I find if you say the terms out loud as you do the motions then it helps you get your rhythm...its quite difficult getting "Casting Arc and Casting Stroke Length" all in with short casts without spitting a bit but with anything over about 75' there's loads of time....if you say them too loud though you will tail..
I really don't know what you are talking about Gordy. You keep hammering on about some kind of wrist rotation at the start of his forward cast as being separate and apart from the start of his forward cast ?
Frank,
It is a little late in the discussion to be asking that question. The place for it would have been after post #4 or post #21 where I said
I will continue working on using a bit of wrist rotation (rather than holding the rod angle constant with no rotation at the start of my cast). If you consider that creep, then so be it.
Only you consider an underpowered forward movement of the rod at the start of the casting stroke to be creep. I am sure Chris (and most of the rest of us) would not consider it creep, but just one way (albeit a very effective one) to start the forward cast.
I am just trying point out that some world class tournament casters utilize some underpowered rotation to start their casting stroke and for most people that move would not be considered to be creep.
Only you with your view that:
Translation and rotation of little force is premature rotation. Creep. How can premature angular rotation of little force not be considered as creep,
and
That said, drag is translational when done properly, if you then translate and rotate the rod a little, your right it's creep. Creep and drag done at the same time, is still creep, early rod rotation with little force.
would consider that move to be creep.
Because of your rather bizarre view that the casting stroke only starts when the caster begins applying near constant acceleration (that is a very limited view of how good casters accelerate the rod as well. Chris utilizes a linearly increasing acceleration in his accuracy stroke.) you take the position that an underpowered rotation of the rod at the start of the cast is creep. I don't think you will find anyone here that would agree with that characterization for a cast that produces great loops like Chris'.
Gordy
"Flyfishing: 200 years of tradition unencumbered by progress." Ralph Cutter
gordonjudd wrote:Only you consider an underpowered forward movement of the rod as the start of the casting stroke to be creep. I am sure Chris (and most of the rest of us) would not consider it creep, but just one way (albeit a very effective one) to start the forward cast.
Gordy,
I did not say underpowered anything so don't put words in my mouth. What I said was slow continued, sustained rod rotation. That's is nowhere to be seen in the Korich casting clip. Chris, I'm sorry to inform you is not in your words, under powering anything. This is the very first time I've ever heard of someone beginning the early stages of the casting stroke with underpowered anything. Nice of you to try and slip that in though.
Drift is not even considered to be underpowered as much as it is considered powerless and in the direction of the unrolling loop. What ? we're about to enter the semantic olympics now ? Kyte would not be very happy about that despite his being open minded. Why don't you email him and run your theory by him. But then you don't need to if you read his article on Drift.
Now about that casting question I asked you 3 times already for a chance to win a hundred bucks. I've got 3 no votes so far. What's yours ?
I did not say underpowered anything so don't put words in my mouth.
Frank,
That was my characterization of what a premature angular rotation of little force meant. Power is equal to force times velocity. Therefore slow angular rotation (angular velocity) with little force would also have little power.
So what do you mean by premature? Premature to when you say the casting stroke begins with near constant acceleration or some other critical point in the cast?
I am glad you say Chris does not have creep in his casting motion even though it starts out with a slow amount of rotation before he applies larger and larger acceleration in his casting arc.
As you can see I do not see how you can characterize "premature angular rotation of little force as being creep when so many good casters do just that at the start of their cast.
Gordy
"Flyfishing: 200 years of tradition unencumbered by progress." Ralph Cutter
So what do you mean by premature?
and
Sustained slow continuous rod motion without change.
Frank,
So I take it "continuous rod motion without change" would mean applying constant angular velocity (or some constant translation velocity) for some period that is premature to some event.
Premature infers that constant motion precedes some point in time. How do you determine that time point in your model?
Gordy
"Flyfishing: 200 years of tradition unencumbered by progress." Ralph Cutter
I'm not a big fan of the word pre mature rod motion. I've used it before but I would not hang my hat on it's usage except that it can also mean untimely, as in untimely slow sustained continuous rod rotation during the early stage of the casting stroke. But I'm not going to get hung up on it either.
Frank
I would have a major effect on how I train instructors.
Paul Arden
Frank,
That make sense since "premature" is pretty meaningless unless you can give a reference time event to go with it.
Are you also giving up on your premise that the casting stroke begins when you finally apply some "nearly constant" acceleration rate to rotate the rod? That would mean the slow acceleration rate that characterizes the beginning of Chris' stroke would define the start of his forward cast not sometime later when the acceleration rate is "sufficient" (your term not mine) to form a desired loop.
That would seem to put creep as something that happens between strokes rather than after the rod starts forward with some arbitrary continuous (i.e. smoothly varying) motion at the beginning of the cast.
I don't think you will see much of a region with constant angular velocity after the rod starts forward at the begging of the cast. From what I can see, the only time the angular velocity curves are fairly flat are when the line is rolling out. Once the rod starts forward the angular velocity seems to be changing not constant.
Thus to answer your question:
How can premature angular rotation of little force not be considered as creep,
My answer would be because it involves a changing angular velocity that is just part of a continuously varying acceleration at the start of the cast.
Gordy
"Flyfishing: 200 years of tradition unencumbered by progress." Ralph Cutter
Again? how many times are we going to go around this Frank? If you are in any way representative of the discussions you had in your committee then it's no wonder that you've come up with unworkable terms. It's completely impossible for you to conceptualise one model let alone two. I don't understand why because it's not particularly difficult.
Good idea talking to Al. I've always respected his opinion and his open-mindedness.
gordonjudd wrote:Are you also giving up on your premise.
Gordy,
It was never a premise, it was a discussion about acceleration of the casting stroke. This is about creep and what starts slow remains slow, the speed does not change it remains flat, that's what creep does. So no Chris is not creeping during the early stages of his stroke as acceleration continues to increase from the getgo at a very rapid rate.
The speed of drift and creep are both slow and sustained, there is essentially no increase, no change in the rate acceleration, so the speed of both creep and drift remains essentially flat. Creep or "drift," during the early part of the casting stroke results in the same thing, a reduced casting arc over which the caster can then efficiently apply acceleration over whatever arc is left.
I think Kyte makes it all pretty clear, you do not want to Creep, "drift" the rod tip forward during the early stages of the casting stroke. Makes good casting sense.
I would have a major effect on how I train instructors.
Paul Arden
Paul Arden wrote:Good idea talking to Al. I've always respected his opinion and his open-mindedness.
.
Let's be clear about something once again for about the 10th time already. My views are simply my views and no one elses. Now is there anything in the Kyte article, (his views) you would care to rebut ? Drop him an email and let him know you thinks it's advisable the drift during the early stages of the casting stroke. Good luck and get back to us. Read the article unless you find it hard on the eyes.
Frank
I would have a major effect on how I train instructors.
Paul Arden
What is odd and almost beyond comprehension is that if you read the terms as written they allow for a caster to drift within the casting arc during casting stroke, when a force that supposedly is intended to form a loop is replaced by essentially no force at all in advancing the rod tip with drift during the early stages of the CS. That's what is so extraordinary about that model. It also allows for drag with little rotation, whatever heck that means, (define a little), to advance the early transition of the casting stroke, once again, with no force during the early part of the stroke.
I'm glad to here that no one there at SL headquarters is actually advocating that you actually do that, perhaps that should be reflected in the terminology. This whole business makes my brain seize up. It's like cognitive dissonance on steroids.
Packed, racked, rigged, and ready to roll.
Frank
I would have a major effect on how I train instructors.
Paul Arden
Drift occurs between casting strokes, its purpose is to reposition the rod..thats all..you can do this as fast or as slowly as you like...terminologically, speed is irrelevant.
The purpose of a Casting Stroke is to apply force to the line in order to form a loop...you can also do this as fast or as slowly as you like....if you do this too slowly, start fast and finish slow or start slowly and finish fast, it remains a Casting Stroke...maybe a fkd up Casting Stroke but a Casting Stroke nevertheless.
It is a fact that how you apply force to the rod or line is one of many variables which are going to influence how effective your Drift or Casting Stroke turns out to be, but, in a set of terms which is based on purpose, whether you do it fast or slow, right or wrong is for your own judgement in the field.
This is how, using the SL approach, we are able to use purpose to differentiate between similar motions of low force like "Lift" and "Creep" whereas, terminologically, you can't.
It is why it is perfectly possible to differentiate between "Creep" and "Drift" in all its possible forms whereas you can't.
Finally, it is why we can use the SL set to describe common casts from start to finish...... and you can't.
I'd have to disagree that the speed of drift or even a sweep is totally irrelevant. Case in point Paul's example of a sweep that causes the entire line to lift off the water and turns itself into a loop. Overpowering drift creates problems, many problems. That much is easily comprehendible.
The tempo of the cast can be slow or fast but the acceleration must remain fairly rapid out of the gate and continue like that through the stop if your intention is to form a loop. With drift and or creep the acceleration flat lines essentially.The motion is so slow and sustained, that as such, it will not advance the line beyond the rod tip, big difference between the two.
I have to take issue with this idea of judgement. Judgement comes after the fact, you cannot prejudge the result of the cast before the cast occurs. If you could and it was your intent and purpose not to tail a cast and land the fly in it the target ring at 50 feet then I can assure you you would not intentionally with purpose after a dead stop on the backcast then begin the casting stroke by drifting or creeping the rod forward during the early stages of the casting stroke. The reason for this is that we know better then to do that, and then expect a favorable result in return.
Terminologically SL does not differentiate between motions as it blends then together, they blur the lines of distinction and put critical rod motions in conflict with one another as to result.
Ironically the reason this debate rages on is the result of the blurring of the lines of distinction in this model. As a teaching model that's fine with me. But blurring the lines of distinction between creep and drift is of no service to someone preparing to take an instructors exam. Drift simply increases the size of the casting arc, and length of the casting stroke for the coming cast and allows the caster to connect one casting plane with another. Drag decreases length of the casting stroke, and creep decreases the size of the casting arc for the coming cast. In all possible forms.
So I have no idea by what you mean when you say, I can't, you can't, you can't, describe common casts from start to finish using the above wording. Well I hate to break the new to you Mark but we all as instructors have been doing it that way for a very long time going back and beyond to when SL was just a gleam in Paul's eye.
My honest opinion of the SL model is that it's micro manages casting mechanics that have little impact on the out come over and above the macro view mechanics in everyday casting. I've seen this in all the analysis over the last however many years, that with the exception of translation in a max distance cast adding about 10 percent higher line speed, most of the rest of it has had little impact on the basic fundamental of fly casting. It's like you guys at SL headquarters are trying to reinvent the wheel.
This is just my opinion.
Cheers,
Frank
I would have a major effect on how I train instructors.
Paul Arden
