When it comes to women most men have a “type.” This is very obvious when the type applies to physical aspects – for instance some guys like leggy blondes: they date leggy blondes, watch porn starring leggy blondes, marry leggy blondes, and then cheat on their leggy blonde wife with a leggy blonde skank. When questioned, these guys will deny having a “type,” and for their part they are being perfectly honest. Seriously, if one is basing the primary relationships of one’s life on a hair color…how self-aware would you expect this individual to be?

Other guys are a bit deeper and the basis for their “type” is some aspect of a woman’s personality. For instance, you have a buddy you fish with and then he starts seeing a woman who is wicked clingy and never lets him out of the house. You stop hanging out with the feeb because calls that used to be for trips to Alberta or to check out the boat show are now desperate pleas for you to go on a double date with him to the Cranberry Festival or to g’hey musical dinner theatre. Naturally he becomes dead to you. Years later, he gets dumped and you guys start fishing again. He meets a new girl and sure enough she’s the clingy type. He’ll never learn, he can’t learn, that’s his type and that’s just the way it’s going to be.

In the interest of appearing fair (with no interest at all in actually being fair), I will point out that women do not have “types” like men do. This is primarily due to the fact that men are all pretty much the same. Don’t believe so? The sad reality is you only need to know one variable about a male human to make an educated and accurate guess about his personality and mannerisms. This variable is his “Thing.” All men have a hobby, pass-time, or obsession of some sort (did you have your mind in the gutter when I used the term “thing?”) some have a few but one will always be dominant. There are car guys, handyman guys, boat guys, players, gamers, hunters, fly tyers, and what have you. Society commonly makes the mistake of judging people by their profession (granted some guys have their career as their thing) if the same judgment was made regarding their hobby it would be far more accurate. Women – for their part – relate to this fact in the following way – after a failed relationship with say a “fly fisherman” the next guy they get involved with will be “not a fly fisherman.”

The Flyosopher – self-aware as he may be – is not immune to this, and has a very special “type” of his own. No, it’s not based on hair color, a personality trait, or even something important like cup-size. The Flyosopher goes for women who are prone to declare, “You think too much,” slam the door and leave. It is likely true. I do tend – like the Prince of Denmark – to ponder too long and act late if at all, even earned the nickname “Weak on the Follow-through” from a professor back in the day. 

It does bother me a bit. Not the fair criticism, but the implied belief that I’m somehow doing it on purpose. I can’t just stop thinking. Thinking (see) back over the course of my life, this one quality has destroyed a number of otherwise healthy and happy relationships, career opportunities, and several Sci-Fi Movies – which is sad. Far worse, however, are the fishing trips and fishing opportunities which may have been compromised by this trait.

“If you spend too much time thinking about a thing, you’ll never get it done.”

Bruce Lee

Consider this:

In all of Fly Fishing Media – there is ONE quality that all of the very best fish-catchers are said to possess…

They keep their fly in the water longer.

The theories as to why or how they manage to accomplish this vary, but this simple truth remains. Some accredit it to a singular driving passion, others to superior casting ability, speed of or even lack of a retrieve is another popular theory.

There is one other quality these great fish-catchers share…whatever the Media Source they are never the presenter. If it’s a book – they are an anecdote, if a DVD they are mentioned in passing by the host. These are the esteemed “some guy once” heroes not the popular celebrities or writers themselves. Writers, hosts, even inconsistent bloggers tend to have motives other “things” than catching fish.

My nominee to this Pantheon is Dave Langan – whom I’ve mentioned a number of times. In all my days I have never fished with anyone who so consistently caught the most fish and who could catch fish when those around him could not. We all get lucky – both good and bad – but Dave always manages to bring the most fish to hand. After years of fishing with him, I have finally unraveled his secret more surely than the Great Alexander unraveled the Gordian Knot. It really shouldn’t have taken so long, since he told me within minutes of our initial meeting and I’ve made fun of him for it hundreds of times.

He never thinks about the fly he is using. Dave always fishes the same fly.

Before you laugh – which is what I did – ask yourself why is this funny?

The fly he uses could best be described as “General Baitfish,” given that it is being used in a saltwater setting it is entirely possible that it also imitates a squid. The fly has no eyes, no flash, and is tied with natural materials that are always moving and always simulate life. The fly works. It doesn’t work every day, but in 100’s of outings I can recall only one tide when the fly failed to produce and another fly did (The fly that did was mine and I remind Dave of this because I’m totally like that.)

Now you may be thinking…oh wait we need the nameless feeb to pipe in…actually I thought of a nick-name for the “Nameless Feeb.”

“But Mr. Flyosopher, I’m sure that stripers are dumb brutes and a general pattern is fine for them but a trout would never be so simple, especially not one sipping dries on say the Delaware River.”

Nameless Feeb

“You really think that, Lefty? And thanks for that overtly specific example.”

The Flyosopher

“Wow you called me Lefty is that because you think I’m like the great Saint Lefty Kreh who drove the bait fishermen out of Maryland?”

Nameless Feeb

“No, I called you Lefty because you can’t do anything right.”

The Flyosopher

As for the overtly specific example…One of Dave’s old buddies when he fished the Delaware was Bob Nastasi – best known for his “thing” a vast knowledge of entomology – who fishes one dry fly. It works.

I think many anglers fall into the belief that at any given moment there is only one fly that will work, or rather one fly that will work better. Much like the fish they accuse of getting “keyed in” to a specific forage item, these anglers get “keyed in” to finding that one perfect fly. This may even be true, rarely. However, the time, energy, and thought we put into changing flies would most likely be better served by figuring out how best to fish a proven pattern you already have on. Changing a fly changes one element of the presentation, changing where or how it is being fished changes several elements. By never thinking about what fly to use, Dave is constantly thinking about how best to fish the situation he is in. He varies his retrieves, varies the structure he casts too, and if nothing is happening he’ll move down the current sooner than most people will. If you are like me (if so I feel for you), the time from when you first think “Should I switch flies” to the time you actually do could be several casts, several casts where you doubt that you have any real chance of catching anything. Dave always thinks he will catch something, and that more than anything is the reason he does.

Now I also want to point out that Dave also has a pretty powerful level of concentration – he doesn’t miss strikes, and when he is fishing – He is fishing! That is a big part of his success, and I don’t want to minimize that. However, there are things you can teach and things you can learn. Concentration and focus are skills and can be learned – but you aren’t going to learn them from me. Unless the horrible example I set somehow inspires you to not be like me. Like drilling for casting practice sometimes it is easier to learn a simple process to develop a more complicated one. I think having One-fly days will help you develop skills that you may have neglected. Worth thinking about…or maybe not thinking about…

One last thing – this is a bit of the behind the scenes stuff, in case you care. Most of the ideas I get for Flyosophy come from somewhere…I don’t always know where, but this time I do. The last few months I’ve spent a bit more time in doctor’s offices than I would care to admit, but I have to say I’ve developed quite an appreciation of the scientific journals they have laying around at this one place. I read an article about choice being a major source of unhappiness for people- specifically in relationships focusing on Internet Dating sites vs more traditional dating practices. The theory was this in a nutshell…back in the day people would marry who they met in the course of their life, generally right out of high school, college, or someone from their relatively small community – church, neighbors, friends, whatever. So say you were in some venue with 100 potential mates. You have a 1-100 chance of finding Ms. or Mr. Right (that is of course overly simplified but you get the idea.) Now compare that to some person on an Internet dating site…where the ratio is much much higher, with potentially thousands of “matches.” What the study found was instead of being happy and feeling energized by the number of choices, people felt far more stressed. They feared they would make the wrong choice and wind up with a dud or what is even harder to quantify that they would meet someone good but miss out on that PERFECT person. On the other hand, take the hypothetical situation where you survive a plane crash but are trapped on a deserted island with no chance of rescue with one person of the opposite gender – doesn’t matter who the other person is you can likely make it work. The article went on to say that if a couple has difficulty (as they all do) the more choice the person had initially the more likely they were to think they were with the wrong person and ultimately split up. If the couple had less choices (or no choice in arranged marriages) they were more likely to look at the root problem and work it out. Kind of interesting…

More interesting that I read that and suddenly thought of fly choice and how an over-full fly box may be jeopardizing my relationship with stripers…I think the Psyche Journal should do a series on me.