........ it's often very poorly explained.
Feel free to discuss.
I agree.
It's also a completely unnatural movement, all throwing motions of the body use a follow through of the arm, casting stops it to add to the forward momentum - the brain needs some mega convincing! That's why pantomime casting works well IMO, I spent a lot of time looking like a plank holding a rod butt in my hand and going through the motions in the house! Muscle memory!
Another biggy is people pushing forward with the elbow/arm, my entire forward stroke is a downward movement of the elbow followed by a very postitive but tiny wrist pop, the forearm/upper arm angle doesn't change. This may help people: http://www.sexyloops.com/carlos/pushandpull.shtml It's much more efficient and you will NOT throw tailing loops, i'd almost say it's impossible with the correct pulling motion. But it's so hard to get the brain to want a up/down elbow movement rather than forward/back.
I've never had a lesson but an old boat partner of mine on Bewl Bridge was a top casting instructor. I watched him teach and he insisted upon bringing the rod very close to the ear when first learning. He said that this stopped a number of common faults before they started (dropping the backcast, moving the rod tip too far back amonst other things).
He hated to see the rod held out and cast at 45deg to the ground as lots of people do and wouldn't allow people to cast with an extended arm. Once the correct rod action had be learned he didn't mind what people did.
I remembered him again when I watched Peter Anderson cast; very neat and tidy, upright rod and small hauls on the backward and forward strokes. Just the same style as my old boat partner and although I suppose it looks slightly old fashioned both of them were (and are) superb casters even by the standards of today.
Very wise words those Malcolm and something that has just reinforced my thoughts of how I would teach. I did the same thing with Dave the other week, focussed on vertical plane. I don't like to stop at ear though, stop earlier so the line is heading up above horizontal, good reference point I suppose though.
I'm one of those guilty parties of dropping a backcast from off vertical although I will cast with rod vertical for short stuff and accuracy, longer stuff is just more comfortable if you open up the body.
Quote from: Alan on March 29, 2010, 03:55:55 PM
the first question perhaps is, how would you like this explained?
How is a beginner going to know this? If a taking a driving lesson the instructor would not ask that question.
But Alan has actually hit the nail on the head as regarding what this topic is really about. This is not about how well an instructor can cast him / herself. It's about ability to teach. Being qualified to teach a subject does not necessarily make one a teacher. Teaching is a skill that has to be mastered over and above the subject matter itself.
It just sort of came to me when I was practicing casting the other day and thinking deeply as i do... :D
Personality can go a long way too. I have had a lesson from someone who won't be named but speaking to others it seems his attitude is not liked etc etc. That in itself is going to be a barrier to learning, I know from my uni studies that this is a fact. I had one lecturer this year who would arrive in class, read the slides that are available to students, offering nothing else. It resulted in me not going to that class... Ok it's still going to be easy to learn and it that sense isn't the same as fly casting but the principle is similar.
One thing from the casting club i've learned and from other instructors too is it is no use being able to explain something well if you can only explain it that one way. You need to be able to explain the same thing 10 different ways, as there will always be someone that doesn't understand it the way the previous person did.
OK, so how does one take all the ideas, concepts, facts etc - whatever and present them in a way that is easily understandable to Joe and does not piss him off?
Joe is a thinker, he wants to know why.
I would have never realised this untill about a year ago, ive never had a casting lesson in my life nor have i ever had anyone try to teach me it was a cae of me done the park with a fly rod and reel when i was about 9 or 10 casting away myself aiming at a target i had laid on the grass, I slowly but sure became better and better untill the stage I am at today.
But last season I tried to "teach" my mate how to fly cast with very little success!!! I think alot of it has to do with the pupils keeness and abilty to learn, I would defo say that I am not a good casting teacher tho.
Does anyone agree that you feel its something thats better self taught? Just keep trying youself till you get it kind of idea?
Quote from: admin on March 29, 2010, 04:55:14 PM
OK, so how does one take all the ideas, concepts, facts etc - whatever and present them in a way that is easily understandable to Joe and does not piss him off?
Joe is a thinker, he wants to know why.
Absolutely. I've learn't to do a lot of things, been taught (and taught) the how and what to do, but when the how and what aren't working you're stuffed if you don't know the why. If you know the why, you can adjust the how and what to make it work. Understanding is all - and if you can'tand explain get your pupil to understand IMHO you may produce an automaton that can function when things are going by the book but when things aren't he (or she) will get nowhere.
Enough philosophy for the day - time to get back to work!!!
I honestly believe in casting there is only so much "why" someone can teach someone else and it sure as hell is not done in an hour. It is done over months, maybe years. There really is an almost infinite amount to learn. The way this 2 hour lesson thing is means that the lesson is about the analysis of someone's cast and then a bit of work on the "how".
The "why" has to be learned through research, background reading, questions to your instructor via phone/email (assuming this is a lesson). It's the same in anything. You can teach someone how to solve a maths equation but there's a good chance they have no idea why... just like emc said.
And to say how do you teach this to someone, it is impossible to answer. You need real time feedback from the person. They will say I understand that or if you ask and you get an iffy response then you know it needs work.
The true teacher never over-teaches. He gives hints and advice and often is simply there. The learner ends up realizing he wasn't doing that to safeguard his secrets, but rather to protect the immense pleasure that comes from discovering things for oneself.?
Gary.
Quote from: scotty9 on March 29, 2010, 05:46:55 PM
I honestly believe in casting there is only so much "why" someone can teach someone else and it sure as hell is not done in an hour.
Perhaps that first hour should be spent with the instructor demonstrating and discussing the basic whys and the way they relate to the hows and to the outcomes. The best explanation of fly casting I ever had was down to Magnus making a few sketches on a few bits of paper (I still have them). There was no rod involved at that point.
He's quite the casting dude though! :8)
Yes probably a very good idea. Then comes the issue of the pupil, do they actually want to learn? I know it sounds a silly question but I imagine there'd be a few that would tell you where to go with the theory, they don't need that etc etc and then those that would feel they are not getting their "money's worth" since all you did was talk. I agree though, if you have a genuinely interested person, wanting to really learn that is a great idea.
I'd love a well researched answer to this, even if it just entailed that there was none. With Dave the other week I started talking about how to change the loop turnover speed without altering the cast and then realised, hang on this is waaaay more than he needs to know now! It's easy to go into far too much detail too. I don't know, maybe the best way is just to tailor absolutely everything to results and feedback?
I go with most of what has been said above.
To which I will add- remove the jargon.
Ask what sort of activities the pupil has mastered in the past. Tennis, squash, badminton and golf players, to name a few, understand timing and not forcing by muscle power, so do seamstresses, carpenters, and hairdressers- let the tool do the work.
Distance is not the aim, nor (at the beginning) is accuracy, understanding the equipment and how to use it is the purpose of the introduction to the noble art.
Quote from: buzz on March 29, 2010, 06:28:37 PM
As for the teaching/communicating it i fear its the language used and the explanations that follow, its a bit like physics all those new words.
Which leads to the question is this conspiracy or ineptitude?
Is some of the language chosen in order to make the subject easier to understand or is to try to make instructors look clever and what is a simple concept complex?
The language has suffered different organisations/prominent folk calling the same things by different names. I believe they are trying to make it universal, in fact I have a copy of a document of new, revised accepted terms and to be honest they are very straight forward.
No, just explain the concept in simple terms- define what you mean, make allowance for the knowledge of the person you are communicating with.
Example- A Winchester can be-
A 2.5L bottle
A data storage disk
A rifle
A city
So "pick up the winchester" can confuse
Quote from: scotty9 on March 29, 2010, 06:52:54 PM
I have a copy of a document of new, revised accepted terms and to be honest they are very straight forward.
Would you like to share this with us?
I think terms are just a way to test knowledge - if you have terms you can ask someone can they recite the terms and explain what they mean. Ie - assessment purposes.
But all these terms, you're probably going to use them in serious moderation if teaching someone. Although some of them do provide a useful name to a motion for example. Some are useful to helping understanding, some aren't.
a quick reprise of the original question, at the risk of upsetting everyone.
people may find fly casting difficult because.... they get too hung up on casting!
Quote from: corsican dave on March 29, 2010, 07:35:22 PM
people may find fly casting difficult because.... they get too hung up on casting!
true to some extent, but the better - or rather more intelligently - you can cast the better your prospects of success. This is especially true river fishing, much less so on lochs, but still important there.
it ain't no different from teaching a golf swing, a forehand volley, draw filing, tap drilling, curtain making, or the tango.
The concepts of teaching (and the fear of learning) remain the same.
:idea:To get back to the original question. Fly casting is really easy - you just do it don't you? There's certainly no need for lessons. No need to think about it too much. It'll just come naturally. That's how we all learned isn't it and we cast just fine for our purposes and doesn't stop us catching the odd trout. There's far too much emphasis on formal learning and we're too quick to jump in when someone starts and say "get a couple of lessons".
Er.... Bullshit...(in my humble opinion of course....)
I have two lads who learned to fish they were very small first with bait and then with fly. They are good fishermen and cast a fly as well as almost anyone. After a few minutes of basic instruction it was a case of "I can do that..." and they did. Kids do that sort of thing all the time and very easily. Stick a 5 iron in a 12 year olds hands and if they're keen you'll come back in a couple of weeks and find them doing flop shots, chips, drives.
As adults we go out and get lessons rather than just doing it. We're daft!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vjcdj6tbKyA
Mark, sorry I meant confusion over what a term means. You would not believe the arguments the "top" guys have over what a particular cast is or what that particular term means. It's quite an eye opener! I fully realise that things have to be explained differently and I said above that is a huge element to helping understanding. I know from my experience personally that the best way is to take X from Him, Y from another and so on and eventually you have a well rounded picture.
There's a lot to be said about your last paragraph! I never thought I'd hear you say something positive about casting :makefun :D
I actually think just about everyone on this thread is saying the same or very similar thing.
Breac - the elbow down at the side is so old school! :D Too out dated for me! And the lower hand is so promiment in double handed casting now, in fact it's the bugger that i'm currently trying to learn!
P.S. Just thought I should add, I stand by my original comment that people find fly casting hard because it is an unnatural movement. The body isn't designed to create forward momentum by stopping. And therein lies learning how to stop properly. See it's a real bugger! :lol:
Quote from: guest on March 29, 2010, 07:53:20 PM
I seem to remember that Jocky Wilson never had a textbook throw but was a pretty good darts player :D
great comparason, every dart he threw was different, you see the same with older golfers who have unorthadox swings, there still pros, theres not always a right and wrong way to do things
I think the consensus is that the hourly thing is indeed bollox.
Explaining:
Getting and using the right words is part of it.
Getting a logical structure with no if buts or contradictions of stuff explained in step 1 when you get to step 6 is another.
Assume our beginner Joe has never had a fly rod in his hand.
To me actions speak better than words. Imagine the person you are teaching can't see. Explaining what you are doing, no matter how succinct, means nothing to them as they have no idea what you are trying to convey as they have never seen it. Using words without letting them feel what you are trying to convey achieves very little.
Individuals have different learning styles. So long as " teachers " try to focus on their preferred teaching style, as opposed to the pupil's preferred learning style, it is unlikely that either party will make the kind of progress which might otherwise be possible. I do earnestly believe that the most important objective for the teacher at the outset of the relationship is to reach an understanding of the pupil's preferred learning style - sometimes not an easy task, for the pupil himself may not be aware of that. And while it is undoubtedly true that acquiring a deep understanding of anything is likely to enhance mastery and accomplishment, it is also very often true [ and especially in leisure activities, I think ] that some , perhaps most, do not want to delve into the " theoretics " , and certainly not beyond the point at which they can, or feel they can, take the next step up the progress ladder. And some may not be inclined to take all that many steps up that ladder anyway. What those who fall into that category most definitely do not want is some "smarty pants" instructor, even though he may be obviously highly skilled and talented, demeaning them with verbosity or any kind of supercilious mind games, probably reflecting the interest he has in the subject as opposed to the pupil's own ambitions, at whatever level these might be.
So, having identified at the outset what the pupil wants to learn [ so far as he is able to know that ] try next to understand how he would like to learn/ be taught and then just take it in small stages, whether by demonstrating or drawing on wee bits of paper or whatever - and often, perhaps a combination of all the various teaching/explaining devices. Certainly demonstrate the " what " and the " how " and show how/why the pupil is going wrong, which at the start will often be the case. The fast learners will learn fast, others at a pace more suited to them. Please settle for the fact that , irrespective of what you might like him to do, he will, in fact learn from you in his own way...and, for any sake avoid telling him that this or that is " nonsense " or that what he is doing is " terrible " or making other remarks of that sort. They don't help. Most likely these kinds of remarks will put the pupil off altogether. They are possibly quite likely to cause the pupil to wonder if the " smarty pants instructor " might care to enjoy a dook in the pond :lol: ...... !!!
Of course, occasionally the instructor may get lucky and acquire a pupil who shares his fascination with understanding all the minutiae. Let's hope that such bright and obviously talented pupils don't end up falling into the cesspit of windbaggery themselves over time :lol: :lol:
Of course, all of the foregoing is just one perspective, and a good-natured one, I hope .... but I hope too that it may go a wee bit along the road of answering the original question.
Teither
Quoteim curious about terminology, as an example..is this too complex?
'balance is the perfect weight of line for the strength of flex in the rod'
if its too heavy(or too much out beyond the rod tip) the rod will struggle to recover crisply, if its too light(or too little line) there wont be enough weight to flex the rod properly. ??
Some people will get that Alan, but not everyone.
I like to relate the question of balance in fly fishing to something else like spinning or beachcasting, as most people will have cast a spinner/lead at some point. To a beginner who has cast a spinning rod before I tend to say something like this...
"a spinning rod which is rated for casting say 20-40 grams will cast a 10 gram lure and it will cast a 60 gram lure, but it won't cast those as well as it would 30 gram lure, which should be the best casting weight for that rod. The 10 gram lure won't bend the rod enough for the rod to act as a spring (I then demonstrate the spring effect when the rod straightens) and the rod won't have enough strength to cast the 60 gram lure very well.
Fly rods are just the same, except that the line is the weight we are casting and the longer the line, the heavier it gets, so we have to match the weight of the line to the power of the rod, just as in spinning."
That gives a lead in to talking about the AFTM system.
Got to go now, sorry.
Alex
Quote from: guest on March 29, 2010, 07:53:20 PM
I seem to remember that Jocky Wilson never had a textbook throw but was a pretty good darts player :D
Is that because textbooks would bounce off the dartboard?
Quote from: Alan on March 30, 2010, 01:48:45 PM
been thinking on it all morning(when im supposed to be doing other stuff)
are explanations confusing because there is too much detail...or is it because they are distilled down too much?
That's too much of a generalisation, you need a specific person to tell you what part of a specific explanation they find confusing. As was said, you could explain casting through physics and maths and a couple of people would likely understand. There is always someone that will understand one explanation and another that won't understand it. It then becomes changing and manipulating that explanation until that person is able to understand. There is no formula, no rule, it's a one-to-one individualistic basis. Maybe I'm missing something here but I think that is as clear as day?
Quote from: scotty9 on March 30, 2010, 01:59:44 PM
It then becomes changing and manipulating that explanation until that person is able to understand.
In which case by the end of the hour lesson he may be none the wiser. Is it beyond possibility to relate the basic concepts to things a person who has never held a rod before is familiar with?
Quote from: admin on March 30, 2010, 03:04:54 PM
In which case by the end of the hour lesson he may be none the wiser. Is it beyond possibility to relate the basic concepts to things a person who has never held a rod before is familiar with?
Isn't that what Alex said? And that's the kind of thing I mean by changing and manipulating the explanation. I think Sandy had a very good point about feel - I reckon I can take a right handed caster, cast their rod with my left hand and let them feel the motion and vice versa. You must be able to feel it. I got a double handed lesson down at tweedswood after my assessment, first thing that happened was my hands on the rod with the other guy casting it so I could feel what a good cast felt like. You need that brain trigger! To be honest I don't think debating this is ever going to reach an answer and there is only one way you can ever better it/learn about it and that is to do it. First hand experience with people - the casting club is great for that actually. And the hourly thing - there isn't anyone who won't tell you that it's an unfortunate position to be in. A leisurely paced 5 hour lesson would be so much more beneficial.
What is the basis for the arguments in this thread out of interest? Is it experience of poor explanations or is it just thoughts on the matter?
Breac - I'm afraid I'll have to agree to disagree :D. Elbow down casting is so limiting and massively less efficient than the use of the elbow - bring the shoulder in to play and realise that keeping the elbow down is hell! Works on beginners too - the few i've taught have come on very well. Taking the bottom hand out of play with the double hander, there are some VERY high profile casters, maybe all? that would disagree. Am I understanding the double hand thing correctly? You would then only be using the top hand?
Scotty,
I think Breac has a point on two things
First there are a few variants as far as salmon casting is concerned. There is the classic Scottish Spey which is driven more by the top hand. This is the style I have always used. It's also the style used by a guy I think is the best spey caster on the River Leven. He really is first class. The "bottom hand dominant" style is Scandinavian in origin it's really on the up at the moment particularly for use with shooting heads and used very often with shorter rods. This is the cast that Jim (Teither) was showing to me over the past couple of weeks.
As far as holding a book under the arm I can see the point in this: one of the worst things in casting is a flying elbow and casting with the arm a long way from the body. There was a girl who came to the club who had both these faults but when her casting became more compact and closer to the body she improved immensely. So while no one would suggest being quite so rigid as the be able to cast with a book under the arm it's a recognised coaching technique to exaggerate something in order to cure a fault and Breac did say he used it as a teaching aid.
Leaving the rarified world of distance casting aside it seems to me that the compact stroke has huge advantages - a higher backcast and good tracking. It's also very powerful.
Malcolm
The late American fly casting guru Mel Krieger said there are two types of fly casting student.
Engineers and poets.
The engineers don?t only want to know how they also want structure and to know why.
The poets just want to learn by watching doing and feeling.
I?m an engineer.
The poet's way is inefficient and slapdash.
Quote from: admin on March 30, 2010, 07:54:58 PM
The late American fly casting guru Mel Krieger said there are two types of fly casting student.
Engineers and poets.
The engineers don’t only want to know how they also want structure and to know why.
The poets just want to learn by watching doing and feeling.
I’m an engineer.
The poet's way is inefficient and slapdash.
I like that, what's a bit of both? I'm a bit of both, you have to see but I definitely need the why.
Malcolm - that is fair enough, however ask Andrew about the bottom hand! I have never seen anyone cast a double handed rod better and with such smoothness. My knowledge is severly limited on doubler hand stuff admittedly and I'm going by what Andrew says.
The elbow thing, I am not advocating letting it go out from the body, far from it. It stays aligned in front of the shoulder but can rise and lower. I can throw as high a backcast as I wish, a lot of the time I don't as I don't think about it, but you can put it near vertical if you wish. And by distance I did not mean extreme distance, it is very hard to maintain good loops and ease of any sort of distance if the elbow is kept lowered at a fixed point at the side. It has to rise, you need the work from the shoulder.
The cast should not be done as purely a pivot from the elbow. It is far too limiting if you ever wish to cast more than one specific cast. For the record, closed stance, elbow in front assuming I raise and lower it I can cast as far as I can with a more open styled cast. It is very powerful, I don't see how one could create power by not moving the elbow. If the movement is purely a forearm pivot movement you have nothing more than a tiny short arc with little power potential.
Teach keeping the elbow in by using a roll cast with the rod vertical, elbow infront of shoulder. Then you are not limiting elbow movement up and down yet still keeping it in.
If the weather clears up this week I will take a video of the fixed pivot style and the rising/lowering pulling style. That should be far clearer than words, it's hard to write, far easier in speech and demonstration. Now a cool one from sexyloops, put a stress ball inside your elbow holding it there and casting - now that is beneficial! I don't know anyone who casts with a fixed elbow at the side, the upper arm should do the vast majority of the work in the stroke. How do you throw a javelin? With the elbow pivot or with pulling down power from the shoulder? Javeling throwing has been likened as the closest to fly casting. I understand about exaggerating to improve an aspect of someone's stroke but again an outdated method IMO. I would not have someone do something that could compromise or create problems with future progression. The tight roll cast method solved dave's quite extreme arm out style almost instantly.
Quote from: Alan on March 30, 2010, 08:14:13 PM
mel kreiger was also a pretty dreadful caster.
Very good instructor, his DVD's are interesting, animated guy! Pretty horrid caster though :lol:
The feel thing, an instructor should be able to cast the rod with the pupils arm still on it, the left/right transfer is pretty useful! It was Ben that mentioned the left/right thing. That feel thing helped me massively with the double hander. I must be an engineer/poet hybrid.
Quote from: scotty9 on March 30, 2010, 08:26:04 PM
Very good instructor, his DVD's are interesting, animated guy! Pretty horrid caster though :lol:
He was indeed , But when it came to producing the goods there were few better Angler/fly-tyer/Author etc
very talented lad . My take on it is as long as you have the basics, can throw a reasonably tidy line , then thats enough to be going on.
At the end of the day its more about getting out on the water and enjoying that than getting too technical . Learning watercraft in my opinion is above whether you can roll , snake cast etc . Christ look what happened to Nick Faldo , David Duval etc once you start tinkering the natural feel you have goes out the window .
P.S Whatever way you approach your sport just enjoy it , ive been at it thirty years and still learning :lol:
Scotty,
You misunderstand me I think! I am not advocating a fixed pivot far from it. The key to what I said is that:
"it's a recognised coaching technique to exaggerate something in order to cure a fault". If the problem is the flailing elbow or the extended arm then I can see that over-constraining that action for a short time could help.
Scott, it is easier, for me anyway, to stand behind the learner with my right hand covering theirs and casting. As long as they relax and let you do the work they get to feel the cast which is usually a big jump in their understanding of what they are trying to achieve. I also got them to hold the line in their left hand so that they could also feel the pull on the line, getting them not to move that hand was the hardest bit. I usually got them to stick the hand in their pocket :)
Malcolm - sorry, yes! I was getting the wrong end of the stick a bit, I'd be very quick in how long I used it for mind you! But yes - I finally see the point! :D
Sandy - I'm with you. Hand in the pocket definitely. The left to right thing was so that the sad bastards that are out to accuse people of every such thing could not accuse you of inappropriate touching etc.... If you use the opposite hand you can stand beside. Sad I know but those types of people are out there!
I find the references to poets and engineers interesting, especially as someone who engages in producing the odd piece of poetry from time to time. I've known a few poets, and other artistic types in my time. I don't believe any of those that I have known would ever have failed to understand that casting a fly line, just like any other locomotive activity of the human body, requires, and indeed is only possible, by way of an engineering process. Nor have I known any who would specifically have shunned the notion of learning how that process might best be delivered.
But poets do tend to be quite sensitive souls - it's in their nature. And being inquisitive persons, usually, they do not mind at all being taught. They certainly , in my experience, enjoy learning and exploring ideas.
Some of the comments since Admin's post have left me remembering a scenario. Let me share it with you.
A chap - quite possibly a poet -was standing by a pond one Sunday morning, practising his casting as best he knew. He was almost certainly not doing as well as he might. Believe it or not, he had managed to figure out that much all by himself :). Two instructors were watching him and each thought he could see the fault which needed correction. They were both almost certainly correct in their analysis. Each decided to approach the chap, but they did so separately.
The first instructor went over and said, " Hi there. I've been watching you and I think you've got a wee problem with tailing loops. Could I perhaps show you what I mean and maybe help you sort it out ? "
There was no hint of rhyme or particular poetical rhythm in the way this instructor put his proposition but the poor poet was nevertheless grateful for the intervention and was only too pleased that he was perhaps going to be helped.
In something of a parallel universe/time zone [ or whatever ] the second instructor made his approach. Adopting a puzzled expression, somewhat theatrically exaggerated, and scratching the top of his head Charlie Chaplin - style he said, " I don't understand that ! Why do you want to do that ? "
" Do what ? " asked the poet.
" Put a tailing loop into your casts ! "
Both of these instructors were very skilled and really knew their stuff. Each was a joy to watch and the poet had often admired their obvious abilities and casting grace. He knew, I mean really knew, that he was unlikely ever to be able to achieve the levels that these chaps has achieved. He had no illusions about that. But he was keen to do the best he could.
Which one do you think the poet learned from ???
crikey, if i were a beginner i'd sure as hell be intimidated by this topic! are you sure it's safe for a public forum? :shock: :lol:
i must tend more to the poetic and alan's bang on the money:
Quote from: Alan on March 30, 2010, 08:14:13 PM
deep down they want to believe they were born with the talent they have not learned yet :lol:
although i fear i'm more of the DILLIGAF philosophy.
Breac, yes sorry I did get the wrong end of the stick a bit!
I got annoyed at the thread and probably didn't read things the way I should have. I don't like the generalised approach of explanations = bad. I think there's much more to it than that.
Quote from: scotty9 on March 31, 2010, 01:20:14 PM
I don't like the generalised approach of explanations = bad.
poor explanations = bad.
I meant I felt there was a generalised vibe coming across that explanations are poor across the board to which I do not agree with on the principle that no-one can have had exposure to everybody's explanations - if we're talking individuals then fine but it can't be generalised to all instructors. I fully agree poor explanations are bad.
And unfortunately there are instructors that could not tell you the "why" :(
Really interesting thread.
For what it's worth, I've always found when teaching folk to cast that it's best to keep it as simple as possible to start with. The old up-pause-down with no shooting of the line at first and no false casting - jutst to get the line straightening out the back and in front. Once they get the feel of it they can start shooting a wee bit of line and then a single false cast once they've mastered that. As we go along, I'll try to explain the basic principles of 'why', but again keeping it very simple. At first I think people get a feel for it, then get more into the detailed principles once they get past the basic level. I don't play golf and so am pretty sh1t at it, but on the few occasions I've had a go I know when I've hit a good one - it just feels right.
I was casting a new 5# line on grass at the weekend and a certain 3 year-old ankle-biter wanted to tag along. Now, this was using both hands and we're not talking 30 yard casts here, but I was amazed that she could do the up-pause-down thing and actually lay a short line out pretty straight in front of her. Don't worry, she'll not be getting anywhere near water for a few years yet, but it did go to show that by keeping it very simple and in relation to what someone can understand, they will pick up the basics.
It's also how I was taught (fortunately by an instructor in my club - and a woman no less!) and it worked for me. The bad habits came later :roll:
Andrew
Alan,
I'm not sure if you are getting the point of the wee fictional scenario I created. Let me state it more baldly . The first instructor in the scenario engaged the poor old poet's interest and attention. The second instructor came across as a smart-arse and the poor old poet switched off !! Incidentally, you should not assume that the first instructor did not explain the " why " elements. He did, clearly and in plain terms - in this wee fictitious account !!
After the event which, being a fiction, of course, happened " long, long ago, in the olden days ", the poor old poet reflected that the second instructor probably had not meant to come across as a " smart-arse ". Most likely he was not aware that he was coming across in that way. Possibly he was , in spite of his various qualifications, just a wee bit short on emotional intelligence. Who knows ?
I am puzzled as to why you ask whether you were one of these instructors . I had no particular individuals in mind at all - just types . Did you think you perhaps recognised yourself ? :lol: :lol:
So ... let me assure you, old chap, that you were quite definitely not one of the two......Mind you I'll refrain from saying which one of the two you were not !! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Now, to be serious for a minute, I was interested in the poets/engineers scenario. And I get what both Admin and the late Mel Krieger were saying. I just think that Mr Krieger was unfortunate in his choice of " poet " as a word to describe the kind of pupil he had in mind. Poets actually do rather a lot of engineering in their work. They do it with words and language forms, for expressive purposes, and they do it to create very particular and highly crafted outcomes - just like casting instructors ! So we should not confuse notions of aestheticism with wooliness of approach or ethereal inconsequentialities. I can assure you that when I'm to be seen on a dewy pasture, composing some lines, I may well often be holding a daffodil to my nose, but I'm not doing it to smell the roses !! :lol: :lol:
Teither,
You're not Heinlein's brother by any chance? Nice prose.
Malcolm
Quote from: Teither on March 31, 2010, 06:30:55 PM
Alan,
So ... let me assure you, old chap, that you were quite definitely not one of the two......Mind you I'll refrain from saying which one of the two you were not !! :lol: :lol: :lol:
.........
I can assure you that when I'm to be seen on a dewy pasture, composing some lines, I may well often be holding a daffodil to my nose, but I'm not doing it to smell the roses !! :lol: :lol:
Malcolm,
Thank you, sir, and no relation to the chap. Funnily enough, in the context of this thread, I believe it was Robert Heinlein who once observed that " one man's "magic" is another's "engineering" ".
Magic, eh !!
J
Alan,
You're nearly there, old bean. It's just that you've got it the wrong way round :)! I think that casting is first and foremost engineering, which may be developed to such exquisite skill level that it becomes poetic, or balletic in its application. Peter, the Master, is the classic example of that. And I think that Andrew Toft is at that same point of refinement, as Scott observed.
But your analogy to teaching folk the fundamentals of drawing is spot on. I've lost count of the numbers of folk who have told me they couldn't draw for toffee. Then, when asked to lay out a basic diagram/map of how to get from point A to point B they almost invariably produce something perfectly acceptable. That's drawing ! And, for the purposes of developing their artistic skills, when you get them to try drawing simple objects, or even simple faces - I am not thinking here of any particular simple face :lol: :lol: - they discover for themselves that they can, with a bit of patience and practice do just fine. Some are happy to leave it at that. Others want to develop and some even end up as exhibitors at the big national shows. But, as I said right at the outset, each will learn best if taught, coached, instructed - call it what you will [ and, yes, I know these three are different things ] - in the way that best accommodates to his or her preferred way of learning. None benefits from being put down or made to feel inadequate. And, really, that's all I was saying in the first place.
Are we now, hopefully, at a point of agreement ? And, if so, precious, will you please try to show me how to accomplish some of these skills, eg hauling, stroke lengthening, with my wee single hander ? :)
God, I so love your stroke ! :lol: :lol:
Poor old Teither
I firmly believe that once you know the basics then it's ingraining muscle memory.
Since about December virtually all my casting at the casting club has been left handed. This has been a deliberate decision in order that I can switch hands really easilly at need on the river. When I went down the Clyde with Buzz, I continued and all my fishing that day was left handed.
In doing this all the faults that had long since gone with my right hand came back. Now they've mostly been worked out. The flying elbow, extended arm casting was there with a vengeance for the first few hours. Now it's a case of refining things.
The point is I know exactly what I should be doing but I was like a learner. There is little muscle memory so it is a much less intuitive process. I was very tempted a couple of weeks ago when Andrew Toft was looking over my shoulder and I was demonstrating a cast to one of the others to switch back to my right hand but resisted!
To get an insight into the beginners head it's the best way I know. The "head knowledge" is all there but you will cast like a beginner. I promise!
Malcolm,
I think you're right but I always found muscle memory hard to maintain, and more so the older I got. And tensions/ expectations get in the way too. In my golfing days my partner [ golfing ! ] and myself would be out two or three times midweek just enjoying the course and we'd be round in just over a couple of hours and each of us'd normally finish around par. Come the weekend medal days, with slow rounds and raised expectations, the tempos went " oot the windae " and we'd be lucky to hold on to our handicaps of 6 and 7 respectively. We eventually gave up playing in competitions and just settled for enjoying a few social and sociable [ and usually quite successful ] rounds for our week.
I'm not sure that our fishing gets affected to that extent, but I find the casting does.
Teither
Many people I know cast like a poet.
Usually William McGonagall
thanks dod!
i'd actually given up with this thread due to the overly analytical navel gazing...
Quote from: Ardbeg on April 02, 2010, 01:11:17 AM
A bit harsh Dave, some of the posters know their stuff and some of the readers enjoy what they're posting.
The thread certainly doesn't float everybody's boat but others can take something from it, a point made in several of the posts.
Cheers
Ardbeg
The thread didn't float my boat, I have to say. But....
We are all different. I mean in our abilities, our expectations, desires and needs....and I'm only talking about casting.
I am crap at some types of fishing and good at others. I'm probably good at the things I like and don't really care about the things I don't like or fancy. The rest of my life fits that pattern too.
Anyhow, back to casting. I love to fish rivers, so I want to fish them well. That's why I want to know all those presentation casts, mends and stuff. I need to be able to deal with wind on the river, so I need to know how to get an aerodynamic loop and to cast with various roll and spey casts.
If I only fished lochs from boats with traditional wet fly, I would be less interested in casting, because quite frankly I would only have to lift and lay safely.
If I was a bank loch fisher, I would be interested in casting for distance and I would want to be able to cast into the wind and deal with unfavourable winds. Mending and all that presentation stuff would be mostly irrelevant.
This in a nutshell is why I think we are all coming from different angles (oops, pun :)) in this thread. We each fish different styles in different locations. Some people would like to cast to the moon and others are more down to earth in their approach.
Me? I'm more inclined to aim accurately for the mound of Venus :)
Alex
I think that's fair comment re: lochs / rivers. River fishing requires a wider casting repertoire. However, that was not the subject of the thread.
Quote from: Alan on April 02, 2010, 04:50:47 PM
what was it again? :lol:
i have had many lessons, CPD days, demo's etc, read all the books and watched the vids, you see many different ways of explaining,
i also spend one quarter of my week preparing oral and visual methods of explaining and evaluating CAD, construction practice and art,
casting(with the exeption of teaching women and some beginners) is the most difficult, i think the problem is right here in this thread, several pages long and we have yet to pinpoint what specifically is needed to be explained never mind how:lol:
maybe someone should clarify the bits that confuse or which explanations are confusing.
What you need is a small focus group, 6 or 7 people of varying abilities and a group of instructors. Work closely over the course of a day maybe days maybe weeks and work on all of these points. Eventually some sort of pattern may emerge, test ideas etc. Blimey that would be some full on real research, probably worth it in the long run though - could develop/get over the problems that have been outlined!
It's mainly because of the effects complex currents in moving water have on your flies and the effect that has on the fish. There are other factors too which vary from place to place.
Quote from: Alan on April 02, 2010, 08:21:21 PM
this should be a seperate thread for sure
agreed
We are drifting into the realm of watercraft now. The only casting lesson I have had was when my mate showed me how to do it forty years ago. On the water, whether loch or river, I vary my cast to compensate for wind, drift or current. Someone trying to tell me what to do without demonstrating it would be a waste of time. Imagine that the person had lost their hearing, how could you explain without showing them. They don't have to be deaf not to hear. A veteran fly fisher who has been casting for years wouldn't hear because he feels he already knows, the beginner doesn't hear because they have no idea what is expected. They hear the words but not what is being said, they probably can't even remember your name after you introduced yourself :) The only way to get their attention is practically, by showing them, then explaining the reasons and the method.
Quote from: Alan on April 03, 2010, 05:01:56 PM
this is the closest yet to my experience of trying to teach someone that has been fishing for years,
with beginners likewise but usually they can relate what you do, why you do it and gradually do it a bit quicker, maybe because they dont immediately do something else automatically.
I have highlighted the words above as it seems you are saying that, as the original post alluded to, explaining how to cast doesn't work it has to be a practical experience.
On the button there Sandy.
You see a cast that may be useful. You watch carefully then do it yourself.
Good thread this.
My original 9 word post has so far led to 7 pages of 93 replies and 900 views and all because I stood in a field last Tuesday evening, with a fly rod trying stuff, watching the line behave and misbehave, thinking to myself what would be the clearest, most structured, least confusing, non contradictory approach to explaining this to someone who has never held a rod before.
And I still don?t know. :D
Alan,
I wasn't sure what to expect when you told me about this article last night. Now, having read through it several times [ mainly in an effort to reach a proper understanding of what these guys are actually saying - I don't like the American catch-phrase style of language-use ] I'm not sure what to think.
I think most of them are recognising that they need to be teaching in a style which suits the student/pupil/learner but only once does anyone actually use the word " learn ". There's plenty of talk about " teaching ". I do, of course, understand that the discussion was around teaching/instruction but I say again that I believe " learning " is the more important verb and that teachers will teach best when they understand how their pupil best learns. Instructors need to LEARN that !!
There does seem to be a welcome recognition of the pitfalls into which teachers can hurl themselves and that is " bang for buck " :) a good thing, especially in respect of showing off, as opposed to illustrating by demonstrating, their own skills.
I wasn't sure how to interpret the Lefty Kreh story - " you haven't listened to a....". The contributor thinks the story as recounted says it all - it didn't to me. I hope that he is dismissing Kreh's behaviour but I'm not sure if he is or is perhaps suggesting that the tale is in some way amusing.
But thanks for posting the article. It is an interesting read. I'll refrain from commenting on and shall indeed shall make no mention at all, none whatever, of the fact that some of these guys seem to think that only engineers and mathematicians etc are capable of thinking and learning through understanding detail, whether conceptual or otherwise. :D Pillocks !! :D
Finally, after seeing the election results, I rather fancy we might soon be having more to worry about than the niceties of how to teach people casting skills ! I don't touch alcohol, but I'm away for a good stiff dram right now !!!
Jim A
Quote from: breac uaig on May 07, 2010, 01:25:37 PM
I found that the worst type to teach fly casting, were people who had been spinning or beach casting, because you had to break them of the habit of punching the line out, it was better to teach people with no pre conceived ideas, :) breac uaig
I 100% agree.
I have the same problem myself when picking up a double hander, real tendency to push with the top hand. It's annoying especially as I don't cast a single hander with a forward push of the hand but rather a downward pull. :? And I know it's not the only style but it's the one I want to learn - it's a bugger mind you!!! Even although I never fish a double hander......