Thanks for sharing. 😊 What stayed with me was your description of everything that’s missing there. The absence of industrialized fly shops, expensive coffee and the usual parade of vans somehow says much more about the place than a list of attractions ever could. It reminded me how often we mistake convenience for character, when sometimes it’s the rough edges and small inconveniences that make somewhere feel genuinely alive.
I’ve noticed something similar while traveling. The places I think about years later are rarely the ones that had the most to do. They’re the ones that quietly refused to optimize themselves for visitors, where the rhythm belonged to the people who lived there long before anyone came looking for an experience.
That feels very close to the point you make about fishing, writing and building something. The work isn’t just what happens on the river. It’s choosing environments that make patience feel normal again. I’d happily read more pieces like this.
First, thanks for the emphasis on conservation, and our landscapes & waterways, and for calling out the politicians who are doing their damnedest to destroy the places we fish and recreate. Vote the bastards out this November.
Second, to the whole discussion on casting and skills … I don’t remember seeing Juracek mention that 98% of fly casters have fundamental flaws in their casting strokes, but I’m not going to argue with John over whether it’s 98% or 95% or just 93%. The thing to keep in mind, though, is that it’s possible to make a decent cast with a flawed stroke … and many anglers are able to do just that. In fact, plenty of folks seem happy to contort their arms in their ongoing efforts to cast farther and/or more accurately. The real question, at least in my mind, is why so many people can’t distinguish a fundamentally-sound casting stroke from a flawed stroke. I’d be willing to wager that an overwhelming percentage of anglers couldn’t tell the difference if their lives depended on it. So why is that? Why can’t fly fishers tell good form from poor?
Because they've never had any proper instruction, and we probably don't do a very good job as an industry of pushing instruction to the fore. No angler is going to have a worse fishing experience by having better fundamentals. ~Andrew
Former golf instructor here. Can confirm that nearly all golfers who take lessons/coaching play more golf than golfers who don’t take lessons/coaching. I can only assume that those golfers are happier, and to your point, having a better golfing experience.
I think we also find that people who plateau from a skill standpoint are at risk for churning from the sport. If you aren't learning and getting better, why would you keep doing it. Skill progression is an integral part of longevity.
Thanks for sharing. 😊 What stayed with me was your description of everything that’s missing there. The absence of industrialized fly shops, expensive coffee and the usual parade of vans somehow says much more about the place than a list of attractions ever could. It reminded me how often we mistake convenience for character, when sometimes it’s the rough edges and small inconveniences that make somewhere feel genuinely alive.
I’ve noticed something similar while traveling. The places I think about years later are rarely the ones that had the most to do. They’re the ones that quietly refused to optimize themselves for visitors, where the rhythm belonged to the people who lived there long before anyone came looking for an experience.
That feels very close to the point you make about fishing, writing and building something. The work isn’t just what happens on the river. It’s choosing environments that make patience feel normal again. I’d happily read more pieces like this.
A couple of things:
First, thanks for the emphasis on conservation, and our landscapes & waterways, and for calling out the politicians who are doing their damnedest to destroy the places we fish and recreate. Vote the bastards out this November.
Second, to the whole discussion on casting and skills … I don’t remember seeing Juracek mention that 98% of fly casters have fundamental flaws in their casting strokes, but I’m not going to argue with John over whether it’s 98% or 95% or just 93%. The thing to keep in mind, though, is that it’s possible to make a decent cast with a flawed stroke … and many anglers are able to do just that. In fact, plenty of folks seem happy to contort their arms in their ongoing efforts to cast farther and/or more accurately. The real question, at least in my mind, is why so many people can’t distinguish a fundamentally-sound casting stroke from a flawed stroke. I’d be willing to wager that an overwhelming percentage of anglers couldn’t tell the difference if their lives depended on it. So why is that? Why can’t fly fishers tell good form from poor?
Todd,
Because they've never had any proper instruction, and we probably don't do a very good job as an industry of pushing instruction to the fore. No angler is going to have a worse fishing experience by having better fundamentals. ~Andrew
Former golf instructor here. Can confirm that nearly all golfers who take lessons/coaching play more golf than golfers who don’t take lessons/coaching. I can only assume that those golfers are happier, and to your point, having a better golfing experience.
I think we also find that people who plateau from a skill standpoint are at risk for churning from the sport. If you aren't learning and getting better, why would you keep doing it. Skill progression is an integral part of longevity.
100%.