremely knowledgeable CBOG :p

It's not a silly question at all, by any stretch of the imagination.

[andy_with_a_rod]

This is not a question for you Frank, rather its for those others who trudge through your posts - anyone else find it damned near impossible to understand Frank's mangled English and distorted logic?

add that to his inability to answer a simple question with a sensible answer and you have the perfect recipe for a complete waste of bandwidth.
I thought franks own forum might be a good idea, but actually all it's done is given frank even more opportunities to say nothing of any worth, and waste a good few peoples valuable time to boot. i'll never get the minutes i spent trying to work out why Frank doesn't get anything back, they're lost to me. all i can do is make sure i learn from my mistakes and move on.

[Frank LoPresti]

I can also state with 100% percent certainty that the more the translation team begins to realize that translation has no direct bearing on tip path as it goes to loop formation, the tar and feather approach seems to be the only worst way to possibly to respond; to wit the ad hominem arguments, and the reiterated question, the old lady grammarian routine, etc....



Frank

I understand Magmus I understand...

[Magnus]

I seriously doubt you understand very much at all Frank

[Frank LoPresti]

a



As it goes to the fence post no, you can't see it bend, as it goes to the broomstick, no you can't see it bend either, so you cannot match the size of the arc to the bend. Praise jesus what an amazing revelation ! What I do know is that fly rods bend and we can see them bend, and we can see the size of the arc that they bend about, when angular acceleration is applied to the rod butt in the form of an arc. Whats so important about that you might ask ? Well it's a visual and verbal indicator of whats happening. You can't really see acceleration as it applies to the size of the arc for a broomstick or a fence post, you can only feel it more or less I suppose, I suppose you feel the force as it's applied to the rod. Although you'd have to move broomstick or a fence post a heck of a lot quicker so you might be able to notice that if you were paying close attention and you knew what to look for.

Lookin for this Andy

[Frank LoPresti]

I can also state with 100% percent certainty that the more the translation team begins to realize that translation has no direct bearing on tip path as it goes to loop formation, the tar and feather approach seems to be the only worst way to possibly to respond; to wit the ad hominem arguments, and the reiterated question etc....

I understand, really I do Magnusa