From: jimc@miterclamp.com
Date: August 8, 2012 3:06:43 PM EDT
To: <hillshead305@gmail.com>
Subject: Jim Chestnut ref: last definitions

 Hi Gordy,
My web host server went down and I sent this from my alternate email address to your obsolete addresses. It is up now, thankfully,  so I am re-sending it to this correct one.
 Hi Gordy,

I hope this reaches you as my entire website server and website host's site has crashed. Alll my emails are on that server, so I am trying to use my comcast email using the addresses for you from my temporay internet files I found through a search. 

Hi Everyone,

This is the last long one. Promise!

Given Gordy’s conviction that “I know from years of past experience that if we did undertake that project, we'd not leave this topic for a very long time, indeed !”,  and Paul’s that:  “I realise (and I'm sure you know too!) that we could go around in circles…”   I’ll close my little part of the circle and say no more. I’m not really qualified, anyhow, so  my thoughts are from a newby’s perspective. 

Craig said; “And here perhaps some of the separation of Creep and Slide  : Intent ?”  
Craig, Oh NO!  That is the paradox. The casting fault that ceases by definition the moment  you know you are doing it!  It’s  also  unfortunate the the sylables “intent” are in that word. 

What Paul really wanted to say, but couldn’t is:  “ Creep is the oblivious movement of  the rod… “.   He couldn’t because then he would have the younger kids crying, the yuppies storming off the casting field without paying for their lessons, and the red necks going for the buck knives on their belts. “Unconscious” movement falls into the same paradox as “unintentional” though at least the nasty “intent” part is gone.  

So, unfortunately, the only way out of the paradox is by using  “oblivious” because “oblivious” and “unoblivious” both mean the same thing, just like “flamable’ and “inflamable”. ; >)

But the important differentiation between slide and creep (as I understand) is that pure slide is translational movement during which the rod literally slides along the line and  does not pull the line with it. Pure drag is also transitional movement but the rod and line both translate the same distance.  Creep is primarily slow rotational movement which narrows the available Casting Arc for sure, the available Casting Stroke as well for sexyloopers, and I don’t know is on third. 

Paul, after reading what you said:

 Hi Jim,

I realise (and I'm sure you know too!) that we could go around in circles, but it is
deciding the actual beginning of Casting Arc that is one of the problems. If we pick
Rod Straight on backcast, Casting Arc would include Creep.

I don't know if I'm allowed to say this - Gordy will edit it out if I'm not - the
Glossary committee picked rotational acceleration that was sufficient to cause a
loop if continued.

Sexyloops picked when the purpose of the action was to form a loop.

I thought you were talking about the casting “Arc”.

Then after reading what Gordy replied to you:

You hit the nail squarely on the head.

The "sufficient to...." concept was one of the reasons I think the FFF definitions
were not approved by the board.  Some felt that by excluding DRAG from the CASTING
STROKE because by itself it wouldn't be sufficient to result in loop formation, left
the CASTING STROKE almost purely a matter of rotation providing enough acceleration
for loop formation.

I realized that you were talking about the “Casting Stroke” in the second paragraph and beyond.  So  Gordy was talking about the FFF “Casting Stroke’  as if it were being virtually eliminated by the exclusion of Drag, just as your casting stroke would be given the same "sufficient to" phrase. Therefore, the Casting stroke would essentially become the Casting Arc. 

So,  what makes sense to me, one Casting Arc, one Stroke and one Stop in one Cast is the exact thing the board does not want to do. Therefore,  rejecting that “sufficient to” phrase indicates they are now closer to agreement with you. 

But I see no  reason why the definition of  Casting Arc has to include anything about purpose or acceleration or function or anything else. To me,  it’s just  thing – an angle – two imaginary sticks  pointing away from each with a rod sliding between them while rotating. It almost (not much with yours) seems that the definitions are trying to eliminate all flaws from between those sticks to achieve perfection.  

The purpose of every single action of the entire cast is to form a loop to carry a fly out or back yonder.  And I don’t think that either the acceleration within that arc to help do it with,  nor trying to highlight  a specific purpose (which applies generally to the entire cast and not just that segment) should be the determing factor of its existance.
When and where the casting arc actually starts and ends is a value judgement left to  the instructor anyway, and his job is to determine suggestions on what modifications to it will  improve the cast, whether to enlarge, shrink or leave what he sees alone and suggest something else. 

Since the “arc’ is the prime mover and shaker in the cast where most all the action and force is concentrated, I think it should get the honorific title of “Casting Arc” :  the stroke could  just be the stroke and the stop the stop- even though are vital to the cast- just to help prevent confusion. 

In the Sexy definition of the Cast  there are two “ Casting”’s  ;  the “Casting” Stroke, and the “Casting” Arc:  there are three “Strokes”;   the “Casting” Stroke, the “Stroke” and the “Overall” Stroke.  (Even if you eliminated the “Stroke”, leaving just the “Overall Stroke” you would still have two strokes.)  Then we have 3 lengths: the casting arc length, the casting stroke length, and the overall stroke length. 

It seems to me that the more pieces the cast is diced up into, the harder it is to know where to dice it and  then get it all back together again with everyone agreeing which piece goes where, which separate technique goes where,  or even how many there are, especially when the brain cells start taking more frequent snoozes. 

Whether or not Drag and Creep “are” occuring  together is again, I think,  entirely a judgement call and, as such,  should be determined by the instructor based on whatever he feels are the appropriate criteria in each instance, and should not be based on a definition. That, too, is  what’ll happen anyway. 

So my philosophy and the end of this little part of the circle is that the purpose of definitions I think is not to explain or elaborate, but to provide a very basic starting point that real explanations which mean something can be built with  and elaborated on every which way. 

Despite all the work and effort and frustration and arguments and cantankerous bickering that has gone on so long for Paul and Gordy and everyone else involved in the “Definitions” projects, it has had a huge positive influence on a whole lot of us by getting us all thinking in minute detail of the complex interrelations between every single bodily movement from the start to the end of the cast. And nowhere have I seen this process so eloquently described as Gordy has done in so few words. He’s captured the “magic” and the “beauty” of it. 

But one way or another, I agree that something should be done as soon as possible, and it should be, if possible,  the same everyplace. Good luck to all involved, thank you for your time and work,  and please accept my sympathies.   Whew!!

Cheers,
Jim