Fault Based Casting Model

[blackwater]

Isn't Bruce Richards 6 Step a fault based model?

You start with the fault and then work your way back.

[Paul Arden]

Looking forward to Frank's reply on that one!

[Frank LoPresti]

Good instruction is not centered around a fault based model of casting from which we learn. Look at Mel's Essence, Joans book, Jason and his dads book, Mac's book. Not one mention in their models of the cast that has anything to do with fault.

I'm glad you agree that the SL casting model is fault based, it would be hard to view it otherwise if the action that is unintended is always understood as a fault. How do you apply the fault based casting model to this situation.

The 6 Step method is for finding inefficiencies in the casters motions. It is an instructors tool. It demands a complete understanding of all casts. Chances are if your not an instructor you won't even understand why it works. It is simply a situational method for evaluating casting motions it is not a model of the cast or of how the parts simply interrelate.


The SL model model is based around faults, it is not a model of the basic casting terminology per say, it is a model for fault based analysis for faults that are apparently, not always faults, when viewed from through optic of intent and purpose. I've never before seem a model of the cast or an instructional book on the cast that included intent, purpose and fault as working parts of the casting stroke. This kind of approach overcomplicates what should otherwise be a straight forward reading of basic casting terminology. The SL model tries to do both and in the process bites off a bit more than it can explain without having someone there to walk you through how all of the parts fit together as to when something can or cannot be a fault.

So the caster can cast to 60 feet Paul but not beyond. He wants you to teach him to cast to 85 feet. Using a fault based approach of the SL model, what is he doing wrong if his intention is to cast to 85 feet and he can't. Which unintended fault do you address first ?

Frank

[Paul Arden]

Yep thought so.

The SL model model is based around faults

Actually, it's not. It's based around purpose. Not good or bad. However when the result isn't as intended then yes that would be a fault. It's not very difficult for everyone else to grasp, Frank, only you.

If your caster isn't casting 85ft then why not? What's the loop doing?

Cheers, Paul

[Frank LoPresti]

Yes it is a fault based casting model. The motions described in your model are not neutral as to outcome. If something is unintended it is a fault, that's not neutral anything. That is how the SL model terminology reads in plain English. Not only that but it makes a judgement on 3 nearly identical rod motions Creep and Drift and Drag as being separated by intent and outcome. And that is not even including the issue of how slow sustained forward rod rotation can be both good and bad at the same time.

Neutral as to outcome ? Your kidding right. Without fault intent or purpose the model unravels rather quickly from that point on. You call that neutral as to outcome ? I'd say the fix was in as to outcome.

[Marc LaMouche]

this thread is beyond absurd.

[Stoatstail50]

Yep..

[Frank LoPresti]

The SL model model is based around faults

Actually, it's not.

Earlier Paul you stated that good instruction is centered around a fault based model. Here you're contradicting that claim. So is a good casting model centered around fault based casting analysis or not ? Or is it simply a diagnostic device that works along side of a casting model.

[Paul Arden]

Earlier Paul you stated that good instruction is centered around a fault based model

Nope you said that God instruction wasn't centred around a fault based model and I disagreed.

[Frank LoPresti]

Is good casting instruction centered around a fault based casting model ? You seem to think so. I think fault based analysis has no place within an actual casting model that simply illustrates what motions go to what. Basing an entire casting model around faults is far from ideal. Apply the fault based analysis when your on the field not when it applies to simple terminology. Less confusing.

[Paul Arden]

I think and know that good instruction is helped by a solid definitions model. I also think that any of the three components that make up a Stroke (CS, Sweep and Drift) can be faulty. To try to absolutely define a CS as you have done as only being perfect leads to problems because you can only make perfect CSs according to you, raising the question what do you call a flawed or imperfect CS, if it's not a CS?

[Frank LoPresti]

I think and know that good instruction is helped by a solid definitions model. I also think that any of the three components that make up a Stroke (CS, Sweep and Drift) can be faulty. To try to absolutely define a CS as you have done as only being perfect leads to problems because you can only make perfect CSs according to you, raising the question what do you call a flawed or imperfect CS, if it's not a CS?

The graphic simply tells you that in your own words that the purpose or intent of the CS is to form a loop. Drag Sweep and Drift will not do that as they have a different effect on the line as they are repositioning moves. The graphic says nothing about perfect anything.

What do I call a flawed casting stroke ? What is the sound of one hand clapping ?

[Paul Arden]

Do you ever teach Spey casting? It's part of the syllabus.

[Frank LoPresti]

When it's called for. When it's not no I don't.

[Paul Arden]

And what term do you use for sweeping the line upstream on a Double Spey?