|
|
Hauling.
On Mar 21, 10:38 am, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
I still say the trees keep the line aloft as often as the casting.......... Tom May well be so with the folks you fish with, but I teach people to avoid trees when casting. Seems Wolfgang was indeed right about Dickie, just another pathological ****bag. TL MC |
Hauling.
On Mar 20, 6:21 pm, "Wayne Knight" wrote:
On Mar 20, 12:07 am, wrote: The rod action, taper, composition, or anything else, is completely irrelevant. The ONLY thing that carries flies anywhere when fly- casting is the momentum of the fly line. Mere mortals as myself will continue to depend upon fly rods to aerolize the fly line to move the tippet to deliver the fly. If you donīt understand how a fly is carried to its target, it is surprising that you can cast at all. One may cast a fly-line without even using a rod. This is because it is an elongated weight. Shortening that weight merely makes it capable of carrying more weight further. This is a simple fact, not a "theory". If a rod can cast 200 grains, then it can cast 200 grains of anything within reason. This is also a simple fact. I was aware that a number of you are somewhat hidebound, but I was not aware how many of you are simply stupid. MC |
Hauling.
On Mar 21, 8:44 am, wrote:
One may cast a fly-line without even using a rod. This is because it is an elongated weight. Shortening that weight merely makes it capable of carrying more weight further. This is a simple fact, not a "theory". If a rod can cast 200 grains, then it can cast 200 grains of anything within reason. This is also a simple fact. Jumping in here without reading the entire thread, I may be misinterpreting the context; but while what you say is mathematically true enough, I have to disagree that there is a functional equivalence when applied to fly fishing. First, I'll restate what I think you are saying as a preamble. If a rod is capable of casting 200 grains of weight, then if the fly line is shorter (& consequently lighter), that same rod could throw a heavier fly in the same manner with the same action so long as the total weight remains at 200 grains. Does that accurately restate your premise? If so, I'd offer that the logical extreme of this is spin fishing: line weighs ~nothing, lure is heavy. It doesn't violate your restatement of the obvious, but it sure isn't fly fishing. I was aware that a number of you are somewhat hidebound, but I was not aware how many of you are simply stupid. Perceiving stupidity among those whose means of expression are less technical is an unfortunate condition afflicting many engineers. Having read as much as I have of this discussion, however, I'm seeing many of the same divergences that befall most long threads here. Once the basic disagreement is established, parties continue to argue not only their own points, but also in their own languages and paradigms, all of which frequently differ from the original. I'd proffer that when one party perceives the other as stupid, it is usually one's failure to understand what they're saying as much as their failure to understand you. In this case, you seem intent on making the point and securing agreement that casting 200 grains is casting 200 grains. I don't see anybody here stupid enough to argue the mathematics and physics therein. Some responders, less lateral thinkers, do not see the need to agree on that point before moving on to other considerations such as rod action or aerodynamics of the fly, which unless you are arguing the equivalence of spin & fly casting, are undeniably relevent. That doesn't mean they don't understand that 200=200, nor does it make them stupid. $.02, Joe F. |
Hauling.
On Mar 21, 2:26 pm, "rb608" wrote:
SNIP That doesn't mean they don't understand that 200=200, nor does it make them stupid. $.02, Joe F. So a solid mathematical argument like "thatīs hooey" is valid? Or a purely logical "you're a ****in' dip****." invalidates any facts? Or telling me that the rod action affects what size fly you can cast, when it has absolutely nothing to do with it? Not to mention a host of equally stupid remarks. Not one of these stupid arseholes knows what the hell they are talking about. I did not post for them, I posted for the guy seeking information. I will assume what you wrote here " If a rod is capable of casting 200 grains of weight, then if the fly line is shorter (& consequently lighter), that same rod could throw a heavier fly in the same manner with the same action so long as the total weight remains at 200 grains." Is a result of typing errors, or whatever.It is not what I wrote, and is incorrect. You may disagree all you wish, but the only thing I do is use a shorter weight. A shorter fly-line of the same weight is more dense, it has greater mass for its volume. This means it travels faster and further. It is still fly-casting because the weight is a line, and the line is what carries the fly. A shorter weight also offers less fluid resistance, and retains its momentum longer, also allowing it to travel faster and further. This also automatically enables it to carry more weight than a longer piece of line of the same weight. If a rod can cast 200 grains, it does not matter to the rod what that weight consists of. It will cast 200 grains of anything at all within reason. 30 feet of line weighing 200 grains will carry a very great deal more weight than 60 feet of line weighing 200 grains. Those are all quite simple facts. Apart from anything else. I use this system all the time, as do many people I have taught. It is especially suitable for beginners, as it makes casting much easier. The rod loads more quickly, and the caster can "feel " what is happening better. It has a number of applications, but one of the primary applications is casting heavy streamers and similar on light gear. This is useful in the pursuit of certain quarry, where heavier rods would be overkill. I only replied to you in order to be polite. I donīt intend to waste any more time on this. There is no point in attempting to explain these simple facts over and over again. Either they are obvious after the first explanation, or the people concerned are simply stupid. TL MC |
Hauling.
|
Hauling.
On 21 Mar 2007 06:26:25 -0700, "rb608" wrote:
On Mar 21, 8:44 am, wrote: One may cast a fly-line without even using a rod. This is because it is an elongated weight. Shortening that weight merely makes it capable of carrying more weight further. This is a simple fact, not a "theory". If a rod can cast 200 grains, then it can cast 200 grains of anything within reason. This is also a simple fact. Jumping in here without reading the entire thread, I may be misinterpreting the context; but while what you say is mathematically true enough, I have to disagree that there is a functional equivalence when applied to fly fishing. First, I'll restate what I think you are saying as a preamble. If a rod is capable of casting 200 grains of weight, then if the fly line is shorter (& consequently lighter), that same rod could throw a heavier fly in the same manner with the same action so long as the total weight remains at 200 grains. Does that accurately restate your premise? If so, I'd offer that the logical extreme of this is spin fishing: line weighs ~nothing, lure is heavy. It doesn't violate your restatement of the obvious, but it sure isn't fly fishing. I was aware that a number of you are somewhat hidebound, but I was not aware how many of you are simply stupid. Perceiving stupidity among those whose means of expression are less technical is an unfortunate condition afflicting many engineers. Having read as much as I have of this discussion, however, I'm seeing many of the same divergences that befall most long threads here. Once the basic disagreement is established, parties continue to argue not only their own points, but also in their own languages and paradigms, all of which frequently differ from the original. I'd proffer that when one party perceives the other as stupid, it is usually one's failure to understand what they're saying as much as their failure to understand you. In this case, you seem intent on making the point and securing agreement that casting 200 grains is casting 200 grains. I don't see anybody here stupid enough to argue the mathematics and physics therein. Some responders, less lateral thinkers, do not see the need to agree on that point before moving on to other considerations such as rod action or aerodynamics of the fly, which unless you are arguing the equivalence of spin & fly casting, are undeniably relevent. That doesn't mean they don't understand that 200=200, nor does it make them stupid. $.02, Joe F. What are you boy, some kind of troublemaker? Mike has spoken, the sockpuppets have agreed, and that's that. It's now girllaw. HTH, R |
Hauling.
On Mar 21, 8:44 am, wrote:
I was aware that a number of you are somewhat hidebound, but I was not aware how many of you are simply stupid. Given the manner in which things around here quickly turn in some kind of bad horror movie plot scripting, I went out of my to not disagree with you in a personal manner. My experiences and thoughts on this matter disagree with your's but it does not make either of us stupid, or for that matter - wrong. We disagree, that's all it is to it. We are talking about fly fishing, not feeding the world in the face of urban sprawl and self serving political economic interest. |
Hauling.
|
Hauling.
On Mar 21, 3:49 pm, "Wayne Knight" wrote:
On Mar 21, 8:44 am, wrote: I was aware that a number of you are somewhat hidebound, but I was not aware how many of you are simply stupid. Given the manner in which things around here quickly turn in some kind of bad horror movie plot scripting, I went out of my to not disagree with you in a personal manner. My experiences and thoughts on this matter disagree with your's but it does not make either of us stupid, or for that matter - wrong. We disagree, that's all it is to it. We are talking about fly fishing, not feeding the world in the face of urban sprawl and self serving political economic interest. Disagreeing with an opinion or a theory, is one thing, indeed I would welcome such, but you are refuting simple facts. Which are also easily mathematically proven, if not otherwise obvious. There is no point at all in personal insults and attacks, which are unfortunately extremely common here, either. If your experiences and thoughts disagree with facts, then they are wrong. It is as simple as that. That is not my problem, itīs yours. TL MC |
Hauling.
On Mar 21, 3:54 pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: wrote: "rb608" wrote: SNIP That doesn't mean they don't understand that 200=200, nor does it make them stupid. So a solid mathematical argument like "thatīs hooey" is valid? snip Not one of these stupid arseholes knows what the hell they are talking about. I did not post for them, I posted for the guy seeking information. You posted this (emphasis yours) for the guy seeking information: "MOST LINES WHICH ARE RATED AT THE SAME AFTM# AS YOUR ROD WILL NOT MATCH AT ALL!!!!" Which is, of course, "hooey" or if hooey offends you, rubbish. You are free to post rubbish here but I am free to call it rubbish for the benefit of especially obvious newbies like the person who posted the original query who might not know better than to believe your silly proclamations. -- Ken Fortenberry You are an extremely silly man, a pathological liar, an ignorant bigot, and an arsehole to boot. Anybody who has read a few of your posts knows that, so there is little chance of anybody with any sense taking you seriously, even if you were telling the truth. The more you post, the more people learn to detest you. It beats me why anybody would want to make such a complete prat of himself, and be disliked by everybody, but please feel free. Regardless of your antics, I will not communicate with you again by any means whatsoever. MC |
Hauling.
|
Hauling.
On Mar 21, 4:11 pm, Scott Seidman wrote:
wrote in news:1174485570.120646.154820 @y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: A shorter fly-line of the same weight is more dense, it has greater mass for its volume. This means it travels faster and further. What about the taper?? -- Scott Reverse name to reply What about it? TL MC |
Hauling.
|
Hauling.
|
Hauling.
On Mar 21, 4:12 pm, wrote:
On Mar 21, 4:11 pm, Scott Seidman wrote: wrote in news:1174485570.120646.154820 @y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: A shorter fly-line of the same weight is more dense, it has greater mass for its volume. This means it travels faster and further. What about the taper?? -- Scott Reverse name to reply What about it? TL MC For the purposes of this discussion the taper is irrelevant. It is there to allow smooth power transition to the leader, and turn the fly over. If you use 30 feet of #6 line from the front of a standard DT, then it has the standard taper for that line. You can also turn this around, and put the tapered end on the reel. This will give you a line similar to a "bug taper", which will turn over very stiff leaders and heavy flies, as the power transition to the leader is then much more abrupt. As the mass of a line decreases when rolling out, ( and assuming a correctly powered cast) the kinetic energy in the line remains the same, this results in the tapered part of the line having more energy per unit of mass, and forces the line to turn over faster. If you do not use a taper, the energy transfer is more abrupt, and the line may even "kick back" unless a very steeply tapered leader is used with a long thick butt section. This is irrelevant to the principle under discussion. TL MC |
Hauling.
On Mar 21, 4:15 pm, Scott Seidman wrote:
wrote in news:1174489963.302317.222830 @b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com: On Mar 21, 4:11 pm, Scott Seidman wrote: wrote in news:1174485570.120646.154820 @y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: A shorter fly-line of the same weight is more dense, it has greater mass for its volume. This means it travels faster and further. What about the taper?? -- Scott Reverse name to reply What about it? TL MC Hacking lines up will change the taper. The taper is an impedance-matching effort which should be important to cast and presentation. -- Scott Reverse name to reply Cutting a line in half, or cutting thirty feet off one end of a DT has no effect on the taper. TL MC |
Hauling.
On Mar 21, 10:56 am, wrote:
That is not my problem, itīs yours. That you typed what you just typed indicates otherwise. Take care |
Hauling.
On Mar 21, 4:30 pm, "Wayne Knight" wrote:
On Mar 21, 10:56 am, wrote: That is not my problem, itīs yours. That you typed what you just typed indicates otherwise. Take care Oh I must admit to being exasperated when people disagree with obvious facts, but it really is not my problem. You too............... TL MC |
Hauling.
On Mar 21, 9:59 am, wrote:
Or telling me that the rod action affects what size fly you can cast, when it has absolutely nothing to do with it? On this, I must respectfully disagree. If I may use one of Sir Isaac's favorite equations, F=ma, it's clear that fast action rods and slow action rods have different capacities for the acceleration component of that equation, and thus have a mathematical difference in the force they can generate with a constant mass, or a different mass with a constant force. That difference can manifest itself in either the fly characteristics or distance cast; but there *will* be a non- zero difference. Joe F. |
Hauling.
|
Hauling.
On Mar 21, 4:44 pm, "rb608" wrote:
On Mar 21, 9:59 am, wrote: Or telling me that the rod action affects what size fly you can cast, when it has absolutely nothing to do with it? On this, I must respectfully disagree. If I may use one of Sir a Isaac's favorite equations, F=ma, it's clear that fast action rods and slow action rods have different capacities for the acceleration component of that equation, and thus have a mathematical difference in the force they can generate with a constant mass, or a different mass with a constant force. That difference can manifest itself in either the fly characteristics or distance cast; but there *will* be a non- zero difference. Joe F. Firstly, rods donīt accelerate anything, casters do. The thing which is accelerated is the line, the line carries the fly. Rod action affects how much line speed may be attained, but it is the line which carries the fly. There is a slight difference in the amount of weight which a fast moving line can carry, as opposed to a slow moving line, OF THE SAME WEIGHT, but this is in fact quite minimal, as it is primarily dependent on the basic carrying capability of the moving line mass. There are also quite precise limits to what a line can carry at all. Regardless of how fast you manage to accelerate say a standard #3 weight line, ( using a rod) it will not carry more than a certain amount of weight, ( or a bushy fluid resistant fly, )the weight it can carry ( or the fluid resistance it can overcome) is directly proportional to the line mass which is actually pulling the fly along behind it by unrolling. This may also be roughly expressed in grains per foot ( ignoring the taper etc). The relationship of fly weight ( and/or fluid resistance if known) which the line will carry at all may be shown on a graph of grains per foot/fly weight. So although I would prefer to qualify it exactly, I donīt disagree with you there about the difference being non-zero.It is however negligible. There are some measurements on this in various studies, but that would take us too far away from the present subject matter, and merely confuse the issue. The difference which accrues by using a shorter line of the same mass is however very considerable. Regardless of the rod used. The shorter line OF THE SAME WEIGHT, will carry heavier flies faster and further. It has more grains per foot, it offers less fluid resistance than a longer line of the same weight, and it is also a great deal easier to load the rod properly with it. Something very many casters have severe problems with. This is the basic point here. TL MC |
Hauling.
Incidentally, although a lot is talked about line speed, this is also
something of a misnomer. The force which causes a fly line to unroll is the same force that keeps it in the air. Tension. The more force applied to the line, the greater the tension in it, and the faster the loop unrolls. It is the loop unrolling which pulls the fly along behind it. The bottom leg of the loop ( in an overhead cast) is stationary, its speed is exactly zero. TL MC |
Hauling.
Furthermore, this is also why fast rods cast further, they generate
more tension in the line. Hauling also massively increases line tension, which is also why hauling allows you to cast further. It really has nothing at all to do with line speed as such. The greater tension makes the loop unroll faster. TL MC |
Hauling.
|
Hauling.
And even furthermore, this is why slack at any point will kill a cast.
Tension is released, and the line begins to fall immediately. It is also the reason for tailing loops, and most other casting faults. tension is released, the rod tip deviates from a straight line path, and that was that. So you see folks, all the Fortenberries, Dick****s and other clever****es in the whole world wont make any difference. If you just think a little but about what I have written, you donīt even have to try it, you will see that it is exactly correct. If you take it to heart, you will also be a much better caster. Have a nice day................ TL MC |
Hauling.
|
Hauling.
On Mar 21, 7:17 pm, "Tim J."
wrote: SNiPPED 3) Spend more time learning how to stalk the fish, select the right fly, and present the fly to the fish. The rest will take care of itself. -- TL, Tim -------------------------http://css.sbcma.com/timj Good advice, if you want to be just like all the other stupid unthinking dumbos who canīt cast, and know virtually nothing about their equipment or how to use it, much less how to catch fish. You know why 5% of the anglers catch 95% of the fish? Because that 95% of anglers who consistently fail are just as stupid and ignorant as this lot. MC |
Hauling.
|
Hauling.
|
Hauling.
Tim J. wrote:
typed: snip The more you post, the more people learn to detest you. It beats me why anybody would want to make such a complete prat of himself, and be disliked by everybody, but please feel free. Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. What have I ever done to make you treat me so disrespectfully? If you'd come to me in friendship, then this scum that ruins our roff would be suffering this very day. And if by chance an honest man like yourself should make enemies, then they would become my enemies. And then they would fear you. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Hauling.
|
Hauling.
On 21 Mar 2007 11:30:54 -0700, wrote:
On Mar 21, 7:17 pm, "Tim J." wrote: SNiPPED 3) Spend more time learning how to stalk the fish, select the right fly, and present the fly to the fish. The rest will take care of itself. -- TL, Tim -------------------------http://css.sbcma.com/timj Good advice, if you want to be just like all the other stupid unthinking dumbos who canīt cast, and know virtually nothing about their equipment or how to use it, much less how to catch fish. You know why 5% of the anglers catch 95% of the fish? Because that 95% of anglers who consistently fail are just as stupid and ignorant as this lot. MC Rude, dude. His advice was excellent for those who just want to go out, have a good day, and catch a few fish. It may not have been up to the standards of an expert / guide, but most fishermen never will be that and shouldn't be bothered by the fact. While it may have been out of place a bit in the thread ideal of the long cast, it was not out of place in the newsgroup. -- r.bc: vixen Minnow goddess, Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher. Almost entirely harmless. Really. http://www.visi.com/~cyli |
Hauling.
On Mar 21, 8:20 pm, Tim Lysyk wrote:
wrote: Good advice, if you want to be just like all the other stupid unthinking dumbos who canīt cast, and know virtually nothing about their equipment or how to use it, much less how to catch fish. You know why 5% of the anglers catch 95% of the fish? Because that 95% of anglers who consistently fail are just as stupid and ignorant as this lot. MC I thought Tim J.'s advice was pretty good for a newbie. Your comments, on the other hand, are just plain insulting, not to mention being pompous and gross over-generalizations. How would you have any idea what the fishing success rate of anyone from this newsgroup would be? Tim Lysyk My comments were intended to be insulting. Why not? Everybody else is doing it, and I didnīt start it. You lot, with very few exceptions, are a bunch of totally gutless arseholes. You allow ****bags like Fortenberry and Dickie boy to behave in the most outrageous manner without a single word of protest, ruining every single thread, regardless of content, with their poisonous garbage. You only join in a thread at all when it has deteriorated into a slagging match, and then you slag people who are attempting to give serious advice and instruction, which you are obviously too stupid to grasp, assuming you were even interested in the first place, which seems unlikely. Apart from Joe F. Wayne Knight, and a very minor contribution from Tom Littleton, all other contributions to this thread have been slag offs or personal insults. This is nearly always the case, because you are simply a bunch of ignorant ill-mannered swine, who obviously know very little about fly-fishing. If your only advice to a newbie is to go to a fly-shop and invest in useless bling, then you are an idiot, and your advice is worthless. As it happens I do have a theory on the fishing success rate of a number of the "contributrors" to this newsgroup. Anglers are gentleman who have manners and respect for others, I suspect I would find a correlation between the behaviour of the ****bags on here, and their success rate. So sonny boy, **** off and play with someone else, I have had enough stupidity and ignorance for the nonce. MC |
Hauling.
On Mar 21, 8:29 pm, Cyli wrote:
On 21 Mar 2007 11:30:54 -0700, wrote: On Mar 21, 7:17 pm, "Tim J." wrote: SNiPPED 3) Spend more time learning how to stalk the fish, select the right fly, and present the fly to the fish. The rest will take care of itself. -- TL, Tim -------------------------http://css.sbcma.com/timj Good advice, if you want to be just like all the other stupid unthinking dumbos who canīt cast, and know virtually nothing about their equipment or how to use it, much less how to catch fish. You know why 5% of the anglers catch 95% of the fish? Because that 95% of anglers who consistently fail are just as stupid and ignorant as this lot. MC Rude, dude. His advice was excellent for those who just want to go out, have a good day, and catch a few fish. It may not have been up to the standards of an expert / guide, but most fishermen never will be that and shouldn't be bothered by the fact. While it may have been out of place a bit in the thread ideal of the long cast, it was not out of place in the newsgroup. -- r.bc: vixen Minnow goddess, Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher. Almost entirely harmless. Really. http://www.visi.com/~cyli This is supposed to be a fly-fishing group, with not a few self- declared experts. People who take the trouble to ask a question here, presumably expect qualified advice, otherwise they would just go to their local fly-shop, plonk down their plastic, and buy the apparently obligatory bling to begin with. All that happens here is that a couple of dumbos mouth a few stupid platitudes, and then the whole lot deteriorates into a slagging match. This is why none of the newbies stay here, and also why many of the old guard have also departed. My posts were on topic, correct, and certainly among the best and most knowledgeable advice you will get anywhere. I have no need to be modest, I just have to be right. All it got me was a load of insults and other foolishness. Not a single one of the so called "experts" here can disprove a single statement I made, and neither can anybody else, for the simple reason that they are all correct. All these arseholes do, is start silly slagging matches, for whatever weird reasons they may have. None of it has anything to do with fly-fishing. I was not rude or ill-mannered until I was severely provoked, quite intentionally, by stupid ignorant swine. Now you and a couple of others are slagging me. Do me a favour will you, save it for those who need it. MC |
Hauling.
It further occurred to me, that you might find this of interest, apart from anything else it will doubtless annoy those who need annoying, who will of course swear they never read it, and that it was rubbish anyway; http://www.fish-wild.co.uk/index.php...eatures&pid=69 MC |
Hauling.
typed:
On Mar 21, 7:17 pm, "Tim J." wrote: SNiPPED 3) Spend more time learning how to stalk the fish, select the right fly, and present the fly to the fish. The rest will take care of itself. Good advice, if you want to be just like all the other stupid unthinking dumbos who canīt cast, and know virtually nothing about their equipment or how to use it, much less how to catch fish. I know enough to catch a few fish now and again, and I'm not in any hurry to set records. My fishing partners will tell you my approach is less than technical, but they'll also tell you I get a kick out of just being outdoors and on the water. My advice has nothing to do with being unthinking. I've given it a lot of thought, in fact, and can only surmise from reading your posts that becoming an expert caster will lead only to becoming a bitter, pompous fool who has lost his love of fishing, only deals with technicalities, and will lambaste anyone who doesn't bow to his superior knowledge. If being a stupid unthinking dumbo (can I get me a shirt?) leaves me in a state where I can retain the joy of fishing, so be it. You know why 5% of the anglers catch 95% of the fish? Because that 95% of anglers who consistently fail are just as stupid and ignorant as this lot. No, Mike. That's not the answer to your question. Five percent is a satisfactory number for me. If I catch more or less than that on a particular day, that's satisfactory, too. You obviously fish to reach perfection. I fish to relax and enjoy myself. I realize these are not mutually exclusive goals, but not everyone, especially newcomers to the sport, care about catching more fish. I learn more every year from the fine roff fishing partners in my area, but I'm not in a hurry to learn everything all at once. What fun would that be? -- TL, Tim ------------------------- http://css.sbcma.com/timj |
Hauling.
wrote in message
Good advice, if you want to be just like all the other stupid unthinking dumbos who canīt cast, and know virtually nothing about their equipment or how to use it, much less how to catch fish. You know why 5% of the anglers catch 95% of the fish? Because that 95% of anglers who consistently fail are just as stupid and ignorant as this lot. I realize that's an emotional generalization born out of the bull**** that goes on here; but as one of the 95% who fail consistently, I can assure you that it is not due to lack of understanding of the physics of casting or the mechanics of my equipment. I understand all of that perfectly well; what I lack is the magic. In fact, other than understanding some of the basic principles of timing and balancing the line, leader, tippet, and fly, I don't believe in-depth knowledge of the equipment is for ****. For me, the pure joy of flyfishing is being able to forget the mechanics, yet still have that line seem to defy gravity before gently laying the fly into the pool in front of me. For me, it's more feeling than technique, whichis good, because my technique sucks 95% of the time. My best analogy is equally hard to explain. Juggling. The mechanics couldn't be simpler to understand; but understanding is not enough. And, I can tell you that as long as your brain is trying to analyze where your hands need to be when, you can't do it. You just need to feel it, not understand it. You don't learn a new trick until you stop trying to figure it out. When it works, it's a thing of beauty; f*ck the physics. You don't need to be a physicist. You worry about that, you'll miss all the fun. I feel the same about flyfishing. I'll go one example farther and mention a difference between me and my fishing buddy. He's a fine caster, despite being an artist. An artist, for god's sake. He wouldn't know tension, momentum, or how many grains in a shooting head if you smacked him in the head with it; and he casts beautifully, yet different from me. Why? Because he isn't constantly analyzing the motion of the line or measuring the force in the rod while he casts, he's just doing it. He catches a lot of fish. Joe F. |
Hauling.
|
Hauling.
Ken Fortenberry typed:
Tim J. wrote: typed: snip The more you post, the more people learn to detest you. It beats me why anybody would want to make such a complete prat of himself, and be disliked by everybody, but please feel free. Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. What have I ever done to make you treat me so disrespectfully? If you'd come to me in friendship, then this scum that ruins our roff would be suffering this very day. And if by chance an honest man like yourself should make enemies, then they would become my enemies. And then they would fear you. I suppose this means I get to kiss the ring. ;-) -- TL, Tim ------------------------- http://css.sbcma.com/timj |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:48 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Đ2004 - 2006 FishingBanter