10 footers

[JohnPowers]

Are these 10 foot rods generally for nynphing or is that length becoming more common?

 

[Jessed]

The new trend in nymphing has been the euro style nymphing. People like long sensitive rods for this type of fishing. But personally I have my own way of nymph ( sorta like euro nymphing without the sighted and line on the water) and often use my 5 foot rod and catch fish fine.

 

[PennKev]

Recent 10 foot rod thread,

I'm not sure what more needs to be said, or said again.

 

[JohnPowers]

If it's been said, I didn't see it. So ten footers are for nymphing.

 

[NewSal]

JohnPowers wrote:
If it's been said, I didn't see it. So ten footers are for nymphing.

Read the thread that has been linked above..

 

[kobalt335]

I was just throwing size 20 bwos on my 10ft rod yesterday and did well. So most definately not just for nymping. The extra reach helps all around.

 

[DGC]

I think it is fair to say that tapers have made substantial gains in the last few years so that certain 10 footers should be fine. On the other hand, the 4 weight I built in 2001, while serviceable for dry flies, is not what I pick up very often unless wet flies are on the menu. I would look at reviews and take test drives.

There is a cyclical aspect to all this in that, Halford and assorted dry fly purist friends, in merry olde England, used rods longer than 10 ft and those were far heavier, obviously.

 

[troutbert]

DGC wrote:
I think it is fair to say that tapers have made substantial gains in the last few years so that certain 10 footers should be fine. On the other hand, the 4 weight I built in 2001, while serviceable for dry flies, is not what I pick up very often unless wet flies are on the menu. I would look at reviews and take test drives.

There is a cyclical aspect to all this in that, Halford and assorted dry fly purist friends, in merry olde England, used rods longer than 10 ft and those were far heavier, obviously.

There is some interesting history here:
http://flyfishinghistory.com/victoria.htm

Note the part that says that rod length decreased with the development of FALSE CASTING, in the late 1800s.

Apparently for the first 1000 years or so, fly casting was done without false casting.

Maybe people are going back in that direction.

 

[afishinado]

troutbert wrote:

DGC wrote:
I think it is fair to say that tapers have made substantial gains in the last few years so that certain 10 footers should be fine. On the other hand, the 4 weight I built in 2001, while serviceable for dry flies, is not what I pick up very often unless wet flies are on the menu. I would look at reviews and take test drives.

There is a cyclical aspect to all this in that, Halford and assorted dry fly purist friends, in merry olde England, used rods longer than 10 ft and those were far heavier, obviously.

There is some interesting history here:
http://flyfishinghistory.com/victoria.htm

Note the part that says that rod length decreased with the development of FALSE CASTING, in the late 1800s.

Apparently for the first 1000 years or so, fly casting was done without false casting.

Maybe people are going back in that direction.

^ interesting article. Thanks for posting.

The wind of change began to blow in 1857, when Stewart, a young Scotsman, advocated upstream wet fly fishing with for 'a light stiff, single-handed rod, about ten feet long.' This, the discovery of the false-cast early in the decade, and the beginnings of dry fly fishing, began the trend towards shorter trout rods that led to the nine to ten foot split-cane rods of Halford's generation.

Modern FFing was born ^. And now we are still debating what the creators of modern FFing discovered 150 years ago.....short rods are for worms and minnies....long rods rule!