A percentage of those 1400 + instructors out there will not be happy with the final product. What would you tell them if you were the committee chair for such a project ? Lets start over ?
You not clear on the meaning of 'consensus' Frank? The short version is 'majority of opinion'. To get to that stage would mean definitions need to be made public and debated - not just decided on by a committee and imposed by the organization.
The short version of consensus is not exactly majority of opinion. Consensus is simply a general agreement and specifically defined as such. Now how do you propose to do that ? How ? How do you proceed ? How do you figure to deal with 1400 + instructors and their input as to both models and arrive at a general agreement as to the wording of the terms in question ? How do you accommodate some 1400+ varying opinions as to usage. Please illuminate us with your grand vision as to how to make this happen. Are you even a member of FFF ?
No one's imposing anything on you anymore than any other model would be imposing anything upon you or some one else for that matter. Either way you adapt, that is what adults do.
I would have a major effect on how I train instructors.
Paul Arden
No Frank I'm not a member of FFF - thankfully - if you're a representative of that club.
'Majority of opinion' is the dictionary definition for consensus.
"No one's imposing anything on you anymore than any other model would be imposing anything upon you or some one else for that matter."
That's certainly not the impression you give when you get on your pompous horse about the dangers of the SL definitions. Fact is the FFF definitions were to be voted on at BOG level and then at a wider meeting (conclave) doubtless there would be some discussion. Thereafter those terms would be imposed - it would be required to know and use them to pass the exam. As I understand it the FFF definitions never made it out of committee?
Big difference with the SL terms - we put them together and made them public - nothing imposed, no exams involved and open for discussion. And no doubt I don't need to remind you this is not an FFF website - oh and I am a member of this club
If both sets of definitions are made public it'll be a matter of which terms are used which is the deciding factor.
Six of our published committee members are FFF. The point is of course that these definitions are going to be debated when released - and crucified. It should never have got this far and there have been many opportunities and many attempts to reconcile the definitions differences. We've had private debates with three of your prominent committee members and a semi-public one with you Frank. Believe it or not some of us are trying to prevent the FFF BOG making a huge and embarrassing mistake. You're helping in your own way.
Paul Arden wrote:We've had private debates with three of your prominent committee members
What about the other 1394 instructors out there ? They have a teaching model as well, as do I, and I assure you it uses different words for different reasons. Don't we really need to have the input of 1394 other approaches to a casting model as well, to make a fully informed all inclusive model ? I've got some moves I'd like to toss in to the mix for sure, what about those ?
Any set of definitions you put up will be debated as to their merit and usefulness. Your committee member are not "published, " they are simply members like the rest of us in the same organization. As you yourself have said "We," had discussions or private debates with 3 committee members. That's a lot more debate than the other 1394 instructors got to contribute to the process. What about them ? I don't hear you voicing concern about their lack of input. What's up with that ?
Personally I have nothing at all invested in the outcome of any of this. I'll teach and instruct and examine no matter which words are chosen and which are left out. I'm not at all hung up about the inclusion or exclusion of a word. Far from it. Nor will anyone else be hung up, as most of us will simply get along just fine with whatever comes down the pike. Afterall what instructor in their right mind does not understand the difference between creep and forward rotational drift, right ? Who does not get that ?
Frank
I would have a major effect on how I train instructors.
Paul Arden
As you yourself have said "We," had discussions or private debates with 3 committee members. That's a lot more debate than the other 1394 instructors got to contribute to the process. What about them ? I don't hear you voicing concern about their lack of input. What's up with that ?
Bruce, Gordy and Chuck didn't wish to discuss publicly. Our set's out there for bashing around. Your set is secret and will probably remain secret until after any BOG vote. I think they should be bashed around before a BOG vote. That seems entirely sensible to me.
Fact is we all know the difference between creep and forward rotational drift. Why not include and define words like acceleration or pre load and slip. They all occur as the rod is being rotated. And what about those 1394 other instructors that did not get to present their ideas to Bruce, Gordy, and Chuck. You got to do that, the other 1394 did not. I'd say you had some input, a lot more than the other instructors out there.
In the end it will not matter what model you put up, there will always be an objection of some sorts by someone. Take a look at the definitions that Grunde posted. I could live with those also, on the other hand they can be picked a part. I could live with your model as well, it would not make the least bit of difference to me or anyone else who knows the difference between creep and forward rotational drift, that includes most if not all casting instructors certified by any and all organizations worth a lick and I think we all know that, to pretend not to is purposeless.
I would have a major effect on how I train instructors.
Paul Arden
Paul Arden wrote:Our set's out there for bashing around.
Problem is Paul that no one has actually done that on this site, If you remove me from the debate, then I've not even seen one critique or even remember one critique by anyone who reads this site who has made one comment to the contrary. Not one, but zero comments to the contrary.
So I have no idea what is being bashed about nor by whom on this site. I seem to be the lone exception. I've also not seen any changes over the last 4 years to your wording, and that suggests to me that you've already determined that there is no room for debate regarding your model. You don't even seem to recognize or entertain the idea that others might view your model as a bit problematic in regards to the testing process as it relates to streamlining terminology that benefits the candidate and the testing process.
This seems to be all about, I, I, I'd ,I, IMHO
Frank
I would have a major effect on how I train instructors.
Paul Arden
The way I see it - and yes this is my opinion, fuck me, everyone is allowed an opinion, even you Frank - is that if the FFF set were established it would be damaging for both FC instruction and for this discussion Board. I have nothing to gain from battling the definitions, and would rather not in fact, I just think it's my responsibility to do so.
And what about those 1394 other instructors that did not get to present their ideas to Bruce, Gordy, and Chuck.
Yep that's what I think should happen. There are a lot of active instructors here from all associations and they're all bloody keen to see what you have to offer. The question is, is it better to put the committee on the line or the entire BOG?
Paul Arden wrote:Our set's out there for bashing around.
Problem is Paul that no one has actually done that on this site, If you remove me from the debate, then I've not even seen one critique or even remember one critique by anyone who reads this site who has made one comment to the contrary. Not one, but zero comments to the contrary.
So I have no idea what is being bashed about nor by whom on this site. I seem to be the lone exception. I've also not seen any changes over the last 4 years to your wording, and that suggests to me that you've already determined that there is no room for debate regarding your model. You don't even seem to recognize or entertain the idea that others might view your model as a bit problematic in regards to the testing process as it relates to streamlining terminology that benefits the candidate and the testing process.
This seems to be all about, I, I, I'd ,I, IMHO
Frank
Maybe that's because there was a lot of debate early on.
Just a quick (not exhaustive) look at those posting:
Bob Wyatt
Chris Dore
Grhen
Mac Brown
Jay Clark
Eastern Caster.
So I don't think you're looking hard enough Frank.
Maybe the reason everyone else has dropped out of the conversation is that the debate endlessly re-hashes the same themes and doesn't go anywhere.
I understand both pt's of view (I'm happier with the SL one) and if I had to get into a debate over it in an assessment (God Forbid) I'd happily explain the differences and the plusses and minusses of each: And I'd expect not to be failed for holding a different POV on this from the assessors.
"The only advice it is necessary to give the angler… is to avoid any approach to foppery, as trout have the most thorough contempt for a fop…”
WC Stewart
Good of you to post up those earlier arguments. Thanks. I think any well informed instructor holds many models of the cast in their mind at the same time. In fact we all do this and draw from all the various interpretations from Mel, Joan, Gary and Jason, Left and Ed or anyone who has published an instructional book on casting.
There are a lot of casting books out there and the one thing I find common to all those books is that each writer distinguishes him or herself from each other with some unique feature or way of explaining how it all comes together yet ironically they are all describing the same thing, but you'd almost never know it moving from text to text as each writer explains it a bit differently and adds there own interpretation to the mix, which kind of clouds or hides the actual working parts of the cast and or it's substance.
I understand both points of view as well. But where I disagree with the SL point of view is that it's a style based point of view, not a substance based point of view. You have a model that turns style into substance. Drift or Drag is not substance, it is rod repositioning. Substance relates to Casting Arc, Stroke Length; the two major components of the casting stroke are what gets the job done, and an element of timing. Everything else is a style. Yes it is essential to oval casting to drift the rod around. Yes it is essential in Spey casts to sweep the rod. So yes repositioning moves are essential to to facilitate a certain style. They are a means to an end, not the means by which the loop is formed.
The beauty of the overhead cast is in it's simplicity, it cuts to the chase. It tells you that arc and rapid acceleration are all you need in order to form a loop, and maybe a little stroke length to go along with that. No more no less and there you have it. The idea behind the simplicity is to benefit the person being tested, it's puts everything on a level playing field as to what goes to what. Then if you want to demonstrate how drift during the early part casting stroke can be a good thing, your free to do just that. And I might add good luck with that
Otherwise I think your right in that it's easy enough to understand many points of view and discuss the pros and cons of each just as you would discuss the difference between Joan's idea of pre load and Lefty's idea of speed up and stop and the use of drift in the cast. But in my opinion it helps to have a base model as a starting out point, to make sense of all the other moves and how they all then get attached to the body of the casting stroke.
Frank
I would have a major effect on how I train instructors.
Paul Arden
But where I disagree with the SL point of view is that it's a style based point of view, not a substance based point of view. You have a model that turns style into substance.
Ho hum - and here was me thinking you believed the SL definitions were based in faults? Your approach to the SL terms seems to change with the passing seasons Frank.
First, we know that there are a number of dimensions in which we make choices in how to make a cast. The various choices you and I make come together to identify our own unique styles of casting. It would follow that the dimensions of the cast on which we make a choice might best constitute our substance. In short, what we do during a cast is substance and how we do it is style.
He follows that with a list under two heading 'Substance Dimension' and 'Style Choice'. His prime example would be Casting Arm Movement - essential to casting so comes under Substance - and he lists three Styles for that.
You have selected two Substance Dimensions from his list - Arc and Stoke Length. Then, where he specifically places features like wide or narrow arc or short or long stroke into Style, you seem to argue that there is only one correct substantive arc or stroke length for a given casting job. In other words, you seem to me to work hard to promote one casting style as substance over all other casting styles.
Then overhead casting. You said:
The beauty of the overhead cast is in it's simplicity, it cuts to the chase. It tells you that arc and rapid acceleration are all you need in order to form a loop, and maybe a little stroke length to go along with that. No more no less and there you have it.
Which reads to me like you are saying the Overhead cast is somehow more 'pure' than other forms of casting - like Spey or Oval. Frankly, Frank, I disagree, Spey, Roll Casts and Ovals etc are not corrupt or lesser forms of casting - which is what happens if you base your definitions on one type of cast. Which is why, when we worked on the SL definitions, we spent time trying them on all the casting situations we could think of.
At the moment, rather than wasting any more time arguing, I think the best thing would be for the FF to publish their provisional terms, the SL terms are already published. Then we will see if either set or terms from either set actually find their way into common use - that gives all casing instructors and anyone who might want to use these terms a chance to have their say by adopting and using terms they find useful and discarding or ignoring those they have no use for.
Magnus wrote:Ho hum - and here was me thinking you believed the SL definitions were based in faults? Your approach to the SL terms seems to change with the passing seasons Frank.
Well It's true I have more than one issue with the SL set.
I don't think a long stroke or a short stroke is really an issue of style necessarily. As much as it goes to the function of the CA and the SL being born of some necessity, as is rapid acceleration and an element on timing. Perhaps overhead casting is a style but it offers the basic intrinsic components that go into loop formation without any other bells and whistles. I suppose form lends itself to style but form follows function in a fly cast, it does not precede it. In an overhead cast form and function are the same, you can't have one without the other. But I don't need drift to form the loop and drift relates to form, the function of which is rod repositioning, not loop formation.
I guess I do think that for that reason that the overhead is the purest form of the casting stroke because it's all about the core elements of the stroke that pertain to loop formation give or take stroke length. So in that sense the length of the stroke could be considered a matter of style. The arc size is a matter of preference sure, but without the casting arc there is no cast. So my core two elements are really arc and acceleration and I would be happy to do away with stroke length but since every one uses it to some degree, it's considered a part of the CS. I can live with that.
But the problem from my perspective is that there are any number of possible stroke length and arc combinations that can change from cast to cast. Now take a look at someone who is casting wide loops on the backcast and narrow on the front, then narrow on the back and wide on the front and then both wide for either cast and narrow for the delivery cast and for each stroke the arc and length of the stroke varies, and then tell me with some degree of certainty what style I was using.
You can't. Nor have I ever said written or implied that there is only one substantive casting arc or or stroke length for a given cast. How do you arrive at that conclusion given the last example ?
Substance goes to function form goes to style. The function of the casting arc is such that without it there can be no cast, and throw in stroke length to a lesser degree I suppose. If I cannot promote casting a loop without either of those functions than what other rod motions do you propose I promote to form a loop with drift ? or sweep or just drag ?
I'm not saying that Spey and Oval casting are impure don't be ridiculous not even close. Your making up an argument out of thin air and then your telling me you disagree with it ? What a great idea.
But here's the problem. In the SL model it is mandatory that the caster drift the rod, and that goes to form. The whole model is based around drift and not only that, but drift in any direction and at any time. So using the SL model you have Mike who needs to pass his MCI and lets say for the sake of the argument the examiner asks Mike not to drift on his backcast. Would you then recommend to Mike that he begin the early part of of his casting stroke by slowly drifting the rod 5 or 10 degrees ? Paul said no, I said no. But according to the SL definitions it's okay for Mike to go ahead and do just that even though his intention is not to throw a tailing loop on the presentation cast.
So I'm betting that Mike does not have a lot of confidence with the SL set as it goes to beginning the early part of his CS with slow premature rod rotation, nor would anyone else for that matter.
There are a dozen website with casting terminology on them and they all vary from one website to another. Your free to use whatever model you like. Take your pick.....
I would have a major effect on how I train instructors.
Paul Arden
