sustained anchor ?

[Aitor]

Ed refused to discuss this stuff with me (water loading and important cocepts like that)because I apparently don't understand angular momentum and therefore "I cannot continue to discuss casting mechanics with you".
It was at this point that got a bit annoyed. I have since eaten his DVD.

His knowledge of the concept of momentum showed in that thread is appalling; combine that with the old "the rod unloads and impulses the line" and you have the whole picture. :glare:

[Paul Arden]

Ah, I don't mind. He has enthusiasm and is likeable. And sometimes that's better than physics! If he was obnoxious then sure, we'd take him apart.

Cheers, Paul

[Snake Pliskin]

Ah, I don't mind. He has enthusiasm and is likeable. And sometimes that's better than physics! If he was obnoxious then sure, we'd take him apart.

Cheers, Paul

I agree totally. But what was annoying for me was that he refused to discuss something with me because he thought I didn't understand it. You wouldn't do that. I think it's up to any educator to teach isn't it? He should have simply helped me understand.
I'd sent some threads for him to check out on sexyloops and invited him to join, which he obviously wasn't up for.
I think the problem was that he had no clue what he was talking about and was much happier posting on another forum where his guru status means that whatever he says would remain unchallenged.

[ennio]

I think the problem was that he had no clue what he was talking about and was much happier posting on another forum where his guru status means that whatever he says would remain unchallenged.

[Aitor]

If you base the explanation of how your style works on "the anchor loading the rod"... well, you aren't very original, that's is exactly what everyone is expecting to hear and has heard lots of times.
What takes balls is to sustain that anchor loading is bullshit.

[Ben_D]

If you base the explanation of how your style works on "the anchor loading the rod"... well, you aren't very original, that's is exactly what everyone is expecting to hear and has heard lots of times.
What takes balls is to sustain that anchor loading is bullshit.

I've had this discussion with some of the best Spey Casters I know and there is still a huge belief out there that anchors load rods and rods fire lines.

Cheers

Ben

[Aitor]

And nothing is going to change that belief in the near future.
I wonder what are certifications for then? When Mel had the idea of a casting instructor certification was just for that reason: to give anglers sound instruction, not the same old wrong explanations. It seems that this original goal has been overridden by the same lazy ways of approaching casting issues that made evident the necessity of a certification in the first place.

The only valuable idea (a very good one, by the way) I have extracted from Marc's link is this:

There is one fly casting lesson always echo in my head, when I try to figure out "how certain cast work well, some cast not"? Way Yin said, if you figure out "why" it works, you will figure out "how" it will works. And this "principle driven learning" just open up all the possibility, all the creativity for me to custom design all kind of interesting tackle/casting combination for different fishing scenario. And it is a different level satisfaction to me.

[Paul Arden]

It's been few years since anyone has tried to tell me the anchor loads the rod.

[Aitor]

You just don't read much.

[Marc LaMouche]

It's been few years since anyone has tried to tell me the anchor loads the rod.

Aitor's unfortunately correct, Paul. it's all over the place and in a lot of videos. what's most common is the notion of 'loading the rod against the anchor'. pity these people don't take the time to cast on dry and smooth surface (like Aitor's excellent video) to see how that notion is wrong.

cheers,
marc

[Malik]

According to you — leaving aside the quality of the instruction — does it affect the efficiency of their cast ? And if yes, under what aspect? It is an open question

And yes, the Aitor's video on the anchoring topic is excellent, as usual !

Cheers

Malik

[Paul Arden]

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.

As we all know, however, we need the minimum anchor that gives D-loop stability for maximum efficiency.

So I suppose that's one way the wrong information could cause a poor cast. Or maybe: since a line that is subsurface presents even more resistance, for maximum rod loading potential, when casting sink tips, we should pause long enough for the tip to really get down :p

So yes I think understanding the cast for many people is an important part of learning how to best perform it.

Cheers from a very damp and muddy Hungary!
Paul

[Malik]

Good points Paul; I agree 100%.

So, the distinction between airborne and waterborne casts, although retained by a connoisseur of Simon Gawesworth's level, produces rather confusion, because it is mainly from the loop and the lever effect of the rod that casts arise. Too simple-minded ?

Malik

[Paul Arden]

Waterborne and airborne confuses me too. This is just Simon's way of putting snake roll and single Spey together and double Spey and circle/snap T together. Me I separate them by current flow. Single Spey and circle/snap T together and double Spey and snake roll together.

Cheers, Paul

[ennio]

Interesting distinction: I had only thought of grouping by anchor type, "kiss n go" or not.

Talking of which, when I was taught single-handed Speys (I'm no expert) we started with Roll Cast; then Jump Roll/Switch Cast/[Call it what you want]; then probably Single Spey.

At the weekend I was wondering if teaching the Roll Cast, then the Perry Poke (sustained anchor) would be a good progression from a static to a dynamic D-loop, without the additional complexity of anchor placement. I didn't have a victim to try it on but I wonder if anyone teaches like this?