A lesson with Lefty/120' ???
 

Mike Connor wrote:
....................
So you use a nine foot anchor. You might just have said so. Apart from
which, the length of the anchor is basically immaterial, as long as you have
an anchor, because in the roll cast you only cast the line in the loop, and
the rest is pulled along behind it.
.........

Wouldn't the longer anchor allow you to put a greater load on the rod
?

A lesson with Lefty/120' ???
 

On 20 Jan 2006 14:32:54 -0800, "
wrote:

...load on the rod...

....slowly I turned, step by step, inch by inch....

A lesson with Lefty/120' ???
 

schrieb im Newsbeitrag
oups.com...

Mike Connor wrote:
....................
So you use a nine foot anchor. You might just have said so. Apart from
which, the length of the anchor is basically immaterial, as long as you
have
an anchor, because in the roll cast you only cast the line in the loop,
and
the rest is pulled along behind it.
.........

Wouldn't the longer anchor allow you to put a greater load on the rod
?


It is not sufficient to just load the rod, one must get the line moving.
Nor is it advantageous to load the rod beyond the optimal loading required
for the cast. Even a short anchor can overload a rod, unless the line
movement and rod timing are correct.

Loading a rod does not cast the line, moving the loaded rod correctly is
what casts the line.

If one executes a roll cast incorrectly, it is quite easy to break a rod.
This is also why one must get the line moving, to break the surface tension
which is holding it.

Merely applying a fast power stroke to a length of line lying on the water
will overload the rod immediately, and at the very least, prevent one
casting properly. Worst case is a broken rod.

The length of the anchor in a "static" ( although of course it is not
"static" at all), roll cast, is basically immaterial, as one attempts to
load the rod optimally by thrusting against the line in the D loop, and also
by moving the rod in the correct manner, with the right speed and power.

TL
MC

A lesson with Lefty/120' ???
 

Here is a correctly executed roll cast;

http://www.letsflyfish.com/rollcastmovie.htm

TL
MC

A lesson with Lefty/120' ???
 

Of course, the longer the anchor, the more power required to lift it. Which
is why very long roll casts are difficult to do.

TL
MC

A lesson with Lefty/120' ???
 

Mike Connor wrote:

If one executes a roll cast incorrectly, it is quite easy to break a rod.

When I attended my first and last spey casting clinic last year the
instructor demonstrated what you shouldn't do because it could break the
rod. He broke the rod.

It was a borrowed rod.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

A lesson with Lefty/120' ???
 

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 00:54:51 +0100, "Mike Connor"
wrote:


Here is a correctly executed roll cast;

http://www.letsflyfish.com/rollcastmovie.htm


Cool. Thanks for the little movie. Seems I've been doing a lot of
roll casting without knowing what to call it. Mine aren't perfectly
executed and are short, but...

A lesson with Lefty/120' ???
 

"Mike Connor" wrote in message
...

"Tom Nakashima" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
SNIP
I hope you would get that Chuck Connors line.
Well Mike if you ever do rollcast 120' with conventional gear, I'll be
the first to put your picture up in my office.
-tom

Most unlikely, as I don´t bother practicing casting much anymore. There
is little point in it.


LOL

Mike, Tom. Tom, Mike.

--riverman

A lesson with Lefty/120' ???
 

"Mike Connor" wrote in message
...

Here is a correctly executed roll cast;

http://www.letsflyfish.com/rollcastmovie.htm

Yet another example, it seems to me, of how communication is stymied by
people speaking the same language.

I've always taken it for granted that a roll cast gets its name from the
fact that a loop of line "rolls" across the surface of the water.....or at
least near it. The animation at the above link hardly qualifies, I think.
Now, I have no idea whether there is widespread agreement on terminology
among acknowledged experts (whomever they might be and by whomever
acknowledged), but I would simply call that an ordinary forward cast from a
slow pickup.

This:

http://www.bartdezwaan.nl/rollcast/rollcasting.htm

looks much more like a roll cast to me, largely because it is the forward
momentum of the loop that picks the line up off the water as it rolls
forward, but it still requires that the caster lift most of the line off the
water on the back stroke. Also notable in this clip is the fact that the
caster brings the rod back to nearly horizontal on the backstroke......an
absolute impossibility in many situations; in fact, the very reason to use a
roll cast in the first place. I use a roll cast most often where there is
no room at all for a backstroke.....in effect, where my back is up against a
vertical wall. There is no backstroke at all. I lift the rod tip only fast
enough to keep slack out of the line.....I do not pull or lift it. When the
rod is vertical (or a bit beyond if the situation allows) I flick it
forward, executing the roll. At no time.....and this is the important part,
I think.....do I exert any rearward pull on the line.

In short, the whole point of a roll cast is that it allows one to cast
WITHOUT having to pick up the line by pulling back on it. Obviously, this
is a simplification, but the examples in both of the clips above vary so far
from this fundamental principle as to be something else entirely.


As for Tom's end of this discussion, his assertion that, "Lefty says you
can't make a roll cast with 20' of line in the water, it just won't go." may
be accurate reportage.....Lefty may indeed have said that.....but, if so,
he's just plain flat wrong.

Furthermore, "The rollcast is the most needed cast when fishing, but also
the most
misunderstood and pathetic when not done right." verges on downright
meaningless.

And, "today's style has changed a bit on the rollcast, where
the line never makes contact with the water until the fly hits." is absolute
nonsense.

Wolfgang

A lesson with Lefty/120' ???
 

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 07:50:28 -0600, "Wolfgang" wrote:


"Mike Connor" wrote in message
...

Here is a correctly executed roll cast;

http://www.letsflyfish.com/rollcastmovie.htm

Yet another example, it seems to me, of how communication is stymied by
people speaking the same language.

Perhaps because this thread has yet again confused two distinct
activities: casting and fishing (and its important-to-most subset,
catching). If your fly, lure, bait is getting into or upon the water,
you are fishing. One could take a flyline and terminal tackle, hold
the non-terminal end, gather the rest up into a ball, and throw it
randomly at/into the water and be fishing. Doing so would not likely
result in much catching, but it'd be fishing nonetheless. And if the
person is perfectly happy with that situation, then they are, at least
for them, successfully fishing.

OTOH, if one is getting the fly where they wish - assuming they wish
to get it where it will likely result in catching - and they are
catching what they consider a reasonable amount of their quarry, their
casting, regardless of the opinions, theories, ideas, books, or cartoons
of "the MAN" or anyone else, is satisfactory for fishing and catching as
that person wishes to practice it. "Flyfishing" is, at its base, simply
using a line to deliver something, as opposed to other techniques that
use the weight of something to deliver a line. If fishing and/or
catching is/are the goal(s) and the hook is delivered, you're doing it
right.

Casting as a sport unto itself is a totally different animal and as much
of it is practiced today shares little with fishing and catching as most
successfully practice them.

TC,
R