Rod Preference Poll

[TimMurphy]

No offense, but I sometimes roll my eyes when I read about the how many have a love affair with some of their older rods.

While there were some good rods made back-in-the-day I generally find them to be rather "clunky" to cast and fish when compared to many of the newer lightweight graphite models now available.

I began FFing a long time ago when fiberglass rods were your only choice (boo aside), but when graphite rods were introduced I was an early adopter and never looked back.

I find some of the newest graphite rods a leap forward for casting and fishing (c'mon, not all new rods are tomato sticks, there are many great lightweight moderate action rods now being built along with rocket launcher rods if that's what you need.).

I do find boo rods to be beautiful creations, but aesthetics aside, I have no desire to actually go out and fish one, classic or newly built.

BTW, the poll I created asks for rod "preference" and not necessary what you can afford or currently own and fish, in other words the rod type you would like to fish most.

Dear afish,

When I fish with graphite it feels like I'm working with a tool.

When I fish with fiberglass it feels like I'm fishing.

When I fish with bamboo it feels like I'm one with the fish.

I haven't bought a latest and greatest rod for over 20 years. I've cast some though and can report that they don't do anything better than my 20 or even 80-year-old rods.

It ain't the saw, it's the sawyer.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

 

[pcray1231]

I'd say no, it means that personally, you like the way a 5wt line feels on that rod

lol! Have thought the same thing. I like 5 weights. Make em faster, faster, faster. Well gee, I don't need a 5 wt anymore, a 4 has plenty of punch. Man, this 4 weight is fast, lets put a 5 weight line on it to slow it down. That's better. But people don't get this, that 5 wt lines are better on 4 weights. Ok, lets take that 5 weight line and call it a 4 weight. Oh, and lets change the taper to put all that weight right at the end, so it's effectively even heavier. There. That's better. Yesterday's 5 weight rod and line just became today's 4 weight rod and line. We're going 1 step further, and 3wts are becoming what 5 weights used to be.

And hey, what do ya know? There's an explosion of people using 3 and 4 weights. Pfft, you old guys with you're ancient 5 weights. I can cast just as far with a modern 3 wt. Lol....

It's kind of funny.

But the counter point. What affects action is the total weight of fly line off the rod tip. A rod is supposed to be rated for what weight of line gives the designers intended action when there are 30 feet of fly line off the tip. Add leader and tippet, you're talking fishing 40ish feet away. Here in PA, even on decent sized water (Penns, Spring, LJR, etc.), it's pretty rare that I cast that far!!!! Not to say I can't do it if I wanted, but on the water, I just don't need to, and you can control drift and so forth so much better at closer range. So if you are mostly casting 10-20 feet of fly line, is overlining a rod really overlining? Heck, you could go up 2 or 3 line weights, and probably still have the "proper" amount of weight off the tip to give the rod designers intended action.

On truly small streams (brookie fishing) I throw a 7 weight on a 4 weight rod. I don't think it's overlined for that application. On big water I typically overline by 1 number, or match with an MPX line. If I was in a distance casting competition, I might underline it.

 

[Bamboozle]

When I first started out fly-fishing I had three rods; a 5’0” 4wt, 7’6” 5wt & an 8’6” 6wt, all graphite that I fished everywhere for many years until the bamboo bug bit me. Later I added some bamboo rods, sold the graphite and fished bamboo exclusively for more than 20 years. Even then, my quiver only included a few 4, 5 & 6 wt. rods.

In the early 2000’s as my interest and income increased, I decided to revisit graphite, in particular rods by Winston. This also introduced me to the available Winston glass at that time and other new glass rods. In those years up to the present, I bought rods that filled a desire, not a need. For example, I had an 8’0” 6wt but I wanted an 8’0” 4wt and an 8'0" 3wt.

I say filled a desire because what I discovered from the beginning was a 6wt could do anything I asked of if for trout and a lot of my warmwater fishing. Therefore, in my case lighter line weights were just a whim and a wish for something different, not a required tool.

What I will never understand is a rod marked as a 3wt that in my hands AND a lot of others is really a 5wt. All the heavy fly lines also mislabeled as to their weight offered to load these mislabeled fly rods affirms that something is amiss.

If I want another 5wt rod, I want to shop for a 5wt rod, not a 3wt rod that won’t load unless I’m casting beyond 60 feet or using a line that is 1-1/5 times heavier than a standard line. I get that it is labeling and a preference thing but it is a relatively “new” thing that to me is like putting lipstick on a pig. Not everyone wants to carry around three different weight lines on extra reels or spools to dial-in their rod at different places.

There WAS a time you could buy a rod without test casting it first based on the reputation of the maker. Out of necessity I’ve done it many, many times in the past, especially with older Winston graphite & glass, vintage Orvis bamboo and some newer custom bamboo & glass rods. I'm happy to report that in my case it worked out just fine, but I doubt I would risk it today with a new graphite stick or even some new glass offerings.

Bottom line, if it’s really a 5wt rod, stop calling it a 3wt rod and stop calling 130 grain lines 3wts. If the manufacturers stopped the ruse, the over/under-liners could still do their thing, but at least idiots like me will know what to shop for…

In the meantime, like what you like but I am so glad some of the “latest & greatest” people look at my tackle choices and roll their eyes…

Trust me, there is a lot of eye rolling on our side as well.

 

[krayfish2]

I have an RPL+ from 94 that sees action now and then. I have a GFL II 3wt that I use fishing smaller streams but that's not often anymore. I've probably got 8-10 rods built in the last 8 years. I'd have to say that they are probably lighter and recover faster than the older models. Are they better? Hard to say but they are definitely a better tool for what I'm doing now.

For 90% of PA fly fishing, a Redington CT or Path is more than enough rod. < $140. Orvis Clearwater or Echo base are 2 more that would get the job done around here.

I've fished with enough people and guided enough that I can tell you a few things.......
* Most people don't know how to flex a rod properly to make it work the way it was designed to work.
* Most people get hooked by the advertising of the manufacturers and think they need the rod that's 1/64th of an ounce lighter or the rod that "takes blank recovery speed to the next level". If you typically drive to the grocery store and the bank, you wouldn't buy a Bugatti. No benefit for having an uber fast, featherweight 3 weight when you are casting 15'-20'....of course you will need to over line it or it's too difficult to cast.
* Most people seem to think that the newest rod will fix their casting mistakes....it won't. Get lessons or help with your mechanics.
* Different line tapers will completely change the feel of many rods. It can also aid in mending or presentation.

I'm not claiming to be a casting champion or a guru of any type but I do use several higher end rods as they are required for what I'm doing. Also, my mechanics are just good enough to get the rod to work properly. Quite a few times during a float trip, we'll encounter a good fish rising 60'-80' away. You might be required to quickly get a bunch of line out, with minimal back casting AND fight the wind. If you can't do it, you just take pictures of the rises and continue on your way. Honestly, when have you fished spring or penns (or 98% of PA trout waters) when you HAD to fire an 80' cast and feed it until backing is in the guides? Never.

Use what you like and what you can be efficient with. Lines are more important than most people think and could make a non favorite rod your new favorite. Just think many would benefit by keeping rod action med - med/fast and using a more progressive taper.

 

[afishinado]

What I will never understand is a rod marked as a 3wt that in my hands AND a lot of others is really a 5wt. All the heavy fly lines also mislabeled as to their weight offered to load these mislabeled fly rods affirms that something is amiss.

If I want another 5wt rod, I want to shop for a 5wt rod, not a 3wt rod that won’t load unless I’m casting beyond 60 feet or using a line that is 1-1/5 times heavier than a standard line. I get that it is labeling and a preference thing but it is a relatively “new” thing that to me is like putting lipstick on a pig. Not everyone wants to carry around three different weight lines on extra reels or spools to dial-in their rod at different places.

There WAS a time you could buy a rod without test casting it first based on the reputation of the maker. Out of necessity I’ve done it many, many times in the past, especially with older Winston graphite & glass, vintage Orvis bamboo and some newer custom bamboo & glass rods. I'm happy to report that in my case it worked out just fine, but I doubt I would risk it today with a new graphite stick or even some new glass offerings.

Bottom line, if it’s really a 5wt rod, stop calling it a 3wt rod and stop calling 130 grain lines 3wts. If the manufacturers stopped the ruse, the over/under-liners could still do their thing, but at least idiots like me will know what to shop for…

In the meantime, like what you like but I am so glad some of the “latest & greatest” people look at my tackle choices and roll their eyes…

Trust me, there is a lot of eye rolling on our side as well.

I hear this over and over....newer rods are mislabeled under their weight designation (a 3wt rod is really a 5wt) and lines are mislabeled under their line weight designation (a 3wt line really a 5wt). I worked for a rod and line manufacturer (Orvis / Sci Angler) and they keep both rods and lines to a close tolerance of specs. I've been given the spread sheets from actual measurements. I would venture to say the other manufacturers do the same. Just cut the front 30' off all your lines and weigh them, Bam. Or stack pennies to gauge your rod weight using the Common Cents System to prove out your theorem.

 

[pcray1231]

Why are Fly Lines Getting Heavier? - Fly Fisherman

The majority of fly lines on the market today no longer conform to industry line weight standards.

www.flyfisherman.com

And often they'll even state it. SA's MPX taper is advertised as 1/2 size heavier. Combine that with the more radical weight forward designs, it's more front weighted so the swing momentum is even more than the heavier weight would suggest.

Then you get to the Anadro taper. Not 1/2 size heavier. 1.5 times heavier. So if a 5 wt, it should be say 140 grain. The labeled 5 wt Anadro taper would actually be 210 grains. That's what used to be called an 8 weight line!

SA does it, but at least they admit it in the marketing. Some of the others have just done away with the standard altogether. Take a Rio line and weigh that first 30 feet. I have. lol.

These used to be specialty lines. A niche. Nowadays its all a niche. It's hard to find a standard double taper or weight forward floating line in the proper weight in stock. They're all specialty lines like this. And the heavier ones outsell the normal ones.

 

[Bamboozle]

I hear this over and over....newer rods are mislabeled under their weight designation (a 3wt rod is really a 5wt) and lines are mislabeled under their line weight designation (a 3wt line really a 5wt). I worked for a rod and line manufacturer (Orvis / Sci Angler) and they keep both rods and lines to a close tolerance of specs. I've been given the spread sheets from actual measurements. I would venture to say the other manufacturers do the same. Just cut the front 30' off all your lines and weigh them, Bam. Or stack pennies to gauge your rod weight using the Common Cents System to prove out your theorem.

Lines like the Rio Grand and the MPX (off the top of my head) are ADVERTISED as heavier than normal for faster rods by their manufacturers.

Am I to understand you are saying a 140 grain 4wt (Rio Grand) is the same as a 120 grain 4wt Mastery DT because it MAY be within AFTMA range when almost the whole world considers a normal 4wt line, 120 grains?

I’m saying one is a 4wt and the other is mislabeled and rolling my eyes.

As far as the Common Cents system goes, all that MAY tell you (if you buy into it) is an arbitrary line weight number which may or may hold any relevance depending your opinion of 140 grain 4wt lines…

...and do I need to use old copper pennies or newer zinc pennies?

I don't need to prove any "theorems" and I am not alone in the opinion, specs and marketing hype be damned that there are a lot of pigs wearing lipstick. If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be heavier lines masquerading as something they are not.

I never worked for a rod manufacturer but I have personally known and purchased rods from many well known rod designers and makers both living and dead and one thing most of us agree on is if a rod is marked as a 4wt, we EXPECT it to easily throw a 120 grain line.

If it needs a line or two heavier, it ain't a 4wt...

As always, YMMV.

 

[The_Sasquatch]

Why are Fly Lines Getting Heavier? - Fly Fisherman

The majority of fly lines on the market today no longer conform to industry line weight standards.

www.flyfisherman.com

And often they'll even state it. SA's MPX taper is advertised as 1/2 size heavier. Combine that with the more radical weight forward designs, it's more front weighted so the swing momentum is even more than the heavier weight would suggest.

Then you get to the Anadro taper. Not 1/2 size heavier. 1.5 times heavier. So if a 5 wt, it should be say 140 grain. The labeled 5 wt Anadro taper would actually be 210 grains. That's what used to be called an 8 weight line!

SA does it, but at least they admit it in the marketing. Some of the others have just done away with the standard altogether. Take a Rio line and weigh that first 30 feet. I have. lol.

These used to be specialty lines. A niche. Nowadays its all a niche. It's hard to find a standard double taper or weight forward floating line in the proper weight in stock. They're all specialty lines like this. And the heavier ones outsell the normal ones.

Has Cortland changed the 333 and 444 DTs? That's all I ever buy...

 

[krayfish2]

Bam, what was your first rod? Mine was a Shakespeare 6'6" seven weight. It was slow and whippy. You'd be hard pressed to find a modern rod with that configuration.

As the manufacturers found new technology, they were able to get lighter, stiffer and faster rods turned out. The rod might be designed to use standard weight lines in the hands of a high level caster. If your average Joe sees it in FF magazine, he craves it, the hype wins out and gets it. His bad mechanics, poor timing or dislike for the stiffness ends up on the internet forum, in his blog or something else complaining about the rod being uncastable or having no soul. The company ends up making overweight (1.5 - 2) lines. Average Joe discovers rod he now loves with overweight lines.

Now you've put yourself in the market as a rod manufacturer as of high performance rods. When newer models come out, they are reviewed by magazines, vlogs, blogs or on forums. You don't want to be referred to as the slowest / weakest 4 weight or the 5 weight that doesn't have enough backbone to be accurate over 40'. So....lines that are heavier yet to try and keep up with rod technology.

On thing I will say is that classic fly rod lovers / traditionalist have had their voices heard. Many of the manufacturers have used that technology to come out with slower and more delicate offerings. Keeping suit with that many of the manufacturers have come out with lines that are actually on the light side to match the new / slower rod actions.

It's kind of like golf going from persimmon woods to the giant titanium drivers or carbon fiber drivers of today. The clubs are lighter and easier to hit. The golf ball companies have also come up with new technology that allows the ball to carry further, go straighter and spin around the greens. At 56, I don't hit the ball much shorter than I did when I was 25. I see these younger guys who now hit it so far it's ridiculous.

Maybe we're just grumpy Old Men that don't like new things 🤣

 

[tomgamber]

Has Cortland changed the 333 and 444 DTs? That's all I ever buy...

God, I hope not.

 

[JGR]

Has Cortland changed the 333 and 444 DTs? That's all I ever buy...

No. They're true to AFFTA target weights.

 

[StreamBottom]

Has Cortland changed the 333 and 444 DTs? That's all I ever buy...

Same here. Much love for the Peach!

 

[The_Sasquatch]

No. They're true to AFFTA target weights.

Well then, this is why I have not noticed some of what you all are talking about concerning line weight

 

[Bamboozle]

Bam, what was your first rod? Mine was a Shakespeare 6'6" seven weight. It was slow and whippy. You'd be hard pressed to find a modern rod with that configuration.

As the manufacturers found new technology, they were able to get lighter, stiffer and faster rods turned out. The rod might be designed to use standard weight lines in the hands of a high level caster. If your average Joe sees it in FF magazine, he craves it, the hype wins out and gets it. His bad mechanics, poor timing or dislike for the stiffness ends up on the internet forum, in his blog or something else complaining about the rod being uncastable or having no soul. The company ends up making overweight (1.5 - 2) lines. Average Joe discovers rod he now loves with overweight lines.

Now you've put yourself in the market as a rod manufacturer as of high performance rods. When newer models come out, they are reviewed by magazines, vlogs, blogs or on forums. You don't want to be referred to as the slowest / weakest 4 weight or the 5 weight that doesn't have enough backbone to be accurate over 40'. So....lines that are heavier yet to try and keep up with rod technology.

On thing I will say is that classic fly rod lovers / traditionalist have had their voices heard. Many of the manufacturers have used that technology to come out with slower and more delicate offerings. Keeping suit with that many of the manufacturers have come out with lines that are actually on the light side to match the new / slower rod actions.

It's kind of like golf going from persimmon woods to the giant titanium drivers or carbon fiber drivers of today. The clubs are lighter and easier to hit. The golf ball companies have also come up with new technology that allows the ball to carry further, go straighter and spin around the greens. At 56, I don't hit the ball much shorter than I did when I was 25. I see these younger guys who now hit it so far it's ridiculous.

Maybe we're just grumpy Old Men that don't like new things 🤣

Kray:

My first rods were all graphite so they were hardly slow & whippy. Ironically, I now own graphite rods that are less than 20 years old that are much slower so it’s not the technology as much as it is the taper and the skill of the maker.

That being said, I have no beef with fast rods, as matter of fact they are my preference for warmwater. However even my fast rods throw the "recommended" line weight just fine. The last fast rod I purchased is a 9'0" 6wt Winston BIImx on deep discount after they were discontinued. It is a good thing it throws a 6wt because I already had a 9'0" 7wt and a 9'0" 8wt so the last thing I needed was a labeled 6wt that was a 7wt or 8wt in disguise...

It seems to me that this "mislabeling" began AS technology progressed, lighter and longer rods became possible and because of clever marketing, the rage. When I started fly fishing, a 4wt was a rarity, 3wts hardly existed, a 5wt was considered light, and a 6 or 7wt was an all-around line weight.

For decades I fished nothing BUT a 6wt on the Letort & Big Springs like Marinaro & Fox before me and NEVER had a problem catching plenty of spooky Cumberland Valley trout. Fast forward to today and there are more than a few fisherman who wouldn't DARE to fish anything heavier than a 3 or 4wt at those "technical" places because it isn't delicate enough or so they been convinced by some "slickety" commissioned clerk in a fly shop.

The irony... because of their line weight paranoia they are fishing a rod that is labeled as a 4wt with a line labeled the same, however their 4wt line weighs the same as my 6wt line… To add to that misconception, if I showed them my preferred LABELED 6wt rod, they would be shocked I would dare use something so heavy and “clunky” at a place so “technical…”

Go figure. 🤷‍♂️

This line weight paranoia nonsense works the other way too. I see many old Orvis bamboo and other older glass rods for sale that were designed for heavier lines and NOT always for heavier silk lines just to throw that comparison out the window. Almost exclusively the less scrupulous of these peddlers will imply that Orvis or those other clunky rod builder didn’t know how to design rods back then so this 6 or 7wt rod in 1972 has miraculously morphed into a 5 or 4wt in 2022...

That being said, I won’t argue that ANY rod may easily cast a few different line weights or that a person may like an Orvis Limestone Special with a 5wt line rather than 6, however in these instances the seller is misrepresenting a rod because he or she knows that in today’s market, there is a much better chance of selling a vintage 4wt than trying to sell a vintage 6wt…

…even if the vintage 4wt ISN’T a 4wt…

…unless of course you use an overweight 4wt line…

Using your golf analogy, with the demise of balata balls & persimmon woods the drives got longer. However nobody decided that a yard should be 3.5 feet on some courses and 2.5 feet on others to deal with the egos of golfers…

This is my ONLY beef with the pig in lipstick analogy; fish, enjoy and love what makes you happy but don’t move the goalposts. Keep the labeling & definitions consistent and don’t lose sleep over fishing anything over a 3wt. You can’t have it both ways and not expect a lot of confusion and eye rolling.

One thing you did nail on the head is I am a grumpy old man!!

 

[afishinado]

Kray:

My first rods were all graphite so they were hardly slow & whippy. Ironically, I now own graphite rods that are less than 20 years old that are much slower so it’s not the technology as much as it is the taper and the skill of the maker.

That being said, I have no beef with fast rods, as matter of fact they are my preference for warmwater. However even my fast rods throw the "recommended" line weight just fine. The last fast rod I purchased is a 9'0" 6wt Winston BIImx on deep discount after they were discontinued. It is a good thing it throws a 6wt because I already had a 9'0" 7wt and a 9'0" 8wt so the last thing I needed was a labeled 6wt that was a 7wt or 8wt in disguise...

It seems to me that this "mislabeling" began AS technology progressed, lighter and longer rods became possible and because of clever marketing, the rage. When I started fly fishing, a 4wt was a rarity, 3wts hardly existed, a 5wt was considered light, and a 6 or 7wt was an all-around line weight.

For decades I fished nothing BUT a 6wt on the Letort & Big Springs like Marinaro & Fox before me and NEVER had a problem catching plenty of spooky Cumberland Valley trout. Fast forward to today and there are more than a few fisherman who wouldn't DARE to fish anything heavier than a 3 or 4wt at those "technical" places because it isn't delicate enough or so they been convinced by some "slickety" commissioned clerk in a fly shop.

The irony... because of their line weight paranoia they are fishing a rod that is labeled as a 4wt with a line labeled the same, however their 4wt line weighs the same as my 6wt line… To add to that misconception, if I showed them my preferred LABELED 6wt rod, they would be shocked I would dare use something so heavy and “clunky” at a place so “technical…”

Go figure. 🤷‍♂️

This line weight paranoia nonsense works the other way too. I see many old Orvis bamboo and other older glass rods for sale that were designed for heavier lines and NOT always for heavier silk lines just to throw that comparison out the window. Almost exclusively the less scrupulous of these peddlers will imply that Orvis or those other clunky rod builder didn’t know how to design rods back then so this 6 or 7wt rod in 1972 has miraculously morphed into a 5 or 4wt in 2022...

That being said, I won’t argue that ANY rod may easily cast a few different line weights or that a person may like an Orvis Limestone Special with a 5wt line rather than 6, however in these instances the seller is misrepresenting a rod because he or she knows that in today’s market, there is a much better chance of selling a vintage 4wt than trying to sell a vintage 6wt…

…even if the vintage 4wt ISN’T a 4wt…

…unless of course you use an overweight 4wt line…

Using your golf analogy, with the demise of balata balls & persimmon woods the drives got longer. However nobody decided that a yard should be 3.5 feet on some courses and 2.5 feet on others to deal with the egos of golfers…

This is my ONLY beef with the pig in lipstick analogy; fish, enjoy and love what makes you happy but don’t move the goalposts. Keep the labeling & definitions consistent and don’t lose sleep over fishing anything over a 3wt. You can’t have it both ways and not expect a lot of confusion and eye rolling.

One thing you did nail on the head is I am a grumpy old man!!

^ Fly-fishing conspiracy theory. The fly line manufacturers are not conspiring with the rod companies to change specs and over-weight all their fly lines. Just about all fly line manufacturers offer half weight heavier lines. Their regular weight lines meet AFFTA specs.

Buy one of these and you will verify this to be true >

US Balance Digital Pocket Scales

US Balance Digital Pocket Scales

flyfishusa.com

 

[caddisflyer]

Kray:

My first rods were all graphite so they were hardly slow & whippy. Ironically, I now own graphite rods that are less than 20 years old that are much slower so it’s not the technology as much as it is the taper and the skill of the maker.

That being said, I have no beef with fast rods, as matter of fact they are my preference for warmwater. However even my fast rods throw the "recommended" line weight just fine. The last fast rod I purchased is a 9'0" 6wt Winston BIImx on deep discount after they were discontinued. It is a good thing it throws a 6wt because I already had a 9'0" 7wt and a 9'0" 8wt so the last thing I needed was a labeled 6wt that was a 7wt or 8wt in disguise...

It seems to me that this "mislabeling" began AS technology progressed, lighter and longer rods became possible and because of clever marketing, the rage. When I started fly fishing, a 4wt was a rarity, 3wts hardly existed, a 5wt was considered light, and a 6 or 7wt was an all-around line weight.

For decades I fished nothing BUT a 6wt on the Letort & Big Springs like Marinaro & Fox before me and NEVER had a problem catching plenty of spooky Cumberland Valley trout. Fast forward to today and there are more than a few fisherman who wouldn't DARE to fish anything heavier than a 3 or 4wt at those "technical" places because it isn't delicate enough or so they been convinced by some "slickety" commissioned clerk in a fly shop.

The irony... because of their line weight paranoia they are fishing a rod that is labeled as a 4wt with a line labeled the same, however their 4wt line weighs the same as my 6wt line… To add to that misconception, if I showed them my preferred LABELED 6wt rod, they would be shocked I would dare use something so heavy and “clunky” at a place so “technical…”

Go figure. 🤷‍♂️

This line weight paranoia nonsense works the other way too. I see many old Orvis bamboo and other older glass rods for sale that were designed for heavier lines and NOT always for heavier silk lines just to throw that comparison out the window. Almost exclusively the less scrupulous of these peddlers will imply that Orvis or those other clunky rod builder didn’t know how to design rods back then so this 6 or 7wt rod in 1972 has miraculously morphed into a 5 or 4wt in 2022...

That being said, I won’t argue that ANY rod may easily cast a few different line weights or that a person may like an Orvis Limestone Special with a 5wt line rather than 6, however in these instances the seller is misrepresenting a rod because he or she knows that in today’s market, there is a much better chance of selling a vintage 4wt than trying to sell a vintage 6wt…

…even if the vintage 4wt ISN’T a 4wt…

…unless of course you use an overweight 4wt line…

Using your golf analogy, with the demise of balata balls & persimmon woods the drives got longer. However nobody decided that a yard should be 3.5 feet on some courses and 2.5 feet on others to deal with the egos of golfers…

This is my ONLY beef with the pig in lipstick analogy; fish, enjoy and love what makes you happy but don’t move the goalposts. Keep the labeling & definitions consistent and don’t lose sleep over fishing anything over a 3wt. You can’t have it both ways and not expect a lot of confusion and eye rolling.

One thing you did nail on the head is I am a grumpy old man!!

So with everything else being equal, caster and leader etc., does a 4 wt offer a more delicate presentation than a 6wt?

 

[krayfish2]

I had a Cortland Leon Chandler from Clouser in the 80's that I think was 7.5', 6wt. That was actually a very nice casting rod but I replaced it with a sage 3 weight from Bob when they first came out. Like you mentioned, a three weight didn't really exist at that time ...... kind of a new thing.

The technology race has made rods longer, lighter and a lot stiffer which in turn has ended up with heavier weight lines so that they are easier to cast. Is it right? Hard to say but it is what it is. I purchased some lower end rods that were wonderful and some high-end rods that were absolute turds.

Maybe someday it'll reach a peak and turn back the other way but I wouldn't hold my breath. With that said, scientific anglers did have an ultra line that was super light for bamboo and slower action rods. There are also quite a few lines out there that are true to weight standards. I don't think they're very popular with the general angling public but still allow classic fly rod owners to use their gear as it was intended.

Tom,
I'm not saying it's a conspiracy or that the companies are working together to change things. I'm just saying that they designed a rod that Steve Rajeff can cast beautifully but your average Joe struggles with it. A line that is a half weight over makes all the difference for that angler. Just kinda happened that way.

 

[pcray1231]

Afish,

You will find MOST fly lines on the market today do not. Lets take an example, we'll use SA's Amplitude series of fly lines, and focus on those that come rated as 5 wt lines.

AFFTA 5 wt standard = 134-146 grains

SA trout and double taper 5 wt - 140 grains
SA Infinity and MPX 5 wt - 150 grains
SA Creek Trout 5 wt - 160 grains
SA Anadro 5 wt - 175 grains
SA Titan 5 wt - 185 grains

So, in this line series, they have 7 tapers which come in a 5 wt rated line. Those all come in textured or smooth, etc. Exactly 2 of those 7 meet AFFTA standards. That means 5 out of 7 do not. Btw, good luck finding either of those 2 in stock anywhere. What you find in stock is the MPX, Creek Trout, and Anadro. I think traditional DT's are a step away from being discontinued by just about all makes.

It only gets worse when you do the same analysis on a 7-9 wt line, and you get into salt, tarpon, bonefish tapers, etc. Those are all over heavy. And I'm not trying to pick on SA here, they are hardly alone. At least they don't hide it, they outright state half size heavy, 1 size heavy, 1.5 sizes heavy, 2.5 sizes heavy, etc. They have kept the standard in that way. It's just that being heavy is now the standard, and being standard weight is unusual.

I have absolutely no problem in intentionally overlining or underlining a rod. Rods can handle a range of loads. And the "sweet spot" depends on distance. 30 feet of "properly rated" 5 wt line is the same as 20 feet of 7 wt or 40 feet of 3 wt line. If your rig is targeted at shorter or longer distances, you can and SHOULD adjust what you put on it accordingly. But personally I'd rather they rate lines by what they are, and let me do the adjusting. If I wanna put a 7 wt on a 5 wt rod because most of the casts are in the 15-25 foot range, fantastic, but I don't need them to label it a 5 wt to make me feel good about it.

 

[krayfish2]

So with everything else being equal, caster and leader etc., does a 4 wt offer a more delicate presentation than a 6wt?

In my experience, not as much as you might think. I just came back from 4 days on the Delaware testing a new 6 wt. The water was low. Those trout are notorious for being spooky and selective. Fished a 6wt with a 16' leader and a small caddis emerger. It landed as light as a feather and I'll credit the caster 😁. Does a 3-4 wt land softer? Maybe ever so lightly. The heavier rod gives you more fish fighting power, the option to quickly/efficiently make a longer cast or deal with wind. I've often considered using a seven weight in the spring when it's windy for dry fly fishing but felt that it would be exhausting and remove a lot of the battle when hooking up.

Try to use the lightest weight rod I can for the conditions that I'm facing. You want it to be challenging but not impossible. You can definitely learn to lay down a fly as gently with a six or seven weight as you can with a four or five weight. No doubt about that. Some of it is how you build a leader and the rest is how you present it.

 

[krayfish2]

Here's a line shootout chart from a few years back