Rod Action

[GreenWeenie]

Pete, so what you are really saying is you just aren't an accomlplished caster :lol: :lol: :lol:

I learned my lesson on the Delaware. For 29 years I fished either a 6' 5wt Fenwick glass or 7.5' 5wt Fenwick HMG graphite before switching to a 9', 5wt medium action rod. I went to the Delaware with that rod........once.

I now have a fast action 9', 6wt.

I too am just not an accomplished caster. :roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[pete41]

I used mostly shooting heads with mono running lines and double haul casts-could bang them out.

 

[GreenWeenie]

Tomi,

The original post seems pretty clear that rod action has nothing to do with performance of any kind -even going so far to specifically reference line speed and distance - and that performance is in the hands of the caster. To me there certainly doesn’t seem to be any stated or implied qualifiers about intended uses.

I am not an expert caster and I can’t cast the TMF 80 feet but I can cast the NRX 80 feet with okay accuracy, so the NRX is my handicap to help compensate for my poor technique and the handicap I am providing in return is I am not a bullseye accurate caster at 80 feet. Since rod action doesn’t matter, an expert caster should be able to cast the TMF more accurately at 80 feet that I can cast the NRX and if they can’t, well they either aren’t an expert caster or maybe, just maybe, rod action does indeed have an effect on distance and accuracy and the original statement is false.

As for designing a contest that will only reinforce your views, you mean like electroshocking?

 

[pete41]

There was an English fishing story about a club member ridiculing the distances other members claimed they were casting.
He challenged them to a contest.He was right.
They voted him out of the club next day.

 

[tomitrout]

Like I just said previously, I guess you read his post differently than I did, no more, no less.

Electroshocking, just can't let it go, can you? :roll:

 

[GreenWeenie]

Tomi,

You've got to admit, you left yourself wide open for that one. I thought it was funny more than anything else.

 

[Paulson]

For conversational purposes I was always taught I am casting a line not a rod or fly, what rod does that is up to me.

Discuss?

 

[Jeep_Angler]

After reading through some of these posts, I’m not really sure where to start…but I’ve obviously touched a nerve or two with some folks.

Nowhere in my post did I say directly or indirectly anything about my skill as a caster. I simply stated a fact that it is the skill of the caster that dictates the attributed techniques, not the action of the rod. This same argument is played out with regards to fly rod material constantly too, but the answer is always the same. IT ALWAYS COMES BACK TO THE SKILL OF THE CASTER.

A skilled caster can throw a tight loop with a fast rod, slow rod, medium rod, hell, in the case of some folks – no rod. If you honestly believe it is the rod action that creates these things, you are missing the boat. If you can’t cast a tight loop with a slow rod, but you can with a fast rod, it isn’t the rod…it is you. I’m not saying that many people don’t find it easier or harder to do with a certain rod action, but that isn’t about the rod, it is about the casting skills of the person holding the rod.

GreenWeenie,
As far as competing with you (or anyone) in flyfishing – I’ll pass. I wouldn’t disrespect our great pastime by adding competition to it – I find it to be a disgusting though. For the record since my original post in some way triggered a Neanderthal like response from you that you have a need to compare yours to mine I’ll say this: I can cast further than most anyone can reasonably expect to intentionally hook a rising trout on a highly visible size 12 dry fly with more accuracy than is needed to fool such an animal into striking at said dry fly on a highly consistent basis in all fishable conditions, whether that be of a traditional overhand cast or a roll cast while using one of my wonderfully slow bamboo rods. Furthermore, this is wholly accomplished due to large amounts of repetitive practice (fishing). I’ll probably spend more time flyfishing for trout in March than the vast majority of anglers will the entire season (great for me-sad for them), but none of this amounts to a pile of beans when it comes back to the original comments I made that casting skill is what matters, not rod action.

 

[Jeep_Angler]

pete41 wrote:
I learned my lesson the hard way.Moved to Montana in 1968 with a whole stable of great on Pennsylvania waters rods.
5,6,7 foot bamboo and a seven and 8ft glass.
Gonna teach those rubes that you didn't need derricks to fish western waters.
First stop,Yellowstone river in the paradise valley.
twenty minutes later I knew who didn't know what they were talking about.
Off to Baileys where they just laughed at my tale of woe.
Heard it many times before.
Walked out with a 9 foot fast action 8wt.

I suspect you are comparing apples to AK-47's here. I don't know of too many (if any) 5',6' or 7' bamboo rods that will fish in a similar manner as a 9' 8 weight.

 

[Greenweenie1]

Jeep, yes a skilled caster can use a fast, medium or slow action rod equally well WITHIN REASONABLE PARAMETERS. That is the key phrase you left out of your original post but now seem to be implying you meant or should have been understood. An 8 foot
TMF 4wt rod isn't going to perform the same as a 9 foot 4wt Sage Z-Axis at 70 feet and that has nothing to do with the skill of the caster but everything to do with the rod. You do not see medium action rods being marketed as distance rods and there is a reason why, they are not. I totally agree that casting skill is in the hands of the caster and not the rod but within reason. If you want to say the above example is comparing a .22 short revolver to a 30-06 Remington, it is, but your original post had no such qualifiers and that is the point.

Sorry your Neanderthal post triggered a Neanderthal response.

 

[Jeep_Angler]

Greenweenie1 wrote:
Jeep, yes a skilled caster can use a fast, medium or slow action rod equally well WITHIN REASONABLE PARAMETERS. That is the key phrase you left out of your original post but now seem to be implying you meant or should have been understood.

Please post the quoted materials that I am implying this so I can understand what you are reading into my post that I don't think I'm putting there. The only time I believe I inserted anything about reasonable parameters is when I originally posted about using the proper line weight for the task, not the proper rod action.

No an 8 foot 4 weight is not going to perform the same as a 9 foot 4 weight...but we're not talking about the same thing here...you're adding another factor (length of rod) to a discussion about action of rod...different things. Changing length by a foot will certainly make a difference.

Ultimately what I am saying is an excellent caster will be able to do the same thing with two rods of the same length and line weight (2 8' 4 weights) with one of them being a fast rod and one being a slow rod. That caster will be able to throw a full line with both rods, a tight loop with both rods, etc, etc, etc. Yes one may be “perceived” easier for the caster than the other, but that is based on that casters natural style of casting and not because of the rods action…both tools will do the same job…the skill of the caster allows this to happen.

For the medium action rods being marketed as distance rods...well, that is debatable and will really depend on what you consider a medium action and a fast action (and some other factors too). A few decades ago Orvis marketed a bunch of rods as built for distance casting and high line speeds. Those exact rods by today's standards of a fast action rod are definitely in the medium action realm (slow to some folks). Of course a rod company is going to market their newest rod actions as being able to cast further...it is marketing (they’ve been doing this since bamboo rods were the rod of choice). They're job is to get someone who already owns a more than sufficient tool for the job to replace that tool. How do you do that? You play to the typical male ego and tell him that he’ll be able to cast further with this shiny new tool. Oh, Oh, Oh…more power!!!! Give me, give me, give me! Now I can buy better skills with a new tool instead of acquiring those skills by practice (not true by the way-but that thought works well in our current culture of instant gratification). You’re posts are a perfect example of this. You talk about a Sage Z-Axis 4 weight being able to cast 70 feet. Most folks will tell you that a 4 weight was built to deliver a dry fly to a trout. Who is honestly going to fish a dry fly at 70’ and consistently be able to intentionally hook a trout at that distance? Not many people…even the so called experts will tell you that it isn’t necessary or realistic…it is advertising. Many of these same experts give their “expert” opinion based on who is putting meat on their table and not on anything else.

In fact (here is my first true challenge directed at you or anyone on this board), I’d like to see a piece of stream/river that someone could consistently (and intentionally) get a drag free drift with a dry fly at 70 feet or more. If this piece of water really exists, I’m also curious if that cast is really necessary to catch the trout there or if it is possible to wade into a better casting position to effectively fish to those same fish.