Walter & Group........
From Guy Manning:- (Also, be sure to read Guy's note on MCCI reaquirements v. the level of Group discussions, and my comment below his.)
Gordy,
This
link: http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n163/grhen/cast/040cf499.gif
is a line drawing of 3 basic loop shapes.
A =
Upper pointed leading edge
B =
Lower pointed leading edge
C =
Round leading edge
To
begin with when, all 3 of these shapes can be formed without hauling. So to
attribute a late or early haul to their formation is inaccurate don’t you
think?
Woody
Woodland and I played around with this one day for A and B. We came to the
conclusion that using fast action rods we are going to get A. The only way we
were able to mimic B was to use a soft rod and attempt to finish the stroke with
the rod tip moving into RSP in a downward trajectory. If we used the same rod
and finished with the rod tip moving into RSP at a horizontal or greater angle
then we would get A. We couldn’t get the fast actioned rods to make the B shape.
Again these tests were made without hauling the line.
Years ago at Long Beach Casting Club I would judge fly accuracy games and noted the different loop shapes (which were easy to see from the perspective of being in front of the caster and near the target). In those games few people would haul once they got the fly to the target distance. Both of these shapes were apparent to me back then and I only saw shape C with newer casters who had not achieved tight loops and good stops.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Guy.....
Good information. You are getting us closer to actual ways of making the desired loop shapes.
As you have pointed out, the haul is NOT needed to do this.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Important message from Guy Manning which should be read carefully by all MCCI Candidates :-
On
another note:
Jim
Laing writes: "I would like to be able to change the loop shape on
command at 40, 60 and 86 feet... my goal is to do this for my next MCCI
attempt (only then will I know I'm ready)..."
Going
from a narrow to a wide loop is part of the test, but changing where the leading
edge occurs is not. Would it be useful information to know what creates each
model? Yes.
Is
it a necessary skill? No.
I
see things here, occasionally, where someone is told that some information or
skill is “necessary” to take one of the tests. But it is my understanding, on
the performance test, that I can only grade someone on the whether or not they
can perform the skills asked written on the page. I can ask them to show me
another way to do something or show me some kind of specialty cast, but if they
fail to make the cast I cannot mark them down if they performed what was
written.
I
think the candidates who read this forum should understand that the level of
discourse here is often very high and somewhat cutting edge, but often not
directly related to the knowledge base required of a Master candidate. Not all
candidates for the test read this forum, yet many of them pass. When I took this
test there was no study guide and there were no user groups/study groups. The
only thing I did to bone up for the MCI test was to practice my long casts, and
that was due to the fact that I was recovering from an elbow injury. When it was
over, I thought the test was thorough but not difficult.
My
main point here is that a number of good candidates are possibly being put off
by what they perceive as an ever increasing bar height that they have to reach
and I think this forum sometimes contributes to that perception.
If
you:
1.
Can
do the performance test easily
2.
Feel
you have a good grasp on the subject (and that doesn’t mean you have to have a
scientific understanding of it)
3.
Are
good at teaching
Then
step up and take the test. The worst thing that is going to happen is that you
will find out what you don’t know.
A
secondary point:
I
can’t hold the fact that a candidate doesn’t know the exact definition of
“acceleration”, or the engineers idea of “power” vs. “force” against them. That
is specialized knowledge at this point and is not called out by the FFF as being
mandatory information to know. To demand this knowledge from all candidates is
counter-productive and has the danger of creating an exclusionary atmosphere
within the MCI group.
Guy
Manning
FFF
Master Certified Casting Instructor
Moderator
FFFCCI Yahoo Group
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
COMMENT: Guy is to be commended to bringing us down to Earth, here.
His description of what is really needed to pass the MCCI exam is on target. We cannot and should not fail a candidate on any cast or task not actually listed on the published practical exam.
Whether the oral part of the exam is given separately or at the same time as the casting portion should not matter at all ... this is at the discretion of the examiners.
As we give the oral exam, we try to stick to the five topics listed in the Master Study Guide and to use plain language .... not deep scientific materal at all. This is graded, not by brute numbers, but by the overall impression of just how competent an instructor the candidate appears to be.
We do expect that the candidate will be able to make logical explanations which would be understandable to a student in language easily understood by all. At the same time, these explanations must be reasonably accurate so as not to be at gross variance with basic scientific principles.
Guy points out that the level of discourse in this Study Group has risen to a very high, "cutting edge" level. This is beyond the level required of a candidate during the exam. This was in no way done to intimidate MCCI candidates, yet I can see how that could occur ..... if so, that would be a distinct fault !
In line with this, is a statement made by Tom White. He said that in questioning a candidate of fly tackle, it would not expect him to be able to go into the details of how to make a bamboo rod.
Years ago, Rick Whorwood and I started this Group with the specific intent of improving our own casting and teaching knowledge. We then morphed it into one which would be useful to others who were preparing for their exams. That was done because of the dismal pass-failure rate of candidates many of whom came to the exam with no idea of the required level of knowledge and performance. The Master Study Guide was born with the same idea in mind.
This, "forum" now serves two purposes:
1.) The helping of MCCI candidates as they prepare for their exams.
2.) Continued education of all of us as we try to go beyond what was required at the MCCI Certification level.
Having Master candidates join in on these advanced discussions will help them have a better understanding of casting mechanics and other teaching details which will enable them to logically come up with answers to casting questions posed not only by their examiners, but by their students. It helps them to form these answers from a large font of general knowledge rather than from brute memorization.
Guy mentions the concept of, "raising the bar". That has gradually occurred over the years anyway as the requirements for Master Certification increased with more detailed questions on the oral exam by almost all examiners as well as the inclusion in recent years of basic knowledge of Spey casting along with new and better teaching techniques, more sophisticated tackle, and the slightly modified casting task requirements put forth by the Master Testing Committee exampled by the new requirements for demonstrating the tailing loop which will probably be passed, soon, by the CBOG.
That, "bar", hopefully, will never be raised to the ridiculous level of requiring advance math. or physics for casting instructors.
Gordy
