Closing topic (Commentary)

I know you wish to retire the topic of these weighty messages so, if you choose not to publish this, my final response, I’m okay with that. I just want to clarify my thoughts on the subject to at least you.

At one point it was suggested that maybe I was looking for the answers to be handed to me and other candidates. This is not true. When I suggested that maybe all the geeky talk be moved to its own study group where those who wish may join, it was with the intention of that group continuing with their higher scientific level of talk. But, NOT to keep the discussion from the MCI Candidates, rather, for that group to distill that higher level of discussion down to a level that CCI’s can easily understand and use themselves in their instruction to others. It is, I believe, what an MCI’s responsibility is, just as it is the CCI’s responsibility to instruct in as few words, and as clear and easy to understand as possible. Does this not hold true for MCI’s?

Also, I do not feel it is your SOLE responsibility as to what gets included in these study group emails. It is the responsibility primarily of all MCI’s partaking in the process. If the day comes when you really think you are causing harm it will probably be because the information has not been distilled and presented in a manner that serves the majority of its members. Hence, my reasoning for, and the purpose of, the Advanced MCI Casting Study Group.

As you may imagine, I spend many hours on the messages I send out to the Group. If I split the Group into one with advanced super scientific theory and the other offering practical "non-geeky" material there would not be enough hours in the day for me to accomplish both.

Thirteen years ago, Rick Whorwood and I started the whole thing with nothing more than a two candidate "Group" designed to further our own knowledge as we prepared to take our MCI exams. Each of us passed with ease...... but many others did not.

We took note of the abysmal pass/flunk rate which existed at the time. That led to the idea that if we continued our back and forth study messages and added Master candidates, that this would provide a medium for disseminating knowledge which went beyond the outdated texts and skirted the "cutting edge" of casting information. To do this, we were fortunate in having true experts join in to help. Among them were very long experienced masters, authors, and FFF CBOG members.

That gave me a mix of true long standing experts from around the World who could and DID correct me and some of our contributors as we presented less than perfect information. I learned mountains from them and our members as the years progressed. With this "system" of checks and balances, information became readily available to MCI candidates many of whom felt and stated that it improved their teaching abilities, their understanding of fly casting at a high level, and (not at all least) helped them pass their Master exams.

Then, an unanticipated thing happened. We had a large number of discussions which went way beyond the scope of preparation for Master Certification and deep into the scientific theories behind the mechanics of fly casting. For some, this was a delight. For many others, a departure from our mission. Still others looked at it as unneeded "geek talk" which didn't help them at all and made them more insecure than ever over the actual requirements for the Master's exam.

So, I feel I must chose an approach which will work well to meet the needs of the Master candidate if I am to follow my own original mission of improving Master study.

The alternatives include turning the Group over to an official arm of the FFF, forming a Wiki loaded with the archived information collected with ongoing participation by those interested, or retiring the Group altogether. I think the former will eventually occur, since I see the seeds being sown with CBOG discussions. That will be a good thing.

In a few days, I'll take some time off for Holiday travel and family. After that, I'll return with our original mission firmly in mind. Basic physics will be included but only as easy to understand supportive material when relevant to the teaching and casting topic. Scientific theory and detail will be relegated to attachments for those interested in additional background.

great post there from Dan. Something that I'd like to see is more about how one actually teaches. We could go through cast by cast; take the roll cast for example - what methods to teach (there are many), what faults, how to correct the faults?

I appreciate Gordy that has made possible my participation in this group. Since you can verify for the numerous mistakes in my messages I do not speak English. Apologizes. I hope you can understand the fundamental of my opinions.

I believe that a fly casting instructor should know the sufficient physics to understand, grosso modo, the relations caster-rod-line along the cast. Without this knowledge it is difficult to separate the basics of what is only style. I have checked that this frequently happens.

I don't believe that a greater level of technical knowledge the an casting instructor complicates its explanations. Rather just the opposite: the clarity of the explanations is born of the clarity of the thoughts, and it is difficult to have clear and guessed right thoughts if we speak without understanding what it is what we are saying. On the other hand, according to my personal experience, more I know the physics of the fly casting more easier I find to speak my students with simple words.

"Must they then unlearn the simple side to progress, or are we suggesting that any mentoring of prospective instructors, even to a CCI level, should include introductions to abstract theories and a questioning of everything from the beginning?"

I’m astonished and deeply dismayed at the thinking behind this….maybe I’ve been doing it all wrong…I have always hoped that in the process of helping candidates to a CI qualification we act as a catalyst in the discovery of new and interesting things about our sport and how we teach it.

What is there about discovering complexity that could conceivably mean that a candidate will be “damaged” in the process ? What possible reason is there for “simplicity” to be “unlearned” ?

In complete contrast to Dans position on this, my opinion, for what bits worth, is that if an MCCI is mentoring a CCI and doesn’t include introductions to abstract theories or encourage a questioning approach to the received wisdom then they shouldn’t be mentoring CCI’s at all.

"That scenario would be any FFF CCI or MCI serving up a current and unproven/unprovable Internet theory on the actual physics and behaviour of a plastic string in the air to a student with a greater knowledge and understanding of physics than the instructor himself/herself."

I have seen this very thing take place. Sadly it is not normally a current or new and unproven theory that causes the problem but an old and unproven theory borrowed and peddled by an unquestioning instructor as “truth” because they know no better or are unable to modify and articulate the concept in their own words. It is toe curlingly embarrassing, and it is exactly why CCIs and MCCIs should take care not to claim that oversimplifications of convenient “fishing physics” which clash with 400 years of classical mechanics, and which can be easily understood by a 14 year old, are a “true” explanation of how something takes place during a cast.

It seems pretty obvious to me, contrary to the position that we should ignore these things in the mentoring of a CCI, that the possibility of avoiding such an unpleasant situation is going to be easier if an instructor of any hue is advised how to keep up to date with the controversies surrounding current thinking….or maybe just recommended to read a basic school physics book.

"When actual CCIs preparing for MCI are stating in their own words that they are "confused", and that this type of information has "lessened my desire" to pursue MCI certification, perhaps we are indeed leaving the track."

How very depressing that the idea that an enquiring mind and the learning of new things, that involvement in informed debate and the questioning of the status quo, should be considered detrimental to either the program or an individual instructor. This is pleading for lowest common denominator stasis, for mediocrity in understanding and a dull, uninteresting program with prescribed texts beyond which we cannot speak. Then it’s easy and everyone can pass it so long as they learn the catechism.. ?? ..is this really what we want ? Does having to get to grips with new and challenging information really lessen someone’s desire ? I thought that was part of the process…maybe I’ve been doing it all wrong and a CCI doesn’t need to know jack about anything so long as they can parrot the approved the texts….

After teaching for 13 years, I would just like to add one comment about my own instruction experience. My students have included actual rocket scientists, brain surgeons and many other people with enviable educations. My experiences with this type of student have always been both productive and pleasant. I honestly believe that this is a result of my efforts toward keeping it simple. When an individual takes a little time away from this type high-pressure career to pursue something they intend for relaxation, I am of the opinion that their goal is not to have their vocabulary tested, nor their understanding of physics brought to bear. I have received many compliments for my ability to explain casting using simple analogues that I am often told are retained and applied by the student as they practice on their own.

I am of the honest opinion that were I to ask a student to rapidly decelerate the rod, sooner or later some bright soul would ask me; Are you trying to tell me to stop the rod? If that's what you're trying to tell me, why not just tell me to stop the rod?

I think most of us already agree on speaking in simple terms to a student. Great differences of opinion have emerged on the level to be used for Master candidate study.