After MCI / Teaching styles

Hi Gordy,
What next? This seems to be even more exciting. Obviously I need to at least maintain the level I have achieved which requires continued practice. In doing the continued practice I find that I am analyzing how can I do that better? How coould I make this task easier? Can I do it with my left hand. What are the little nuances that are paramount to making a really good cast and how can I incorporate them into my teaching? What is the simplest language that I can use to get this across to my student or the best method for having the student achieve success? How much can I improve?(No one knows the answer to that and thus it should become a lifelong quest). The learning curve is going to grow steeper and improvement will come much less quickly. In reference to that for those who have not read "Mastery" I would highly recommend it. Continued teaching is a must. Continued learning is a must. Never pass up an opportunity to cast with the "pros."Go out and experiment with different casts. Is there a better way to do it? In short it is a never ending quest with never ending excitement because of the opportunity to just keep trying. Now that is off the top of my head but I suspect that my answer would not be much different if I sat down and gave it long thought.
Jim

Ralph Tomaccio in response to Jeff Barefoot's way of looking at fly casting terms and names :-

From Jeff Barefoot on discussion of tracking, casting planes, and loop planes. My comments in his text in bold red italics (Ralph)

I have shared Spey lessons without ever mentioning the word "Spey" or "Single,double,snap T, ect". Why use instructors jargon when you can omit it and only use tip path descriptions. I flinch when I hear teaching concepts described with peoples names such as Lefty, Joan, Mel, style of casting.

I don’t see the words “Spey, Double Snap T etc.” as “instructors jargon”. I started seeing these words and learning about them from all the fly fishing related magazines long before my desire to become an instructor. I feel good instructors should use both general descriptions as well as relating casting techniques and jargon to those associated with it. The general descriptions serve in helping those just beginning learning to cast. Secondly, there may be those who are taking lessons from us who have already done a little reading on their own from the better-known instructors and who may be able to relate these descriptions better to those instructors. It may help them “connect the dots” in what they have read and what they are currently learning. Maybe it will cause a light to go on and help them achieve a big “Ah Ha! Now I get it”. And, if THAT happens, wouldn’t that be a nice feeling.

Thirdly, even if the newer students never heard of Lefty, Joan, Mel, etc. before, hearing it from us may inspire them to delve deeper into those instructors’ teachings. If not, little is lost by mentioning them, yet much to be gained.

To me it might expose an instructor’s lack of depth of understanding. To me it is using words that don't quantify. Descriptions such as over and underpowered, vertical, 45 deg off vertical, horizontal do quantify. Not to say that I always use math related words to teach. I have diagnosed faults and taught presentation casts using analogies such as "this time throw the loop off the rod tip more like a bluegill not a flounder" [while unrolling my arm vertical]

If done correctly (and that’s what we’re trying to learn here) I think it does just the opposite. I believe it shows that an instructor not only knows how to quantify, but also relates technique to other instructors in a broader sense within our sport. Again, possibly encouraging them to find out just who these other well respected instructors are and what they have to offer.

Ralph Tomaccio

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Ralph.... I see both sides of this discussion .... representative of different styles of teaching. As I see it, neither is "right" or "wrong". Tom White used a bit of both methods. Sometimes he'd ask about a technique and he'd say, "I don't care what you call it, tell me how you do it and what you use it for, its advantages and disadvantages."

When we instructors discuss these things, however, I do so some advantage in using names we all understand as part of our common language. Using a well known term takes a lot less time than its description.

As we instructors discuss things, I feel that its not only OK, but sometimes an advantage to refer to our casting guru's by name. I'm a lot less likely to do that with students. (Incidentally, I'd suggest you candidates avoid doing that on your oral exam ...... it could backfire. For example, Floyd Franke has been known to say about oral exams, "If you quote Joan Wulff to me, you had better be right !")