Definitions

Gordy, Thanks for the opportunity to comment on these two actions. I
now understand clearly what is going on and why "creep" cannot be part
of the casting stroke. Its how I learn things - take a contrarian
position and invite discussion about why it is and isn't so (mostly in
my own head). It means I'm often wrong but if I learn from that what
the hell........... I feel I've sorted it out for myself rather than
learned it just because someone else says its so.

Drag is of course a different issue. I bet even Steve Rajeff drags a
little when he goes for that last big cast. If you drift I think you
must drag because you don't want to begin a rotation from "back there"
or you'll wind up pushing. Isn't the best cure for creep learning to
drift?

Thanks, Peter Morse

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Whether CREEP and/or DRAG are within the stroke or outside of it will depend upon the chosen definition of CASTING STROKE.

If we choose one which allows creep to be within the stroke & rod arc, then it can't decrease stroke length and is isn't likely to decrease available rod arc. It can decrease available EFFECTIVE stroke length and rod arc leading to a necessity to define effective stroke length and effective rod arc.

As I stated, yesterday, if DRAG is outside the stroke, it can decrease available stroke length. If within the stroke, it can increase available stroke length.

All this can become terrribly complicated and frankly meaningless until we define CASTING STROKE and CASTING ARC.

The caster can drift way back and still cast well with little drag as long as he can maintain sufficient rod bend to match the dimension of his casting arc in order to approximate a straight line path of the rod tip. Steve Rajeff is one of very few casters who has the strength and timing to do that.

Your comment about a "cure" for creep being a drift is right on, but not infallible. It works mainly because the caster is concentrating on moving the rod tip back in the direction of the unrolling loop rather than sneaking it forward as creep.

Now: Consider the caster who does just that.... drifts the rod back in the direction of the unrolling loop. The loop unfurls, and THEN he slowly rotates the rod forward with just enough acceleration to go from zero to "slow". Having done that, he accelerates to his point of rapid deceleration (stop). This caster has demonstrated BOTH BACK DRIFT AND CREEP and has shortened either his available casting arc or his available effective casting arc depending upon the chosen definition of rod arc. This will increase the likelihood of his using inappropriate application of power ergo a tailing loop despite the fact that he drifted !

What I'm leading up to, is that the prime definitions depend upon one another.

This is one of the things which lead to years of deliberation before coming up with the entire list of definitions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

More thoughts from Tony Loader. My comments in bold red italics within his text..... Gordy:

The single most difficult task in all of flycasting must surely be to arrive at a set of definitions that are broad enough to be strictly accurate and specific enough to be useful.

For me, a casting stroke must necessarily include any rod motion which accelerates the line but I can not say with any certainty where any particular stroke begins (does it include any creep or slide?) or ends (RSP1? MCF? RSP2? forward drift?). I look forward to a definition.

Yes. That is what I mean about having a definition for casting stroke, first. Also, there is not general agreement on whether acceleration insufficient to cause loop formation should be included. Some say yes, others say no.

Is not "Slide" however, distinctly different to "Drag" in flycasting terms?

Another problem.... you see some instructors use the terms as synonyms. I and many others don't.

The way I see it, to "Slide" is not to accelerate the line, but rather to simply reposition the rod. Rod and line hands are moving closer to each other. The line is still being pulled by the loop in the opposite direction to the rod movement i.e. the line is effectively shooting through the guides.

To "Drag" is to pause longer for the loop to almost fully unroll, with the rod far back, then move the line hand forward in tandem with the rod so as to purposefully accelerate the line in the direction of rod motion.

Even if we simplify it by ingnoring the line hand ( as when it isn't used at all with the line trapped by the casting hand to the cork )there can be no more acceleration of the fly rod than that achieved by the hand during translation. That is precious little. Granted, it is added to the much greater acceleration produce by rotation.

Although the rod motion is the same i.e. translation only, and in the direction of the forthcoming cast, the timing is different and the line is doing something very different during the move.

I'll assume you mean different than the use of rotation or rotation combined with translation. If so:-