Teaching the CS with intent

[Paul Arden]

Prior to making the cast yes you pre determine.

Ah-ha! So you have a purpose after all? And what is your purpose of the Casting Stroke?

[Frank LoPresti]

I predetermine based on the outcome I want. The purpose the intent or whatever you want to call it I don't really care about. It seems more than obvious what the purpose and intent of a curve cast might be more than redundant to say the least, that a curve cast has a purpose. No kidding..

[Paul Arden]

So your CS doesn't have a purpose?

[Frank LoPresti]

Purpose of the casting stroke is self evident, loop formation. The purpose of a straight line cast is self explanatory, how to execute a straight line cast is not, Drift does what it is suppose to do as does Drag. You don't need to explain the purpose of something as much as you need to explain what it is and when it should occur and how to properly execute the motion. The purpose then becomes self evident, to increase or decrease the size of the casting arc or to connect to different casting planes, increase or decrease stroke length and whatever else I forgot to toss in there. Using any of these motions are at the casters discretion as to effect, not purpose, it has nothing to do with purpose, it has to do with outcome and execution. Purpose is really elementary, almost intuitive on some level. Intent is pretty much the same deal.

What you have modeled is how you want others to interpret the casting stroke and it's biased as to your teaching preferences. That's fine by me but I would not want anyones style stamped on a "universal" understanding of basic casting terminology. No way Jose.

[Paul Arden]

You don't need to explain the purpose of something as much as you need to explain what it is and when it should occur and how to properly execute the motion.

You almost have it. Definitions are only what something is, ie its purpose. They don't tell you the how or when.

Definition: meaning, denotation, sense; interpretation, explanation, elucidation, description, clarification, illustration.

Purpose: the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.

PHRASES
on purpose intentionally.

[Frank LoPresti]

Semantics Paul, do not lead to loop formation. Stick that in your hat.

[Paul Arden]

That's right, Frank, semantics doesn't lead to loop formation; it leads to definitions.

[Frank LoPresti]

Yes and your definitions are riddled with bias, semantic overload, and loop holes.

[Paul Arden]

Casting Stroke: When the rod applies force to the line in order to form a loop.
Sweep: To position the line.
Drift: To position the rod between casting strokes.

Where is the bias, semantic overload, and loop holes?

[Frank LoPresti]

You left it all out, but then I can't blame you. Do you want me to post the entirety of the definitions that you wrote for these terms ? But at least what you have written there makes a little more sense.

[Paul Arden]

Ok so you agree with these three?!!

[Morsie]

Semantics Paul, do not lead to loop formation. Stick that in your hat.

Nor does sophistry Frank.

Morsie

[Frank LoPresti]

Ok so you agree with these three?!!

You'd have to a little more definitive on Drift. If it's simply to switch between rod planes, increase arc size or stroke length CS I'd agree to that, beyond that no. Sweep seems peachy. For CS I'm left wanting a little more detail. CS, well it leaves me wanting a little more info. For example you could be applying a force to the line in the direction of the coming cast that has nothing to do with actual loop formation. And no I would not consider that force necessary for loop formation. Something more committed to actual loop formation then intent or purpose. The idea of forming a loop is obvious.

[Frank LoPresti]

Nor does sophistry Frank.

Morsie[/quote]





It's not a fallacious argument that intent or purpose proceeds action and that the caster predetermines the actions he/she will need to impart to the rod in order to accomplish the task. Those actions are independent of purpose or intent. In other way of saying that is that purpose and intent have no impact on the outcome of the cast.

Once the caster predetermines what they need to do that is what they are mentally and physically committed to doing. You can't undo that process mid stroke, you have to let the cards fall where they may because the caster may or may not beware if their predetermined actions will result in the anticipated outcome of the cast. They, you, I, have to wait to see how the cast turned out. Then based on how the cast turned out, if it turned out poorly, then the caster has to predetermine what adjustments they need to make before beginning the next CS. If those mental predeterminations match with execution the results will be realized. If not it's back to the drawing board.

Building a casting model around fault or intent is a slippery slope. Becoming a proficient caster is about awareness. I find no fault in a lack of awareness, nor do I teach like that. Having said that the SL model faults the caster for lack of awareness but then credits the caster for the same fault if it's considered as intentional as in forward rotational drift during the CS. Then it's a repositioning move that decreases the size of the arc for the coming cast and no longer considered a fault. How can that possibly be ?

This type of approach suggests that somehow during the course of the CS that the caster can somehow turn lead into gold. Or that somehow a caster can offset a rod motion already in progress and avoid paying the price of said rod motion in this case Creep or depending upon who is defining it, Drift during the CS. This approach sets the stage for the idea that somehow a caster can redirect a predetermined action or motion that is now fully in progress during the CS and somehow offset that motion with a different motion and end up with a favorable outcome, no tail.

That's the slippery slope because from there we are lead to believe that somehow you can change gears mid stroke and actually, "increase the decrease," of the casting arc as a result of "Drift," because both creep and drift are unidirectional in the SL model. We are lead to believe that Drift can now extend the casting arc size, acceleration can then proceed as rapid, and the original fault disappears as does the tail. And it's gets worse because this same logic is applied to the length of the casting stroke as if magically lengthening the size of the casting arc will offset the concave path of the rod tip and said fault and tail vanish.

No wonder some folks have fallen under the spell of this model. The same action that causes the fault can reverse the fault. That's a novel approach and it's based on what ? you guessed it, intent and purpose. But of course it has to be that way in order for the model to succeed.


Quite honestly there are casters out there reading this model who have fallen for this approach as being valid. That you can, reverse the outcome of Creep by extending the Casting Arc during the CS with Drift, that you can add Stroke Length and offset the concave path of the rod tip, that a caster can, radically change their actions during the early part of the stroke, once they have already committed themselves to particular course of action.

You ar right about one thing Morsie there is a fallacious argument being made here, and it's in the form on a casting model that replaces logic, with intent purpose and fault.

Frank

[Paul Arden]

I think your model is better than you explain it, Frank, and you've done a poor job IMO of supporting it. However ultimately what we're running with is better. You appear not to understand either model.