Fault Based Casting Model

[Paul Arden]

what it was suppose to do in the first place.

According to what?

[Frank LoPresti]

According to this. You wrote it you should know.

Sweep - To position the line.

[Paul Arden]

Oh right. This means that you've finally understood and accepted our definitions. I thought you were still arguing in defence of your model. Well that's great, Frank. I'm pleased.

Cheers, Paul

[Frank LoPresti]

I think the difference is intent. Without intent it's not a blown anchor; its a CS.

This comment is so nonsensical it begs credulity.

This is the core belief of the SL casting model. It is the founding and guiding principal. Something that appears to be one thing is actually something else.

I can't begin imagine a more straightforward approach.

[Frank LoPresti]

I'm pleased.

Don't be pleased Paul. Anyone with half a wit and a fly rod knows the difference between a repositioning move and the CS. Don't need you to tell anyone that. But to try and turn a blown anchor into a casting stroke is a fallacy of the highest order.

[Paul Arden]

Anyone with half a wit and a fly rod knows the difference between a repositioning move and the CS.

Have you ever missed anchor placement on a Switch/Jump Roll? It looks remarkably similar to a Beligian Cast.

This is the core belief of the SL casting model. It is the founding and guiding principal.

Yep we have definitions based around purpose, while you have definitions based around acceleration. Unfortunately yours doesn't work when applied to the above examples. So at the moment there's only one working model and it's the one we've defined.

I can tell you I have had these exact same discussions privately and - you're going to love this - I actually argued from your position, but lost that argument - because I was wrong. However unlike you, I'm happy to be proved wrong, accept it, and move forward with a new understanding. If you're never wrong then you're not learning anything.

Cheers, Paul

[Frank LoPresti]

I think the difference is intent. Without intent it's not a blown anchor; its a CS.

This is just plain wrong. It boggles the mind. It's not even logical. And this is the basis of you model ? This is what your committee agreed to ? How you could have lost this argument is beyond me, but that's your problem not mine.

[Paul Arden]

OK let me make is simple for you. You can go from a Beligian to a Switch Cast by quite simply using less power in the backcast. You can go from a Switch to a Belgian by using more power in the backcast. Easy. If you cock-up the line repositioning and blow the anchor on the Switch then the cast takes on the look of a Beligian Cast, in fact it can look exactly the same.

Now I think if you blow your anchor you make a fault and in this cast a faulty Switch Cast. And that is how our model is set up. However in your model you ignore intent, and for all intensive purposes there are no faults (you've said). So for you the faulty Switch Cast with a blown anchor isn't a faulty Switch Cast after all; it really is a Belgian Cast.

And anyway, you don't have Sweep. It's completely impossible for you to create Sweep because the separation between Creep and CS is a rate of acceleration. Sweep can't fit. So using your model, your line repositioning motion is Creep.

[Frank LoPresti]

In your model Paul, a blown anchor becomes the casting stroke.

In your model you can decrease the size of the casting arc and then increases it as the rod is applying a force to the line in order to form the loop.

In your model you can add translation to the casting arc and eliminate tailing loops. Although you may or not agree with that idea, some of your committee members do. Do you agree with them ?

Your model is based on constant tension, with drift/drag. It's based on a style of casting. One of the ways you could tweak your model is to state that it is not necessary to drift or drag. But you can't do that the way the terms are worded in the SL model. That's a major problem.

[Paul Arden]

It's a waste of time talking to you Frank.

[Frank LoPresti]

One of the ways you could tweak your model is to state that it is not necessary to drift or drag. But you can't do that the way the terms are worded in the SL model. That's a major problem.

I know, because you can't explain this away in simple terms.

The main problem with your approach is that in the end it suffers from the paralysis of analysis.

[Snake Pliskin]

I know, because you can't explain this away in simple terms.

You cannot understand simple terms Frank. This is a total joke.

[Frank LoPresti]

Not when they conflict with one another no I cannot.

Frank

[Frank LoPresti]

because the separation between Creep and CS is a rate of acceleration. Sweep can't fit. So using your model, your line repositioning motion is Creep.

Your tilting at windmills Paul. In the graphic there is no such separation of acceleration between anything in the CS, only that the rod motion be adequate to form the loop. Your seeing things that are not there.

In the graphic creep simply reduces the size of the casting arc for the CS in the direction of the CS, that's all it does because on it's own creep is capable of doing no more than that. You won't form a loop with sweep either. You'll reposition the line is what you will do though.

Frank