skagit vs. the world.

yuhina

Tropical member
So, how about we shift this discussion to mechanics instead. With modern fast action rods, what do you do when you can get minimal load, and hardly any, to no line behind you, or even more importantly, your line and anchor are out in front? What is the stroke like? Are you pushing out with both hands cocked as far as you can, then applying a fulcrum? Do you fulcrum first with no forward drift, and then thrust the tip as far as possible? Or do you not have a set go to technique, and just determine what each rod needs?
Philster,

All good points and I agree those are all keys to make a "No back cast room" cast.
I only can speak of Skagit (fat head) line here...

IMO, Fast action rod actually help, because the same load make less rod bend, less drifting and mess around... like you described that a knight stabbing motion.

also, the anchor shift out in the front is the key. Noted: every cast NEED back cast to sling the line. but shifting the fulcrum in the front make a illusion that there is no back cast... because the casting center is shift from body to the "front pivot point" = fulcrum. All the line weight behind this fulcrum point is the actual load. That is the reason, as we all know, the fat head line work well... this is the reason I suspect the carron line I posted earlier, has a triangle taper fat head, so the caster (Andrew Toft) can minimize his back room and literally "flip" the line out.

In addition, by shifting the fulcrum in the front, the caster lost the effective casting leverage. the is the reason I think only very long rod will work, if not using "fat head" line.

Mark
 
Another trick with close in stuff is to change the angles of the back cast and cheat on the forward cast.
Mark, the I can assure you that the Carrons are a little more complex than just a triangle taper ;-)
For the skagit stuff most prefer a stiff rod because they have a difficult time making the continous motion cast like Ed does and therefore pauses in their cast because of the lack of continous motion and thus compensate with the stiffer rod?????? What do you think Mark. Also wouldnt a softer rod bend under the force of a casting stroke without weight behind it easier than a stiffer rod thus helping the cast????
 

yuhina

Tropical member
Another trick with close in stuff is to change the angles of the back cast and cheat on the forward cast.
Mark, the I can assure you that the Carrons are a little more complex than just a triangle taper ;-)
LOL, that's too funny Bruce. Great! I love secret, I will definitely get hooked on those carron!

For the skagit stuff most prefer a stiff rod because they have a difficult time making the continous motion cast like Ed does and the pauses in their cast because of the lack of continous motion and thus compensate with the stiffer rod?????? What do you think Mark.
Hmmm... are we going to let all secrets out in this thread?! : p

Ok, First, I have to agree there are definitely two styles in skagit cast. At least.

Let's say "more" linear motion style.. and it could be as clean as you can get like some great casters (no naming here).

Also the "more" circular motion style as we see in Ed Ward's cast. As we all know, it utilized the continue move and constant load motion (CM/CL). and please allow me make a disclaimer here: Both styles take high skills to master ALL GOOD!!:thumb:

I have to agree with you Bruce that CM/CL motion is not as easy as it looks... It is a fairly long stroke, it take times to feel the rotation, it take a right time to transit into back cast and make sure you did not unload the rod during the 45 degree thrust (pivot) and then continue the stroke all the way down. There are more steps shifting in this CM/CL motions, so everything being equal, it is harder for new comers. But I have to agree this style is the most "fluidy" and relaxing once you feel it... And Yes, I agree, compensate to stiffer rod is a good way, because you can easily "shrink" the load into more compact motion, not that "fluidy" but get the boom out there... I THINK, faster rod and a bit heavier line (more stick) will give new comers more tolerant in this (CM/CL) cast...

Mark
 

Salmo_g

Well-Known Member
Phew, long thread!

Phil, re 2 pages ago, that water that I can't reach, whether with Skagit line or another, I call that "conservation water." I don't know how far I can cast beyond those 8 strips; I think not many, but it would vary from rod to rod and line wt. Don't know if you recall our day on the Cowlitz a few seasons ago. I'm Spey casting a lot better, but probably not more than about 20' further.

Fishman26,

I thought that the "ideal" Skagit rod among the Skagit Jedi is a pretty soft action, very deep loading rod. So I'm not sure about your remark. Although I would add that I see a lot of fly casters attempt to solve their casting deficiencies by using faster action rods instead of improving their casting skill. I'll hazard the guess that the reason the used Spey tackle market is so active is that many people are trying to solve their casting problems with equipment changes instead of casting lessons and practice.

Sg
 

Panhandle

Active Member
A good point made and only draw back of skagits for me is line management and stripping. Fishing the clearwater requires long casts so 5 minutes of stripping in between casts can get real tiring. Standing in a moving current with 30 ft of running line in your hand is a skill all to itself. This is where skandis and longer bellies become attractive.
 
Salmo yep you nailed it the `jedis` like the more moderate rods that bend deep into the but but those lacking in skills compensate with faster rods. Thats whats great about spey for the shops, people think they can buy their way out of casting issues but if they would just focus on practice and getting some hands on instruction it would be way cheaper in the long run.