I would like your thoughts on the benefits of ambidextrous vs reverse spey casting. As for myself, I've worked on spey casting with either hand high. Thus, I would have no need to execute, say, a reverse snake roll. However, as I've become more and more proficient I've observed that I can get more power on the reverse (of any cast).
In order to confirm this, I've spent the last week conducting empirical experiments in hopes of confirming this observation. The question is whether a reverse spey cast is more efficient than its normal counterpart. To answer this question I compared the distances and flight trajectories of the normal and reverse versions of the Snake Roll, Snap-T, and Double-spey. In all three casts (on both water and grass) the reverse version yielded (1) longer distances and (2) a higher percentage of correct line trajectories.
EXPERIMENTAL METHOD
I used a 14' Sage 9140-4 IIIe equipped with an 8/9/10 Rio Windcutter (upgrade). For the grass tests I used the floating tip equipped with a 12' grass leader. For the water tests, I did the tests with the type 3 sink tip with 4' leader and the floating tip with a 14' leader.
The distances on the grass were measure by pacing and always rounded down. The distances over water were measured relative to a known mark on the running line.
The tests were conducted over a 5 day period. For two of those days the rain was a significant factor. However, the wind was more or less calm on each of the 5 days during the casting tests.
Finally, only correct casts were scored. For a cast to be correct the following criteria had to be met:
(1) The fly had to touch down before, or simultaneously with the line.
(2) Upon landing, slack line (wiggles) were permitted. However, the existence of a coil in either the line or the leader disqualified the cast (NB: The on-water tests were problematic because I couldn't wade out to mid-stream and check that the leader was straight).
(2) The cast had to be such that no significant recoil occurred.
RESULTS
These data are the mean and standard deviation of the distances over grass (1st column) and water (2nd column). The final column are the percent of casts that flew and landed correctly. Significance of these results were calculated using Student's T-Test.
RH = Right Hand High
LH = Left Hand High
RH snake
Forward 85' +/-3' 75' +/-2 66%
Reverse 90' +/-3' 81' +/-2 75%
LH snake
Forward 83' +/-4' 75' +/-2 66%
Reverse 90' +/-2' 81' +/-2 75%
RH double
Forward 87' +/-2' 79' +/-3 80%
Reverse 91' +/-1' 85' +/-2 79%
LH double
Forward 87' +/-1' 79' +/-3 80%
Reverse 89' +/-1' 85' +/-2 79%
RH snap
Forward 81' +/-3' 74' +/-2 85%
Reverse 85' +/-4' 81' +/-1 90%
LH snap
Forward 79' +/-3' 74' +/-2 85%
Reverse 85' +/-2' 81' +/-1 90%
My reverse casts over both grass and water were consistently longer. In addition, tho' not reported here, I had more failures due to line recoil when reverse casting. Interestingly, that the added length was achieved without a corresponding degradation in variablility was striking. I would not have expected this result.
Finally, after having conducted these tests, I debated including the percent correct casts column because this probably reflects my own skill as much as it does any attribute of the cast. Nevertheless, I included these results and will let you draw your own conclusions.
SUMMARY
First, these results are undoubtedly biased in ways of which I am unaware since the only caster was me.
Also, note that all casts were shooting casts, since this is the design center of the line I was using. Were I to repeat these tests with a Mid- or Grand-spey, or an equivalent line, the outcome could be different.
To say the least, I was surprised at these results, but I want to advance an explaination and see what you guys think.
I believe that in order to execute the reverse version of any of these spey casts, the body must be rotated to a greater extent in order to accomodate the cross-chest move. The cross-chest move also forces the rod slightly higher in order for the upper arm to clear the chest. Coupled with the torque generated by the body unwinding (during the forward cast) and the higher rod position, the line will tend to fly farther and higher - All good things.
Are these data consistent with the experience of those of you who are inarguably experienced spey casters?
or
Do these differences between disappear with experience? Do they become more pronounced?
Cheers,
Michael
In order to confirm this, I've spent the last week conducting empirical experiments in hopes of confirming this observation. The question is whether a reverse spey cast is more efficient than its normal counterpart. To answer this question I compared the distances and flight trajectories of the normal and reverse versions of the Snake Roll, Snap-T, and Double-spey. In all three casts (on both water and grass) the reverse version yielded (1) longer distances and (2) a higher percentage of correct line trajectories.
EXPERIMENTAL METHOD
I used a 14' Sage 9140-4 IIIe equipped with an 8/9/10 Rio Windcutter (upgrade). For the grass tests I used the floating tip equipped with a 12' grass leader. For the water tests, I did the tests with the type 3 sink tip with 4' leader and the floating tip with a 14' leader.
The distances on the grass were measure by pacing and always rounded down. The distances over water were measured relative to a known mark on the running line.
The tests were conducted over a 5 day period. For two of those days the rain was a significant factor. However, the wind was more or less calm on each of the 5 days during the casting tests.
Finally, only correct casts were scored. For a cast to be correct the following criteria had to be met:
(1) The fly had to touch down before, or simultaneously with the line.
(2) Upon landing, slack line (wiggles) were permitted. However, the existence of a coil in either the line or the leader disqualified the cast (NB: The on-water tests were problematic because I couldn't wade out to mid-stream and check that the leader was straight).
(2) The cast had to be such that no significant recoil occurred.
RESULTS
These data are the mean and standard deviation of the distances over grass (1st column) and water (2nd column). The final column are the percent of casts that flew and landed correctly. Significance of these results were calculated using Student's T-Test.
RH = Right Hand High
LH = Left Hand High
RH snake
Forward 85' +/-3' 75' +/-2 66%
Reverse 90' +/-3' 81' +/-2 75%
LH snake
Forward 83' +/-4' 75' +/-2 66%
Reverse 90' +/-2' 81' +/-2 75%
RH double
Forward 87' +/-2' 79' +/-3 80%
Reverse 91' +/-1' 85' +/-2 79%
LH double
Forward 87' +/-1' 79' +/-3 80%
Reverse 89' +/-1' 85' +/-2 79%
RH snap
Forward 81' +/-3' 74' +/-2 85%
Reverse 85' +/-4' 81' +/-1 90%
LH snap
Forward 79' +/-3' 74' +/-2 85%
Reverse 85' +/-2' 81' +/-1 90%
My reverse casts over both grass and water were consistently longer. In addition, tho' not reported here, I had more failures due to line recoil when reverse casting. Interestingly, that the added length was achieved without a corresponding degradation in variablility was striking. I would not have expected this result.
Finally, after having conducted these tests, I debated including the percent correct casts column because this probably reflects my own skill as much as it does any attribute of the cast. Nevertheless, I included these results and will let you draw your own conclusions.
SUMMARY
First, these results are undoubtedly biased in ways of which I am unaware since the only caster was me.
Also, note that all casts were shooting casts, since this is the design center of the line I was using. Were I to repeat these tests with a Mid- or Grand-spey, or an equivalent line, the outcome could be different.
To say the least, I was surprised at these results, but I want to advance an explaination and see what you guys think.
I believe that in order to execute the reverse version of any of these spey casts, the body must be rotated to a greater extent in order to accomodate the cross-chest move. The cross-chest move also forces the rod slightly higher in order for the upper arm to clear the chest. Coupled with the torque generated by the body unwinding (during the forward cast) and the higher rod position, the line will tend to fly farther and higher - All good things.
Are these data consistent with the experience of those of you who are inarguably experienced spey casters?
or
Do these differences between disappear with experience? Do they become more pronounced?
Cheers,
Michael