A lesson with Lefty/120' ???
 

"Wolfgang" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
SNIP
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.



The line is not picked up in those casts. It is merely set in (slow but
constant ) motion, in order to break surface tension, and also to form the
D-loop.

Both clips show a standard roll cast, as expected for instructors
examination.

The concept that the line will "roll" along the water, is false. The line
should unfurl in the air, and never touch the water once the cast commences.

The concept that one may roll cast properly from a completely static line is
also false, although this may be done ( badly!) with short lengths of line.

TL
MC

A lesson with Lefty/120' ???
 

The requirements for a master instructor in regard to roll casts;

ROLL CASTS

Demonstrate a normal roll cast in which the leader straightens
completely at 50 feet.
Same as above from opposite side of the body.
Demonstrate a "shooting roll cast" to 55 feet, using a single haul.
Demonstrate a roll cast pick-up (as would be used, for example, with a
bass bug).
Demonstrate concept of a single spey cast at 40-50 feet (use a single
handed rod if a spey rod and facilities are not available. Allowances will
be made if cast done on grass rather than on water)
Demonstrate concept of a double spey cast at 40-50 feet (use a single
handed rod if a spey rod and facilities are not available. Allowances will
be made if cast done on grass rather than on water)



Taken from;
http://www.tomwhite.com/masters.htm

The casts shown in th clips I provided are "normal" roll casts.

TL
MC

A lesson with Lefty/120' ???
 

"Mike Connor" wrote in message
...

"Wolfgang" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
SNIP
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.



The line is not picked up in those casts. It is merely set in (slow but
constant ) motion, in order to break surface tension, and also to form the
D-loop.

If the line is not picked up, one is tempted to wonder by what force it is
impelled to leave the surface of the water.

Both clips show a standard roll cast, as expected for instructors
examination.

I'm prepared to entertain the proposition that what I do is nonstandard. It
hardly matters to me as I don't anticipate taking any sort of examination.

The concept that the line will "roll" along the water, is false.

Mine does.

The line should unfurl in the air, and never touch the water once the cast
commences.

I can make that happen too. Looks to me like we're talking about two
different (if not necessarily entirely unrelated) phenomena.

The concept that one may roll cast properly from a completely static line
is also false, although this may be done ( badly!) with short lengths of
line.

Well, there's enough qualifiers in there to make it irrefutable.....so I
won't try. It does, however, raise a couple of issues in my mind. First,
if what I'm doing is not a proper roll cast, then what name should it
rightly go by? As for doing it badly with a short line, I have no way to
assess that without knowing what it is and what should be expected of it. I
can get a fly to land approximately where I want it to, up to sixty feet or
so out with an 8 1/2 foot five weight and a weight forward line. Just how
bad is that?

Wolfgang

A lesson with Lefty/120' ???
 

"Wolfgang" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
SNIP
Well, there's enough qualifiers in there to make it irrefutable.....so I
won't try. It does, however, raise a couple of issues in my mind. First,
if what I'm doing is not a proper roll cast, then what name should it
rightly go by? As for doing it badly with a short line, I have no way to
assess that without knowing what it is and what should be expected of it.
I can get a fly to land approximately where I want it to, up to sixty feet
or so out with an 8 1/2 foot five weight and a weight forward line. Just
how bad is that?

Wolfgang

If you are happy with what you do, then it is quite immaterial how you do
it, or what you call it.

If you wanted to become an instructor, then you would have to do it
"properly", as envisaged by the board of examiners.

Anybody who can roll cast a WF line sixty feet along the water is a genius.
Normally it is quite impossible to roll cast a WF line beyond the head,
possibly shooting a couple more feet, but only when the line unfurls in the
air. That would be an absolute maximum of 55 feet ( 30 foot head, ten foot
leader, ten foot rod, five foot shoot) measured from the fly to the casters
feet. Using a dynamic roll cast, ( underhand cast) one can shoot a great
deal more, but nobody I know whoukd try using a standard WF for this.

One can get the line to "roll" along the surface to some extent, but this
causes considerable disturbance, spooks fish, and requires far more power
than is required to do a normal roll cast. It will also only work at all
well with modern plastic lines, which have intrinsic buoyancy, float high,
and are waterproof.

At one time, the "standard" instruction for executing a roll cast was to
"slash down", or use a "chopping" motion with the rod. This does not work
very well at all, but many people still do it.

A roll cast is the same as a standard overhead cast, with the exception that
the rod is loaded using a d-loop. The d-loop is effectively the back cast.
The line must be in motion to ensure a clean pick up, as otherwise surface
tension is invariably too great to be overcome, and the line will not
aerialise.

Lastly, one may roll cast a completely static line, from scratch, but it
only works at all on short lines, requires a great deal of power, high speed
coupled with perfect timing, can endanger the rod, and is a poor cast
anyway.

TL
MC

A lesson with Lefty/120' ???
 

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

...load on the rod...

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

Wimp.

A lesson with Lefty/120' ???
 

On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 16:50:50 +0100, "Mike Connor"
wrote:


"Wolfgang" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
SNIP
Well, there's enough qualifiers in there to make it irrefutable.....so I
won't try. It does, however, raise a couple of issues in my mind. First,
if what I'm doing is not a proper roll cast, then what name should it
rightly go by? As for doing it badly with a short line, I have no way to
assess that without knowing what it is and what should be expected of it.
I can get a fly to land approximately where I want it to, up to sixty feet
or so out with an 8 1/2 foot five weight and a weight forward line. Just
how bad is that?

Wolfgang

If you are happy with what you do, then it is quite immaterial how you do
it, or what you call it.

If you wanted to become an instructor, then you would have to do it
"properly", as envisaged by the board of examiners.

Anybody who can roll cast a WF line sixty feet along the water is a genius.
Normally it is quite impossible to roll cast a WF line beyond the head,
possibly shooting a couple more feet, but only when the line unfurls in the
air. That would be an absolute maximum of 55 feet ( 30 foot head, ten foot
leader, ten foot rod, five foot shoot) measured from the fly to the casters
feet. Using a dynamic roll cast, ( underhand cast) one can shoot a great
deal more, but nobody I know whoukd try using a standard WF for this.

One can get the line to "roll" along the surface to some extent, but this
causes considerable disturbance, spooks fish, and requires far more power
than is required to do a normal roll cast. It will also only work at all
well with modern plastic lines, which have intrinsic buoyancy, float high,
and are waterproof.

At one time, the "standard" instruction for executing a roll cast was to
"slash down", or use a "chopping" motion with the rod. This does not work
very well at all, but many people still do it.

A roll cast is the same as a standard overhead cast, with the exception that
the rod is loaded using a d-loop. The d-loop is effectively the back cast.
The line must be in motion to ensure a clean pick up, as otherwise surface
tension is invariably too great to be overcome, and the line will not
aerialise.

Lastly, one may roll cast a completely static line, from scratch, but it
only works at all on short lines, requires a great deal of power, high speed
coupled with perfect timing, can endanger the rod, and is a poor cast
anyway.

TL
MC

Um - neither of you addressed the Bernoulli principle and how it plays
into this discussion...

TC,
R
....got 'em right where I want 'em, too...

A lesson with Lefty/120' ???
 

On 21 Jan 2006 08:06:54 -0800, "
wrote:


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

...load on the rod...

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

Wimp.

Stooge.

A lesson with Lefty/120' ???
 

Here is another set of instructions, with video;

http://www.goulburnvlyflyfishing.com...oll%20cast.htm

There are quite a few instructions etc on the web. More than a few of these
involve analogies to chopping wood, wielding pick-axes, etc etc. These are
bad analogies.

Very difficult to find a perfect set of instructions, which are easily
understood by all.

TL
MC

A lesson with Lefty/120' ???
 

"Mike Connor" wrote in message
...

"Wolfgang" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
SNIP
Well, there's enough qualifiers in there to make it irrefutable.....so I
won't try. It does, however, raise a couple of issues in my mind.
First, if what I'm doing is not a proper roll cast, then what name should
it rightly go by? As for doing it badly with a short line, I have no way
to assess that without knowing what it is and what should be expected of
it. I can get a fly to land approximately where I want it to, up to sixty
feet or so out with an 8 1/2 foot five weight and a weight forward line.
Just how bad is that?

Wolfgang

If you are happy with what you do, then it is quite immaterial how you do
it, or what you call it.

This much I already knew.

If you wanted to become an instructor, then you would have to do it
"properly", as envisaged by the board of examiners.

I already stated that I have no intention of taking any sort of examination
anytime soon. To be as clear as possible, let me state unequivocally that I
have no interest whatsoever in becoming a fly casting instructor anywhere on
or near the Eurasian continent. It should come as no surprise that the
requirements for doing so are a matter of complete indifference to me.

Anybody who can roll cast a WF line sixty feet along the water is a
genius. Normally it is quite impossible to roll cast a WF line beyond the
head, possibly shooting a couple more feet, but only when the line unfurls
in the air. That would be an absolute maximum of 55 feet ( 30 foot head,
ten foot leader, ten foot rod, five foot shoot) measured from the fly to
the casters feet. Using a dynamic roll cast, ( underhand cast) one can
shoot a great deal more, but nobody I know whoukd try using a standard WF
for this.

I've got and 8 1/2 foot rod and a 2 1/2 foot long arm.....but there's some
overlap.....call it ten feet combined. I typically use a 10 to 15 foot
leader....let's assume the upper end since it works. So far we've got 25
feet. By my reckoning that leaves 35 feet of fly line to make up the
difference to 60. Impossible or not, normal or not, it happens. If this
makes me a genius or some sort of unnatural freak, so be it, but, as I've
seen quite a few others do it, it would appear that genius is rather
commonplace......enough so that it loses its capacity to inspire awe.

One can get the line to "roll" along the surface to some extent, but this
causes considerable disturbance, spooks fish, and requires far more power
than is required to do a normal roll cast. It will also only work at all
well with modern plastic lines, which have intrinsic buoyancy, float high,
and are waterproof.

The fish over which the line passes in the process of executing this type of
cast are already disturbed. In any case, it works well enough (as
determined by its success in tempting fish to strike) that questions of
disturbance would appear to be moot. I have no means to gauge (let alone
quantify) how much power one needs to devote to this type of cast but
experience suggests rather strongly that it is no more than I have available
to devote to it. I use only modern plastic lines in my fly fishing.

At one time, the "standard" instruction for executing a roll cast was to
"slash down", or use a "chopping" motion with the rod. This does not work
very well at all, but many people still do it.

I have never been the recipient of much instruction....."standard" or
otherwide. Thus far, this lack has not hindered my enjoyment of what I do
astream. That said, I picked up that "chopping" motion on my own.....no
great accomplishment, as there was simply no viable option in some
situations where it was impossible to reach back any further than.....and
sometimes even as far as.....the vertical. How well it works must remain
debatable.....it depends on the purpose one has in mind. It's not much good
for setting distance records, but it frequently enables one to catch fish.

A roll cast is the same as a standard overhead cast, with the exception
that the rod is loaded using a d-loop.

O.k., I have no problem with that......we'll come back to it again in a
moment.

The d-loop is effectively the back cast. The line must be in motion to
ensure a clean pick up,

Now it gets confusing. In your last post prior to this one, you said, "The
line is not picked up in those casts."

as otherwise surface tension is invariably too great to be overcome, and
the line will not aerialise.

All very well, if one intends to aerialise the line. I do not.

Lastly, one may roll cast a completely static line, from scratch, but it
only works at all on short lines,

Depends on how one defines "short", I suppose.

requires a great deal of power,

Already addressed above.

high speed coupled with perfect timing,

Evidently not all that difficult to achieve......even I manage somehow.

can endanger the rod,

Perhaps.....but I've never broken one.

and is a poor cast anyway.

Which brings us right back to my as yet unanswered question. We are agreed
that one can call anything by whatever name one chooses. But it still seems
silly to me to call any action a poorly executed X (where X=something that
was not intended) when it is done deliberately, consistently, and with
consistently good results. Far better, I think, to call it a perfectly
executed Y (where Y=whatever name describes what was intended and done
properly). So, I concede that what I do is not a properly executed roll
cast. But it has served me very well for a long time. By what name should
we rightly call it?

Wolfgang

A lesson with Lefty/120' ???
 

"Wolfgang" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...

The line is not picked up. It picks itself up as the loop travels
forward.The momentum of the loop pulls it off the water. In order for it to
be able to do so cleanly, the line must be moving, and the grip of surface
tension broken.

Most people refer to the action which requires a D-loop formation prior to
casting, as opposed to a back cast where the line is picked up and thrown
backwards, or indeed any other way, as a roll cast.

This is irrespective of whether the cast is well executed or not.

You are perfectly free to describe your variation of it as "Wolfgang´s
Wiggle Woggle" if you so wish, but this may make it difficult to discuss the
relevant points.

Failing to aerialise the line will result in you also failing all the
casting tests I know. This is also perfectly OK, if you don´t want to take
any of these tests. The tests I posted were American tests, not European,
or Asian. Although they are in fact all much the same. This is presumably
because they all wish to achieve the same results. Namely a clean cast, with
no disturbacne of the water, a good turnover, including the full leader, and
whatever distance and accuracy happens to be required.

TL
MC