sustained anchor ?

[Marc LaMouche]

what's the difference between the sustained anchor so often talked about in the Skagit world and the anchor of a traditional Double-Spey ?

cheers,
marc

[Marc LaMouche]

No ideas ?

[White Hunter]

Hi Marc

I don't think there is any difference mate..

Leelad

[Snake Pliskin]

I think people just like to rename stuff sometimes to make it sound like they invented something new. I had a rather frustrating chat with Ed Ward about this once.

[Thomas_E]

Hi Marc,

I use Skagit now often and must say, with your question... I also see no difference.

First I thought not necessarily inevitably, but now I estimate this style for special situations.

Cheers
Thomas E.

[Marc LaMouche]

I don't think there is any difference mate..

i didn't think so but wanted to be sure before i tell someone off...

cheers lads

[Lasse Karlsson]

Hi Marc

There is

Out fishing...

Cheers
Lasse

[Marc LaMouche]

Out fishing...

please hurry, this is important !!!

[Ben_D]

No real difference IMO but I'd set up slower with the Skagit setbup.

Cheers

Ben

[dwiltshire]

I thought they were the same thing Marc...

[Marc LaMouche]

while waiting for Lasse's more detailed explanation i did a little searching and found some interesting thoughts from Ed Ward (apparently the originator of this term) HERE with a few significant thoughts on the SA (sustained anchor) idea below. to understand his reasoning one needs to read the whole page linked above.


" What I'm driving at here, is that throughout my research of Speycasting, at no time do I recall seeing referenced - either in written, audio, visual form - any inference to WANTING MORE water tension introduced into the equation. Even with the waterborne anchor the gist was that the circumstance of significant line-to-water contact was an undesirable, unavoidable, CONSEQUENTIAL part of that particular casting procedure. The mantra was still to try to keep it all moving as best as possible. Then came the advent of Skagit casting. To avoid a long and convulated history of Skagit casting and remain on the "anchor" subject, let's just say this: a group of anglers figured out that instead of consequential water tension being the "enemy", that via adjustments in technique and rod/line relationship, INTENTIONAL water tension could be harnessed to ADVANTAGE. This "customization" of waterborne anchor technique towards PROMOTING conditions of water tension rather than minimizing it, was dubbed "SA - sustained anchor". It was through applicationof SA concepts that the Doublespey regained some popularity and the Perry Poke and C/Snap casts evolved into high performance casts. "

"Thus a new style of Speycasting focused towards extracting optimum performance through intentionally created circumstances of significant water tension took shape. Its reputation spread as anglers using the method traveled to angling destinations beyond those of where the methodology originated. "We" called it Skagit casting. It was an exciting style of Speycasting that seemed to be providing capabilities of flyfishing not presented before! I joined Speypages to introduce, clarify and legitimize the "new" Skagit casting to the Speycasting world. Wow, was that ever an eye opener! A very vocal contingent of the Spey community clashed over my presentations with extreme gusto! If it wasn't "Well, that's NOT Speycasting", then it was "That's NOTHING MORE than Speycasting with a short line". WTF!!! Damned if you do, damned if you don't situation to the max. That's when/why I coined the term SA (Sustained Anchor) - based on the most visually apparent characteristic, the sustained line contact - to distinguish the INTENTIONAL act of forming water tension from that of UNINTENTIONAL/CONSEQUENTIAL and thus avoid arguements over using the term "waterborne" in discussions concerning Skagit. After coining SA, that became the only anchor reference I used for describing Skagit casting from then on. Apparently, my omission of using "waterborne" over the ensueing years has been misconstrued by some "Speyer's" as an attempt to subvert Speycasting history! Really?! I say that those individuals are viewing my discussions with a big "agenda" chip already established on their shoulders and it grossly affects their capacity for objectivity!"

" I chose the word "sustained" as a visual "key" to the most visually prominent characteristic of the cast... the sustained contacting of the line with the water. At the time, "sustained" meant to me either extended time of contact or significant proportion of line contact. I realize now that "sustained" probably isn't the best descriptor as regards "proportion of line", however now that it's "out there", trying to change it for something "better" seems about as do-able as re-constructing a broken egg! Regardless, the intent was to distinguish a type of anchor that had the appearance of "waterborne", but additionally included the PURPOSE of INTENTIONALLY creating significant water tension. Remember that prior to my establishment of the term SA, that descriptions of waterborne anchors gave NO indication towards striving to promote water tension. Also, that prior to Skagit casting, NO other Spey-type casting style stated an INTENT of using significant water tension as the primary source of casting power."

[Marc LaMouche]

here's the juicy part that might ruffle a few feathers among instructors
whattaya think ?

"The fact is that all Spey-type casts appear quite similar when viewed in actual on-the-water performance, especially to the "uninformed". If they all look the same, then the assumption is made that they are in fact all the same... right!? It is only when a thorough awareness of the subject is developed that obvious differences are perceived between particular Spey-type casts such as the Singlespey, C-spey, Perry poke, etc. The same situation exists as regards the differing anchor types. The SA process of intentionally promoting water tension onto a line APPEARS similar to other anchor types because its visual "difference" is a matter of "subtle" technique - the addition of a second or two of time or the lowering of the rod tip by a few inches or the prompting of curvature into how the line is layed out - that is unapparent to the "uninformed". It is only an in-depth awareness of the subject that allows the differences to become apparent. The point I'm trying to make here is that much of the argueing about SA comes from people who's opinions on it are based upon superficial observation and not actual casting experience."

[Aitor]

Regarding the linked forum. When I have read about "momentum" and "angular momentum" and the context it was applied in I was suspecting that the physics behind all of this was really poor. But after reading about "waterloading" I have just given up.

[Paul Arden]

I don't think the anchor is unintentional in Spey casting! It gives stability to the D-loop. If you want more line tension (usually we want to minimise it) then laying out a longer anchor will achieve this. It's not rocket science. Spey casting is a dynamic roll with a change of direction. It requires a D-loop and sufficient anchor to stabilise the D-loop. Skagit casting is simply a few alterations on the basic Spey casts to accommodate rather clunky fishing tackle set-ups.

Cheers, Paul

[Snake Pliskin]

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.