MCI Exam - Definitions

Walter Simbirski & Group...

[GH] Tony Loader sends this in response to your help with his questions :

Hi Gordy,

Thanks to you and to all who responded to those questions. The information will be very helpful.

Regards,

Tony.

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

[GH] As we host our MCI exams, we sometimes get into questions involving terms and "definitions". Since we do not as yet have an officially approved FFF glossary, most examiners accept as answers, reasonable explanations which indicate the candidate knows how to relate them to casting and teaching.

I've just received two more messages on "definitions" which relate to this.

>From Dave Hutchinson :

I really appreciate this last series on MCI prep. Particularly since I am going through that process at this time.

In my early work life, I was a Class A Professional Golfer (as designated by the PGA). I taught golf to numerous students and also struggled with terms and the definitions of various terms used in teaching.

The PGA also experienced what we now face in this area. As advances were made in equipment (golf clubs and golf balls) the problem became greater. However, when teaching beginners the terms used were very much universal. The real problems in this area became more acute with the advanced player.

It has become now popular for the Tour players such as Tiger Woods to employ personal teacher that constantly are observing their play and practice sessions. Many of these "SUPER TEACHERS" still do not agree on many of the technical terms that are used to describe the golf swings. It has been my experience while teaching beginning fly fishing students that they are not concerned with the exact meaning of the terms that we use, but just want to be able to gat the fly to the fish.

Dave Hutchinson

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

[GH] Dave,

That is the very problem we have with fly casting terms. Definitions don't really matter when teaching new casters. They help a great deal at an advanced level as when instructors communicate with one another, as we mentor and coach MCI candidates, and as we examine at that level.

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

[GH] Walter Simbirski comes in as a Master with a scientific and mathematical background :

Hi Gordy,

I have a few comments about definitions.

Why do we create definitions and who do we create them for?

Everyone needs to know and understand some level of definitions. For example, I teach all of my beginning fly fishing students about line weights, hook sizes, etc. I do this so that when they walk in to a fly shop to buy a

dry fly rod for mountain streams they don't end up with a 10 wt rod with matching 7 wt fast sinking

line and a box full of streamers and midges in size 2 or larger. I don't teach beginners terms like

rsp, slp, launch point, etc. because they are already on information overload by the time the terms

would be useful. But I may use terms like "smooth application of power", even though in the

back of my mind I will be thinking that "smooth" has no specific meaning and "power" is the wrong word,

because most people have an idea of what "smooth application of power" means or they quickly understand

when they try it. Similarly the idea of loop size being controlled by the length of your "speed up

and stop" is confusing as heck if we over analyze it but it conveys an idea to most people.

All well and good but what about when we try to convey an idea to a casting instructor who lives on the

other side of the globe via email. "Smooth application of power" is going to generate (or it should) more

questions than answers. "Constant torque" provides a wealth of information in just two words because

of the correctness and preciseness of the words being used and because most of the people in your

discussion group have spent time discussing these terms and understand them.

Most of the stuff we are struggling with has little to do with beginner students. We want them to have fun

so they will enjoy the sport. The technical definitions are for us - not the students.

Another comment is that we often try to use technical terms from other fields (physics, engineering,

medicine, etc.) because they seem to make sense but this can lead to confusion. A case in point is

the word "load" - in engineering terms "load" is the amount of force exerted on a body. I don't know how

"load" got into the fly casting instructor lexicon but my guess is that somebody (most likely an engineer)

realized that the amount of bend in the rod is a direct measure of the "load" on the rod so it was logical

to think of load and bend as being synonymous. As instructors we like to know that, all other things being

equal, the greater the bend in the rod the longer the cast and -what are the things that bend the rod?

As the skill levels of our students increase we find ways of introducing these ideas to our students but

we will communicate them in ways that make sense to our students. So the introduction of the term "load"

has been beneficial to our sport but since we don't have a formal definition it can lead to confusion. We've

probably all been presented with the scenario of holding a rod horizontally by the handle such that gravity

bends the rod and then been asked if the rod is loaded. If our definition is that load is a measure of the

bend in the rod then by definition any time a rod is bent it is loaded. But if we lack a formal definition we

open the door for the question, "Is it possible to bend the rod without loading it?" This is a bit of a pet

peeve for me because it is a time waster and also it allows words in our lexicon to be used as weapons

(i.e. how can I confound this CI candidate?) rather than as tools.

Cheers

Walter

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

[GH] So true !

I like your statement, "The technical definitions are for us - not the students."

The theoretical physicist can probably find inaccuracies and challenges to any one of our "definitions". If we could refine each one to the point of being scientifically correct, I'm afraid only scientists would understand them.

Your last comment on words from our lexicon being used as "weapons" needs to be addressed for our candidates lest some get the wrong impression:

I think I speak for almost if not all of our examiners when I say that as we host these exams, we want our candidates to pass. We suffer our own disappointment when they don't .... yet we must keep high standards.

As I serve as lead examiner, I try hard to get the very BEST out of the candidate. The last thing I want to do is to confuse in any way. I'm confident you do the same.

Gordy