sustained anchor ?

[Paul Arden]

Sorry that may not have been very clear! Single Spey and Circle/Snap T have upstream anchors and Double Spey and Snake Roll have downstream anchors. I'm not a fan of waterborne and airborne distinction because a) it lumps casts together that aren't wind direction compatible and b) both the Snap T and the Double Spey can be aerielised.

Hope that's clearer (Lee :p)

Cheers, Paul

[Aitor]

I think if you believe that the rod is a big spring, and that the anchor loads this spring, then for a really long cast you need the maximum sized anchor possible.

Exactly.
Here are some short excerpts from an (yet) unpublished book by a certified instructor:

The roll cast creates rod load by the resistance of the "watered line" (the water anchor).

The more line on the water, the more rod load.

The bent rod tip becomes a vertical spring or lever that throws the fly line forward.

[Magnus]

I believe that this type of anchor became established via the Doublespey cast around the advent time of either glass rods or graphite rods. Prior to that time, I believe that the inherent slow recovery and "heavy" tip weight of rods constructed of greenheart and bamboo combined to allow the use of lighter weighted lines and thus, the lighter weighted lines, plus slow rod recovery and rod tip weight, translated into a capability of actually being able to keep the MAJORITY of a flyline AERIALIZED THROUGHOUT the original Doublespey cast via a constant moving, figure-of-eight rod motion IN A T&G PROCESS. I believe that with the appearance of glass, then graphite, the loss of rod tip weight and the addition of faster rod recovery then directed lines to trend upwards in weight. These three factors then combined to force a change in how the Doublespey was performed - it went from a T&G anchor to waterborne because it became too difficult to maintain the flyline in an aerialized status with lighter-tipped, faster recovery rods using heavier lines.

Dunno who this is writing but words don't exactly dance from his pen. Not seen this suggested before.

[White Hunter]

To narrow down the options of which cast to use, as a rough guide first and foremost, I lump the casts as options dependant on the fishing application I'm faced with.
If i set off to fish with heavy tubes and fast sink tips "usually 1"+ and T14 tips for instance" I will go to the river knowing that I will be preferring to use water bourne anchored casts, either the circle cast or double Spey, simply because i get better consistency in results.

Upon arriving to the river the next consideration is wind direction, this will dictate which of the above I will fish down with.

If the wind is quartering hard from upstream/across from the far bank right into me, then I will NOT use a circle cast as this is dangerous. In this instance the line and fly shall be positioned using a single Spey set up, then aborted as I form the d loop, to then use a poke out in front for a second bite at the cherry at forming a second, and usually better D loop.

Btw, factor in heavy leaf fall and the above option becomes lunacy ..

[Marc LaMouche]

Dunno who this is writing but words don't exactly dance from his pen. Not seen this suggested before.

it's from Ed Ward, Magnus.
glad you picked up on this as it's a (probably wrong... ) yet an interesting idea that i was going to start another thread with to not dilute this one's original topic...

speaking of, Lasse, since you seem to be the only one here to think there's a difference between a sustained anchor and whatever what one wants to call it on a traditional double spey, how 'bout some words ?

cheers,
marc

[Magnus]

Hi Marc

The way Ward tells it, traditional double spey is an oval cast. The cast we know, where most of the setting up and all the change of direction take place with the line on the water, only appeared with glass or carbon rods - that puts it in the 1960s and into early 70s. I think, if they were alive, that would come as a surprise to Falkus and Oglesby - they cut their casting teeth on cane rods.

To me those paragraphs read like a very wordy revisionist history.

[Paul Arden]

Agreed Lee

You go, 1 tackle set up (Waterborne/Airborne) 2) wind direction (upstream/downstream anchor).

I go 1) wind direction (upstream/downstream anchor) 2) Tackle set-up!

Most of my Spey casting involved bringing in almost all the head to within a few feet of the tip - fishing streamers. So I also end up making double roll deliveries with slipped line (pokes/tongariro roll).

Cheers, Paul

[Bernd]

Hi everyone,
personally I pretty much like lots of Ed Ward's explanations and hints he offers in his DVDs.
Yes, some of his explanations lack from the pure physical point of view. Anyway - who has it all right yet?

I like to differentiate between waterborn and airborn anchor casts as well as those casts matching upstream and downstream or whatever wind direction.
Simply I use all terms depending on the situation and my purpose.

Typically in "Skagit casting" most of the weight just hangs down the rod tip (not touching the water) as long as the tip will be slowly moved.
This allows to turn the sustained anchor VERY slowly without causing any problem. Or like Ed points out it might even help to make a more efficient cast!

In "traditional Spey casting" typically longer bellies were used. So the weight will be on much longer line length here (compared to Skagit set up). This means we have to turn the (water born) anchors much faster. Otherwise our weight will bump in the water.
The physics are the same of course. But the tempo is different.

If we move on to "modern Spey casting" using the same techniques but on shorter bellies, the tempo may get closer to the same low tempo being used on the sustained anchor in Skagit style casting.

So physics are the same but tempo is different. If we need to use a different name or not is up to everyone him/herself. I like how Ed explains his version of the sustained anchor.

Greets
Bernd

[Marc LaMouche]

thanks Bernd

i like your point of shorter line/longer anchor - longer line/shorter anchor. it would be interesting to time the two types. i'm pretty sure they're pretty much the same :;):

chers,
marc

[alp]

...
So physics are the same but tempo is different.
...

Not only the tempo. Angles are different, too. Movements of the body are different. Although it is the same physics behind it all.

[cesarwf]

You can see the physics or not , but it´s always out there, before and after Newton. I think that try to explain things in a different, personal, way is very interested. I like what Ed says. Lot of hours in the water. Different tempo, different anglers. We need difference :-)

[Snake Pliskin]

I think Ed's way is just his personal style and nothing more than that. If it works for other people on the water then fine. The thing I don't like so much is a/ trying to make out you have to cast skagit lines "his way", b/ using shabby physics to back up point a/, and c/ making ridiculous and unfounded claims about the history of spey casting. Other than that I couldn't give a fuck! Steve.