Approaches to casting
It's been awhile since I've posted here, but recently, I had the opportunity to watch two gentlemen taking turns with a couple of new model five weight rods, and hear what they had to say about the other?s casting (and the rods). Which in turn got me thinking of my own casting.
Mind you, both of these men were using the same rods and the same lines. One would cast a few times to targets placed at varying distances, then hand the rod to the other, who would do the same. I was amazed at how such different approaches could be so effective with the same rod. They would then offer their opinion of the other's casting (and the rod) and try to defend their own. The rods were all nine feet in length, and the line had a nine foot leader/tippet added to it. The distances were measured from where the caster was standing.
The first caster was usually making some point about how you need to be able to "punch" the line out there, even with a head wind. He argued that higher line speed and aerodynamic loops are the only way to do that, and as long as you aren't "drilling holes" in the water, a line quickly rolled out in the air will "fall" just as softly as one that rolled out slowly. So a gentle presentation (if required) isn't compromised either way. He could carry most of the line in the air and shoot well into the backing if he wanted to. His stroke was pretty quick and short (by comparison), and he looked very "engaged" while casting. When he wasn't casting, it was almost comical to watch his body language as he watched the slower line speed and relaxed casting of the other individual. He'd fidget and rock with the false casting, then lean forward into the forward cast... It seemed like it was about all he could do to restrain himself from ripping the rod from the other's hand, make a haul, and give it a good hard flick.
The other caster kept talking about how (in real freshwater fishing situations) you just really never need to cast further with a five weight than what he was doing (about 50 feet or less), and that he certainly didn't want to work hard to do so. His stroke was very relaxed, and he looked like he could have been reading a book while casting. Line speeds were much slower, and his loops were also wider than the other gentlemen's. Still tight, but noticeably wider, especially as his distance increased. He never made a haul (double or otherwise) that I could detect, and argued that it was simply a tool for use when needed. (e.g.: casting into a headwind) He also argued that by improving your casting stroke (technique), you will consistently get far more distance than you ever will by double hauling. He even called the DH a crutch employed by those with poor technique to acquire some extra distance in their cast. "Besides" he said, "working hard to cast isn't pretty." Which really got the dander up of the other.
The debate raged on, and in the end they were both laughing at each other, and neither of them conceded anything. But they appeared to be old friends, and obviously still were when all was said and done. If nothing else, there was a lot of mutual respect for the other's abilities.
As for me... well that's why I?m posting here. After watching and listening to what these two had to say, I'm evaluating my own approach to casting, and I'd like a broader cross section of the fly casting community's views and experience to draw on.
So what say ye? Do you need a five weight (or lighter line) to be able to reach out to 60, 80, 90 feet and beyond? Should casting be "effortless" until you really need to reach out? Can it be effortless with the lighter lines at distances beyond 50 feet? Is the double haul a crutch for many (most)? Will improving one's casting technique more than compensate for not using a haul in many (most) cases?
In forming my own opinion I'd like to know... what's yours?
---David
p.s. I know any generalization is fraught with errors and exceptions. It's okay. Just draw a line in the sand and take a stand.
Reply With Quote