[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
  • Thread Index
  • Date Index
  • Subject Index

    • FW: Re: Fly Casting Literature

    Group....

    This is a really great offer !

                                                          Gordy




     

    From: "Bob Rumpf - The Flye & The Pen" <caddis@xxxxxxx>
    To: "Gordon Hill" <hillshead@xxxxxxx>
    Subject: Re: Fly Casting Literature
    Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 15:55:40 -0500

    Hi Gordy,
     
                  If you think it could be helpful to the group, sure, send it out. If one thing can be learned from these observations, I  feel it is always safer to say an individual is known to have said this, or popularized this. Based on my reading experience,  I just get a little leery saying they were the first one to have said or done something. As I said before, we keep re-inventing things and re-naming them, but if you look closely enough and delve into the past far enough, someone has invariably said or done the same thing before. To repeat myself, the only exception would be advances in technology resulting in the obvious,  improved rods, lines, etc..
     
                Coincidentally, Walter Simbirski just ordered Mottram's book from me which brought to mind the fact that we never did mention that I will give a 10% discount on all books sold to members of the group. I sincerely want everybody to understand that this is not an effort on my part to commercialize my group affiliation. But since group members will buy books when they will anyway, they may as well buy them at a discount. I have a raft of casting books, but unfortunately they are, for obviously reasons, all on my personal reference shelves.
     
    Site URL - www.flyepenbooks.com
     
    Thank you Gordy,
     
    Bob Rumpf
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Gordon Hill
    To: caddis@xxxxxxx
    Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 9:52 AM
    Subject: Re: Fly Casting Literature

    Bob...

    Good observations !!!

    In going back to Don Phillips book, I note that on p. 45, the author does mention J. C. Mottram's contribution.....but offers no details except to note a table which I couldn't find in his text.

    I have no doubt that you are correct that many of the things we find in the current literature and which we credit to authors were actually invented years earlier.  Sometimes they were used by anglers but never published......other times they were described in the fly casting literature, but either given no names.

    Your input as a real student of fly casting literature is valuable.

    I DO think this sort of thing is educational to our Group members.......may I have you permission to send this out ?

                                                                     Gordy

                                                                       




     

    From: "Bob Rumpf - The Flye & The Pen" <caddis@xxxxxxx>
    To: "Gordon Hill" <hillshead@xxxxxxx>
    Subject: Re: Long and short rods.
    Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 15:42:30 -0500

    HI Gordy,
     
                  This is just for you as it has no value to our group as regards casting knowledge. Please don't misconstrue this to be argumentative, it just happens to be a subject I really enjoy and I thought you might want to better understand where I was coming from with my remark about Vince Marinaro being the first to use that particular definition. Incidentally, while we're talking about Vince, I had the unique pleasure of fishing with both Vince and Charlie Fox on Charlie's water on the Letort, it was quite an experience.
     
                  I have been a student of angling literature for at least 45 years. I tenaciously read our literature because I find angling history fascinating. When I alluded to the fact that Vince may not have been the first to describe the effective rod length, my comment comes from the experience of finding this to be the case so many times before. Angling literature is famous for having authors that "borrow". In angling that's what it is politely called unless it is blatant plagiarism, which also occurs frequently. For example; I have an article awaiting publishing by Schmookler in his Art of Angling Journal, the article is based on Richard Franck's (author of Northern Memoirs,1694) brutal criticism of Walton's The Compleat Angler 1653, whereupon Franck accuses Walton of outright plagiarism. You only need to read the much overlooked and talented author J.C. Mottram to see where a lot of both Marinaro and Schwiebert's material was garnered. In reality, there is very little in angling that is new. we just have a way of re-inventing and re-naming things. Vince and Schwiebert are both given credit for popularizing fishing the "no-see-ums", you can find the basis for this information, way back in 1914, in Mottram's book also. Another example is Joe Humphrey's nymph fishing tactics. Big "Jim" Leisenening used much the same methods back in the 1930's. If you ever have the time and inclination, read Mottram's Fly Fishing (Some New Arts and Mysteries) first published 1914, he explains that our present day March Brown is mentioned as the "Big Red" in Dame Juliana's Treatyse of Fysshing with an Angle way back in 1486. Again, there is very little that is new other than that which is the result of technology. These facts do not detract from the tremendous contributions made by these folks, it just makes the whole scene more interesting for those of us who have the inclination to study our wonderful literary heritage which is totally unrivaled by any other pursuit.
     
    Regards,
     
    Bob Rumpf
    ----- Original Message -----
    Cc: mildbill@xxxxxxxxxxxx ; Brydnlnims@xxxxxxxxxxx ; cezannealexander@xxxxxxxxxxx ; crazycharlie@xxxxxxx ; croberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; blacksalmon@xxxxxxxxxxx ; DermSox@xxxxxxx ; gladesflybum@xxxxxxxxx ; gavin@xxxxxxxxxxx ; hillshead@xxxxxxx ; iverson@xxxxxxxxx ; jfs523@xxxxxxxxxxx ; jerry_puckett2001@xxxxxxxxx ; kathleen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; thedamselfly@xxxxxxxxxxx ; plami@xxxxxxxxxxx ; ray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; kerrrc@xxxxxxxxx ; simbirsw@xxxxxxx ; bobbeanblossomFFF@xxxxxxxxxxx ; hillcathy@xxxxxxx ; dnewpher@xxxxxxxxxxxx ; donjack@xxxxxxxxxxx ; douglas.swift@xxxxxxxxxxxx ; erniemaynard@xxxxxxxxxxx ; flyfsfrank@xxxxxxx ; hlpc@xxxxxxx ; jeff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; harveyjl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ; t.maltese@xxxxxxxxx ; skifishvail@xxxxxxxx ; jfv@xxxxxxxxxxxx ; trallag@xxxxxxx ; captflyrod@xxxxxxx ; mollysemenik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; fraudflies@xxxxxxx ; shane@xxxxxxxxx ; snowmonkey29@xxxxxxx
    Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 2:29 PM
    Subject: Re: Long and short rods.

    Bob....

    WELL DONE!

    A couple of comments.

    1.) Not everyone agrees that a fly rod is a flexible 3rd class lever.  I do, but that's still open to discussion.

    2.) As far as I could find, Vince Marinaro WAS the first to describe the effective rod length.  Another writing in which this is discussed in some detail is, THE TECHNOLOGY OF FLY RODS by Don Phillips. (p.45.).

                                                                         Gordy




     

    From: "Bob Rumpf - The Flye & The Pen" <caddis@xxxxxxx>
    To: "Gordon Hill" <hillshead@xxxxxxx>
    Subject: Re: Long and short rods.
    Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 17:25:28 -0500

    Hi Gordy,
     
                  Here are my answers to the new quiz. My answers follow the questions and are in maroon for easy reading.
     
     
     
    Thank for the quiz,
     
    Bob Rumpf
     

    Hi, Group....

     A mini-quiz:

    1.) List as many advantages and disadvantages of long vs. short fly rods.

    A.) Longer 3rd class lever

    B.) Much better line control for mending after the cast.

    C.)  Longer drift achieved with reach cast due to longer rod length (follow the line with the rod and take advantage of the extra length on the other end of the drift also)

    D.) Much easier to make distance casts, due to superior lever.

    E.) Roll casting is easier.

    F.) Pickups are easier.

    G.) The longer rod length helps keep the line on your back cast above the brush on the river/lake bank/shore.

    2.) Lefty once wrote, " The longer the fly rod, the more it helps you make the cast."

         a.) List any thoughts you may have in support of that statement.

    Ans.) Longer lever for one.

         b..) What, if any, are the limitations of that statement.?

    Ans.) When rod reaches a length that becomes difficult to handle, then obviously nothing is gained.

         c.)  Give a fishing circumstance where a 10' single handed fly rod might be preferable to an 8 1/2' rod.

    Ans.) "Stick-fishing" pocket water (behind boulders) such as upper Madison, similiar to dapping.

    Ans.) Achieving long natural drifts while big water nymphing (or fishing dries for that matter) using reach cast in combination with repeated flip mends.

    Ans.) If you enjoy, or want to learn single hand, Spey casting, a longer rod, though not absolutely necessary, is helpful.

         d.)  Can you think of a fishing circumstance where a 5' long fly rod might be best ?

    Ans.) Fishing small mountain streams with tree lined banks and a canopy.

        e.) Lefty taught us a trick to solve the problem of the angler out on the stream in just such a, "short rod circumstance" as in, d.) who finds himself with only a 9' rod at his disposal.  (His short rod is 2 miles back at the car !)

    What is Lefty's trick ?

    Ans.) Slide your rod hand up onto the butt section of the rod close to the butt guide, you can make the effective casting length of your rod up to 18" shorter.

     3.) Can you come up with an accepted definition of, EFFECTIVE ROD LENGTH ?

    Ans.) The measured cord that subtends the arc of the fully bent rod.

    4.)  Who first described this ?

    Ans.) I know Vince Marinaro described this, but was he actually the first, who knows?

    5.) Name two books in which this is described.

    Ans.) "Modern Dry-Fly Code" & "In The Ring of the Rise"

                                                                   Gordy