Are all these cast names over the score?

[Malcolm]

I was having a natter last week with a fellow forum member about effective casting from difficult places and one of us - I can't remember which of us it was - posited that there are only two basic casts: the overhead and roll.

Now I don't know much about cast names, although I have learned a few since I came onto this forum - however I looked up a quite a few this evening and tried to differentiate some of them. I have to say that I genuinely can't tell the difference between say an underhand, spey and jump roll. Neither can I tell the difference between a snake roll and the double or triple roll. 

Same with the  overhead - Belgian, steeple, arundel - all are minor variants of the overhead and we've all been doing them for years.

What do you think? Are the great and the good trying to confuse us or add to their own cachet? 

[haresear]

It was you who suggested that there are basically two casts Malcolm and I agreed.

I think now that we could take that a stage further and suggest that there is really only one cast. The delivery. The rest is just the set-up.

Are all spey casts, snake rolls, snap casts etc., not just descriptions of how we reposition the fly line prior to executing a roll cast? The basic roll cast is how each of these ends and is just a description of the forward cast, rather than how we set it up.

It follows that in the overhead cast, the backcast is just a way of sticking a length of line behind us so that we can then chuck it forward, using the same forward cast as in the roll cast.

We might argue that there are also side casts, Belgian casts and the like, but these are just variations on the basic principle that we need get line behind the rod in order to cast a line forward. Having said that, it is possible to  load or flex the rod in a roll cast without putting line behind us, but this is a pretty ineffective cast, relying on surface tension and forward thrust alone to load the rod.

Alex

[Wildfisher]

I think most of  the names are logical and useful.

For example :

?Snake roll?  is surely better than;

?yon cast when you draw an imaginary  9 in the air with the rod tip then finish it off with one of those actions where you delivery the line forward with a roll type thing that removes the necessity for a lot of clearance for a back cast?   

[aliferste]

I think now that we could take that a stage further and suggest that there is really only one cast. The delivery. The rest is just the set-up.

Spoken like a true conjurer  :hat3;

[corsican dave]

how about, "i managed to get the fly where i wanted it to go without getting caught up on anything and in the process got the fish to take it...."? :shock:

simplistic, but works for me :

(was jonathan swift a fly-fisher?)

[scotty9]

Corsican dave - absolutely right! These are just things for us to make forum threads about!  :lol:

Funny this has just been brought back, i'm currenty reading jason borger's book and the way i would put it is that there are two basic moves.

Roll cast and overhead cast (back and forward).

All the names are valid since they describe the cast that is being BASED on one of these. All spey casts have a roll cast, every off water cast has some form of back and forward motion ie overhead cast. The names just differentiate between variations and in some cases explain the difference.

[scotty9]

on June 6 Scotty9, I said exactly that and I have no Idea who Jason borger is  :roll:     breac uaig

Sorry for copying breac 

On the other hand Jason Borger is the man! Fly casting science central, his book is something else but only if you actually want to know everything about casting, if not it would be the most boring wad of paper in the universe! Quite a read though, very interesting to me.

[River Chatter]

You know Alan, you might just have stumbled upon something there. Often when I'm casting other fly fishers stand around me shaking there heads slowly from side to side, while sucking air noisily between clenched teeth. 

[Wildfisher]

I suppose  giving things names is part of what human communication is about.   I strive to do things the best I can,  so ?being happy with just catching a few fish? is stagnation  for me, a personal dead end. There has to be more to it. I suppose that?s the main reason I started this fly fishing forum ? communication, getting to know and learning from others.  Like it or hate it it?s part of what makes me me and why this forum is here at all.  But hell, there?s room for everyone. Those who get enjoyment from (in their minds) higher attainment and those who are just happy catching a few fish. Live and let live, if you don?t like  it ignore it ? but don?t  criticise others who do or post spoilers!  It?s been a pretty damned good  6 years here though. In this vein  I have only ever had to  put right one (ex) member who constantly questioned whether we should discuss things he could not see the need for or perhaps just did not understand. It?s all fair game.

[Fishtales]

Some stuff I came across looking for something else, as you do

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/the-body/18-the-whip-like-physics-of-fly-fishing

https://seesar.lbl.gov/anag/staff/bono/html/ASME_Bioengineering.pdf

http://www.flycastinginstitute.com/e-libraryfiles/FCI_E-L_Rod_Cast_102507.pdf