Critical Casting Detail

[riveraddict]

   It is quite revealing to me to hear/read opinions that a Singlespey or Snakeroll produces the same or greater power than a Perry Poke IN REGARDS TO SKAGIT CASTING. Number one, technically speaking the SS (SingleSpey) and SR (SnakeRoll) casts are not Skagit-type casts as they use a T&G (Touch-and-Go) anchor. This does not mean that SS's and SR casts cannot be performed on an outfit setup for Skagit casting... it just means that those casts should not yield the same performance level as true SA (Sustained Anchor) casts. If an outfit setup for Skagit casting does not produce noticeably better results from SA based casts as opposed to T&G casts, then there is something wrong with either the weight relationship of the rod and line, or there is fault in the casting technique. The "wrong" that occurs in a rod and line relationship is an easy diagnosis... the line is too light for the system. The fault in casting technique is also usually of a common, easy to analyze nature... the Sweep is not being performed correctly. If there is a stage in SA (Sustained Anchor) casting that can be labeled as "most important" in the Skagit casting procedure, it is in fact the Sweep. The Sweep is where the majority of rod load - think casting energy - is formed for Skagit casting. This load is produced via effects of water tension on the line, combined with "centrifugal forces" (angular momentum). To capitalize on these two actions the Sweep of a Skagit cast entails actions that are quite different than those of other Spey-type casting styles. To begin with, a Skagit casting Sweep IS NOT about lifting the line OFF of the water. It is, instead, about SWINGING IT AROUND. This may sound like a trivial detail, but in actual implementation it makes a very major difference in results! Swinging the line around for the Sweep as opposed to lifting it up, is accomplished by manipulating the rod tip/line into an OUT-and-around arc or curve, while maintaining the rod in a perfectly a flat plane (remember that "flat plane" does NOT necessarily mean horizontal). I emphasized the "out" here because in order to achieve an actual "around" via an arc or curve, the rod tip must first travel AWAY from the caster. Now then, once one is able to conduct a true out-and-around arc in a flat plane, it takes one more action to then tie it all together and make it work... power application. The out-and-around, flat plane Sweep requires an INSTANTANEOUS application of power AT THE VERY BEGINNING of the Sweep in order to first, bend/load the rod IMMEDIATELY via water tension, and second, to project or prompt the line into an actual out-and-around, centrifugal, "rotational" status. This outward rotation of the line increases effects of rod loading via a process called angular momentum. The immediate application of power at the start of the Sweep is KEY to realizing the most potential from a Skagit cast. The immediate application of power at the beginning of the Sweep can almost be thought of as a small "pop" of acceleration, but bear in mind that this is then followed by keeping just enough speed on the rod through the remainder of the Sweep to retain the feel of that load that was produced from the initial pop... it can be though of as a "one-speed" Sweep! There is no massive acceleration into the D-loop because if an immediate start was correctly performed, the rod is in fact optimally loaded and any forceful acceleration afterward will only overload the whole system, usually incurring a very pronounced anchor blowout. This immediate-start-followed-by-one-speed Sweep is exactly what gives an accomplished Skagit caster the "effortless" aspect of casting! The unique aspects of a SA Sweep process are not easy to differentiate from other casting approaches, nor easy to learn, and that is a major reason many casters never realize the full potential of Skagit casting, especially casters trained in other Spey-type techniques as they have to deconstruct well-ingrained habits of lifting the line during the Sweep to make the "conversion". However, for students willing to put in the time and effort, the payoff is well worth the price. The sequence should be learned in stages - out-and-around first, followed by flat-plane movement,  then concluded with immediate-start-followed-by-one-speed power application.  

   One of the reasons I present this bit is to create an awareness that many of the e-casters touting the superiority of their casting, or the downfalls of others, are literally ignorant of the workings of SA casting and thus cannot duplicate the performance results of casters schooled in SA concepts when "evaluating" one against the other. In other words, they don't know what they are talking about. It is the seemingly minor differences in technique of the differing casting disciplines that make a huge difference in obtained results.                     

[camosled]

RA,

You are very correct.  While one might be able to cast farther with a touch and go style cast, a water loaded cast when combined with a heavy head can chuck some serious mass.  Particularly if the sink tip is lined up with the direction of your cast like it is when using a poke.  I can snake roll a skagit head a long ways, but that's not SA casting and it doesn't generate the deep load needed for launching heavy stuff.   The limiting distance factor when using skagit heads comes down to how much running line can you deal with in your fingers.  Besides, how far do you really need to cast?  Except for a handful of steelhead rivers, most of the steelhead lie less than 50 feet away.

One thing we fail to note in the DVD series is the type of rod action used by Ed and Scott:   Ed uses powerful, deep flexing rods that load the instant you start the sweep.   Scott Howell uses fast action rods and applies his power in the sweep in a different place;  later rather than earlier.  Scott might not call his casting style true Sustained Anchor casting.  He doesn't get too technical about it.  Ed's style on the other hand incorporates subtle and not so subtle movements which when combined, optimize the efficiency of the casting stroke  In all cases, the sweep is smooth and accelerating, until the rod comes to a stop at the end of the forward cast.  I'm not the expert by any means, but watching these two, and many other anglers cast, as well as my own time on the water, these things seem apparent.  

What I see as the component in the cast where most people have trouble is in the "Turn Over" part of the cast; where the rod is changing directions to begin the forward stroke.  Carving that turnover takes practice.  In Ed's case, he incorporates a 45 thrust into the movement which really helps keep the loop off your shoulder and not behind your shoulder.  

I make note of some finer points on the new site in the "Full On Intruder" package, due to launch today, that may seem to contradict what Ed says, but I'm not claiming to be executing a sustained anchor cast, as Ed would describe it.   They are just things that help me with my casting in certain circumstances and might be helpful to others.  As I've always said, if someone has a SA/skagit casting question, ask Ed.

Thanks for the input Ed.

JM





 



 

[Heavymetalspey]

..And that Ladies and Gentlemen, is solid information.

[middlecalf]

Thanks Ed for posting this, and JM for following-up.  Timely posting, and I suspect you know why.

Mike Mc. showed me how to get the initial load going by getting the rod tip to swing outside of the line, really loads early and as you mentioned allows one to go easy the rest of the way 'cuz the rod is already into it's load.  The hardest part for me still is keeping the continuity into the forward power stroke ('turnover' as JM calls it).  But I've still got a long way to go to get to my millionith cast (Mike's number!).

[hyfly]

What i have to do to keep my cast as perfect as possible is to watch my rod tip as i go into the whole process of out and around + 45 thrust. This helps me  keep everything tight and avoid lowering rod tip as i sweep. I also have a tendency to go to fast so i must concentrate on slowing things down. My strong side (right shoulder cast) would give me lesser distances at first and my left cast would be a lot better distance wise .Then wen i started looking at my rod tip ,i realized that my left cast would have a perfect 45 thrust and my right side cast would go  to far back over my shoulder and unload the rod partially thus hindering my cast.  There are far more details to a perfect cast that meets the eye but the RE WARD  comes when everything just falls in place ............................... bam.

Hyfly

[riveraddict]

   To elaborate more on the subject, the immediate start/power application of a Skagit-style Sweep instantly creates a significant portion of rod load needed to make the cast. The out-and-around of the remainder of the Sweep movement then transfers that load around to a position for making the forward cast. A final load addition opportunity is offered when one uses a CM/CL (Constant Motion/Constant Load) procedure as I do and recommend be done in Skagit casting (as opposed to a linear/back&forth/stop-and-go Sweep to Forward Casting Stroke process). My primary reason for using a CM/CL over a linear/back&forth/stop-go process? Why spend all the effort to create necessary rod load prior to the forward cast and then "lose" it during the stop of the back&forth process?! Instead, a CM/CL process not only maintains created load, but also provides additional loading opportunity via the Turnover stage and this is accomplished through two actions: one, the turning/torqueing/twisting over of the rod from the plane of the Sweep, on over to the plane of the forward cast "stresses" the rod into a "third dimension" aspect, which then increases rod load; two, the path of the rod tip during the Turnover of traversing from a "back traveling" big "curve" (of the Sweep), into a smaller, tighter curve traveling "forward" (that of the Turnover), also increases the energy of the line and thus rod load (think of "G forces" experienced when driving a car through a diminishing radiused curve). A Skagit casting procedure as I've described here will produce all necessary casting energies PRIOR to arriving to the forward cast stage. Since the rod should theoretically be fully loaded by that time (of the forward cast), the actual forward casting stroke IS NOT an abrupt or short "pop" of the rod (as in Underhand casting)... a short, abrupt casting stroke performed onto a fully loaded rod, where's the logic in that?! Instead, the forward casting stroke should be thought of as an act of "releasing" the line into flight and also prompting/telling/guiding it into a straight path towards the target (remember that you have just brought the line around from a curved flight path). Therefore, a "correct" Skagit casting forward stroke is a comparatively long (compared to Underhand), smooth acceleration of the rod tip into the direction of the intended target. It is almost identical to the forward casting stroke of singlehand overhead casting (assuming that one is doing that correctly!) and thus its "length" is VARIABLE according to distance being cast... shorter casts, shorter stroke, longer casts, longer strokes.

   That completes a description of the major procedural differences of Skagit casting from other Spey-type casting approaches. Quite frankly, I believe anyone reading these descriptions free of a personal agenda will deduce that trying to impartially evaluate optimum performance characteristics of different styles of Spey-type casting against one another via personal exercise would be/is a huge undertaking beyond the scope/will/resources of the vast majority of anglers wielding doublehanded rods. Thus, considering the plethora of opinions on said subject floating around "out there", it is probably prudent to keep in mind that diggedy damn few of them are based on valid experience.        

              

[Rick J]

Started "skagit casting" when I first met Scott O and Mike M on the Grande Ronde when they were still playing around with Windcutter bodies - been lucky to fish with them a couple of times a year since and really lucky to fish with Ed a couple of times and he really spent time showing me his method and the perry poke to add to my quiver of casts. So the last couple of days we fished with Jerry French up here in the OP and he showed us a way to cast into the wind that he and Ed have been playing with - low hand position and a real pull down in the perry poke that just sends out lazers!!! This instantly brought my casting up to a whole new level. It always amazes me how much I learn every time I go out with these guys - actually catching fish is a special extra which is lucky as we didn't!!! But no question I would not trade that trip for anything!

Jerry also told us some interesting things about Ed on their recent trip to Japan (but that I will keep to myself )

Regarding what to look for - my casting off the strong side goes to hell more often than off my weak side as when I get into trouble I tend to try too hard and come out of the box - much easier to do on the strong side. If I focus on keeping my elbow fixed to my side and keep my wrist straight with the palm facing up on the sweep - there is only so far you can go with this movement and if the wrist is straight, the rod position is in a perfect 45 thrust position. If you then rotate your wrist so the palm is facing forward this rotates the rod around into the separate plane for coming forward - the key for me is keeping my elbow right against my side when things start to go to hell.

Thanks  to all the folks that have helped me in my journey!! So far still to go!

[camosled]

  To elaborate more on the subject, the immediate start/power application of a Skagit-style Sweep instantly creates a significant portion of rod load needed to make the cast. The out-and-around of the remainder of the Sweep movement then transfers that load around to a position for making the forward cast. A final load addition opportunity is offered when one uses a CM/CL (Constant Motion/Constant Load) procedure as I do and recommend be done in Skagit casting (as opposed to a linear/back&forth/stop-and-go Sweep to Forward Casting Stroke process). My primary reason for using a CM/CL over a linear/back&forth/stop-go process? Why spend all the effort to create necessary rod load prior to the forward cast and then "lose" it during the stop of the back&forth process?! Instead, a CM/CL process not only maintains created load, but also provides additional loading opportunity via the Turnover stage and this is accomplished through two actions: one, the turning/torqueing/twisting over of the rod from the plane of the Sweep, on over to the plane of the forward cast "stresses" the rod into a "third dimension" aspect, which then increases rod load; two, the path of the rod tip during the Turnover of traversing from a "back traveling" big "curve" (of the Sweep), into a smaller, tighter curve traveling "forward" (that of the Turnover), also increases the energy of the line and thus rod load (think of "G forces" experienced when driving a car through a diminishing radiused curve). A Skagit casting procedure as I've described here will produce all necessary casting energies PRIOR to arriving to the forward cast stage. Since the rod should theoretically be fully loaded by that time (of the forward cast), the actual forward casting stroke IS NOT an abrupt or short "pop" of the rod (as in Underhand casting)... a short, abrupt casting stroke performed onto a fully loaded rod, where's the logic in that?! Instead, the forward casting stroke should be thought of as an act of "releasing" the line into flight and also prompting/telling/guiding it into a straight path towards the target (remember that you have just brought the line around from a curved flight path). Therefore, a "correct" Skagit casting forward stroke is a comparatively long (compared to Underhand), smooth acceleration of the rod tip into the direction of the intended target. It is almost identical to the forward casting stroke of singlehand overhead casting (assuming that one is doing that correctly!) and thus its "length" is VARIABLE according to distance being cast... shorter casts, shorter stroke, longer casts, longer strokes.

   That completes a description of the major procedural differences of Skagit casting from other Spey-type casting approaches. Quite frankly, I believe anyone reading these descriptions free of a personal agenda will deduce that trying to impartially evaluate optimum performance characteristics of different styles of Spey-type casting against one another via personal exercise would be/is a huge undertaking beyond the scope/will/resources of the vast majority of anglers wielding doublehanded rods. Thus, considering the plethora of opinions on said subject floating around "out there", it is probably prudent to keep in mind that diggedy damn few of them are based on valid experience.        

              

This made me chuckle.    Thanks.   True that most commentators need to spend more time fishing.  

One thing I try to tell people about the differences in the two styles of casting is that SA casting is a pleasure with a rod that loads deep.  Those rods cast short and long distances with ease and don't need so many grains in the line to do so.  Many of the new rod flex patterns are fast action and those rods, while you can practice true SA style casts, are so fast that they load and unload immediately, meaning, once you load it, you have to move through the sweep and keep accelerating to maintain load on the rod by the time you make the forward stroke.   For me it's easier to forego the early load part of the sweep with these fast rods and just focus on loading the rod prior to the forward cast with a conscious "set" of the D loop.  This isn't SA casting as Ed describes, though a lot of people try to call it Skagit Casting...But really this late set/180 degree style is more of a traditional style of spey casting than skagit or SA;  it's the same casting stroke I used with long belly lines, before Ed showed me his tricked out setup on the banks of a river in Kamchatka.  

So there in lies the confusion for some....Just because you're casting a skagit head, and you can make it go out, doesn't mean you're executing a SA cast as Ed describes it, though they'd like to think so.  They should just say,
"I'm spey casting with a skagit head".  But then sure enough, someone from Europe will note, "Dat's nought spay caustin!"  

Thanks for the words Ed.

Let's keep this site positive and about what we came here for.

JM

  

[middlecalf]

Rick (or Ed) - love the hand/palm placement description you provide on the power side.  What's your description for the off-hand side?  I'll take a guess:  the back of the hand should be up on the sweep and the pointing out on the forward stroke (?).  Thanks.  Paul

[hyfly]

I hope those top secret tips end up in the Full intruder package.

Hyfly

[Rick J]

I asked Ed this once if on the off-shoulder casts if on the forward cast, the back of his hand is facing forward and I recall he said sometimes it is, but I would love to hear from him a bit more about hand/arm position. For sure for me the back of my hand is up on the sweep - you can't keep your right elbow tucked for this cast - it needs to come across your body, but if you try to keep your left elbow tucked, this will help keep you in the box and at the end of the sweep your upper hand is slightly above shoulder height. I don't normally rotate as much  to the extent that the back of my hand is facing forward and really when casting off my strong side, I am not sure I rotate all the way so the front of my hand is facing forward - rather I rotate so my thumb is back - very similar to a typical hand position when coming forward with a single hand rod with an overhead cast.

I helped teach fly fishing classes for a number of years and the casting instructor, Bob Kelly, from Humboldt State (and one time head of the Fenwick West Yellowstone casting classes) talked about various hand positions for overhead casting - he indicated that a palm out or forward position actually uses the strongest wrist muscles  and many distance casters rotate the hand going from the back cast to the forward cast. 

For Ed's method of out and around, I think a great analogy is to compare it to the belgian loop style of overhead casting that also is a continuous motion cast - well demonstrated in one of Mel Krieger's video

[yuhina]

One of the reasons I present this bit is to create an awareness that many of the e-casters touting the superiority of their casting, or the downfalls of others, are literally ignorant of the workings of SA casting and thus cannot duplicate the performance results of casters schooled in SA concepts when "evaluating" one against the other. In other words, they don't know what they are talking about. It is the seemingly minor differences in technique of the differing casting disciplines that make a huge difference in obtained results.                     

Ed,

What a great post to clarify the misunderstanding of SA skagit cast! I am sure those longliner or pseudo longline e-caster will jump up and down and try to figure out what is rotational forces! or the ET  forces(Ed's Trebuchet)! Ha...

Joking aside, I can't agree with you more about the advice to new comers. Learn a style thoroughly before move to other style. Skagit casting has been good and relative easy to learn for most of the new comers. However, how many people really experience the power application from the rotational centrifugal force?, how many people have experienced the hidden power coming from the law of conservation in angular momentum?! I can tell you from the posts of those e-casters, rare!. even fewer on the river that people can barely cast in Ed Ward's style. Yes, you see a lot of "muscle out" skagit head dudes and think that is the whole world of skagit casting..

The below section is written for the long liners who interested in physics.

The reason long belly require heavier weight to load the rod is because  the longer line induced RELATIVELY more air drag during the cast. enlongate line will have more air drag compare to the more compact line figuration relatively. This is simple physics property, more surface area induce more air drag.  That is the reason, skagit head will penetrate the wind better than "similar class" mid belly, long belly line. If you say this on the speypages or washington ff you can expect who will jump on me again. But in the matter of fact, this principle is as simple as high school physics. Try to throw 6 feet rope first, than compare the distance if you fold the rope twice, then throw it? The latter one will penetrate the air better (less air drag), fly farther, and. Of course get impact by the wind force less. Flying objects have to experience this air drag effect ALL THE TIME. The phenomenon of penetration in the air is just as important as sinktip penetrating through the water! 

In addition,
The rotational centrifugal force is a brilliant design for the skagit casting (Ed Ward's style). Not only it require less room to execute the similar power compare to other more linear movement casting techniques. The rotational movement, also much easier to control the power when the techniche is learned (bigger radius, more potentially stored angular momentum), particularly, we are talking about the "heavy junk" at the end of the line.the buried anchor (heavy tip and big fly) actually "helped" to make a good execution of SA Skagit casting.

"Muscle out" 12' T14 with 70' belly 800 grain? no big deal... sure! How about casting 12'  T14 with 400 grain 18' short skagit head? will do the same just fine! This is the efficiency we are talking about in skagit casting.

Mark

[riveraddict]

   Quite frankly, it's no big concern of mine as to how anyone wants to cast or the particular style they wish to use. The fact is that there are conditions and or circumstances where each style excels and it is up to each individual angler to examine and then decide for themselves which one best suits their particular angling needs or desires. However, for anyone to be able to "make an informed decision", the available information has to be correct and therefore I do have a huge problem with persons either ignorantly or maliciously presenting incorrect or misleading information about Skagit casting. The fact is that there is a lot of bad info out there regarding Skagit casting and its particular focus of casting via a dedicated waterloading/SA concept, along with its potential capabilities, and the major reason for that circumstance is that there are many ignorant and/or malicious individuals out there presenting incorrect or misleading info about Skagit casting... and that folks, seems to be a vicious, self-sustaining circle! Thus has been the reasoning for my active participation in Spey-based public "debates".
   Unfortunately, there are individuals out there that seem to have a personal vendetta against Skagit casting, easily proven by examining the history of their public "contributions", and their participation on certain forums has reached a level that pretty well cancels out any and all hope for presenting or maintaining an objective or constructive conversation about Skagit casting in those venues anymore... thank goodness we now have this site to discuss "things Skagit"!
          

[yuhina]

  Quite frankly, it's no big concern of mine as to how anyone wants to cast or the particular style they wish to use. The fact is that there are conditions and or circumstances where each style excels and it is up to each individual angler to examine and then decide for themselves which one best suits their particular angling needs or desires.

Well said, Ed

Sorry for being sounds like a "bi-polar" opinion in the previous post... Not my intention at all.

The previous post I made is centered on this idea, not trying to belittle any other techniques... just to emphasis how important to PROPER learn a technique and to pay attention to the principle of each technique.  In the matter of fact, I still cast my 16' rod occasionally and still in touch with several excellent and respectful long line casters!

The internet is a interesting place, group discussion is  fun and really facilitate different casting techniques to exchange different ideas. We all learn something from each other. However, sometime I just can't stand some particular group have special "agenda" to misinform new comers.

Mark

[klickfix]

This is all great stuff,
Ed, it is great to hear that you could care less how people want to cast/fish with a two handed rod.  It does appear that some where along the way the whole thing has shifted from enjoying being on the water and fishing with a two hander to debating about what is the "superior" method instead of trying to inform newcomers of the different styles and the benefits of each.  I am by no means an old hand at this but when I started fishing with a two hander  about a decade ago it was a much smaller group and people that were always wanting to share and inform.  It is because of this attitude that I am where I am today.  Big V Olson was one of the greatest people to me in my own fishing and I always took advantage of our time on the water together and his willingness to help tweak my cast.  He help me find that energy in the rod and ways to maximize it.  I always think that if people are willing to learn then those in the know should try to share there knowledge whether it be on a forum or on the water.