Jim,

For the record, some of your posts have gone missing. This is from the hacker attack yesterday. The content is still disappearing from many users' posts. There is a script running that is eating up quite a bit of content.

..............

Jim-
Jeff isn't talking about increasing a fish's willingness to commit-but instead a successful result with the ones that are already committing. If using longer rods changed his technique to the point that it resulted in fewer strikes he would have not offerered it a solution to improving strike/hookup ratio.

Chris

All I can say is that in my quiver of 40 or so, I have not one rod built to optimise strike .
Everything in rod building & rod use is a compromise of a raft of parameters, and benefits & disadvantages in particular attributes.
There are rods from 13' to under 6'
what I can say is that where the situation requires agility in casting space I take a short rod everytime
where the fight is knock-down-drag-out stuff I take the shortestest possible rod for the leverage advantage in the fight.
Where the situation allows I take the longest rod for the job .
where the situation is poking a rod between tree branches & a bowstring cast ( & thats not even a cast really...... is it ) I take a shortish high modulus rod .
My priorities run like this
1.
getting the lure/bait to where it needs to be to catch the fish.( by whatever means are necessary )
2.
Having the power to land the fish in the arena of the fight & be effort efficient for my poor arm & back muscles.
3.
casting distance & hooksetting optimisation sort of go hand in hand with the longer rod stuff.

So I take the longest rod that will achieve 1 & 2 for me, & I have maximum flexibility in what I can do on the day in the location of choice.

I just took a quick count around the walls of the gear room as I type this and I have 6 spinning rods that cast 1/16 oz - 3/8 oz
they range from 6'3" to 9'6" and get most of their use at 1/8 oz.and 2lb to 4lb lines.
Each has its own fishing reason for being there, none of them is for hooksetting optimisation. I will compromise that for other benefits every time & adapt my strike technique if & when I get into trouble to compensate.
Knowing what relative effect each rod has in its hooksetting ability is an important issue and adapting to compensate for deficiencies in particular circumstances part of the skill of fishing.

I do a lot of trekking into pretty impenetrable country for the average fisher( to get away from the crowds ) & its one rod for the day stuff & usually a couple of species available with different strike characteristics.
Its a luxury to take to the water in one of the boats & have a choice of rods during the day.

Denis,
Well put.
Sharp hooks and proper technique to fit the situation produces hook-ups.
Nuff said

Persons who are desire to play high stakes poker and debate successfully have the talent and good sense to listen and evaluate the strengths of their opponents! In the game of poker if that talent is not present the person will Go Bust!

The way this hook set thread is being responded too presents a possible link between fishing, politics and physics.

In college physics someone would derive a theory, arguments would be presented and it might take generations to debate the different opinions. At some point, the scholars would decide that a laboratory experiment would prove or disprove the validity of the theoruem. Even then the outcome might be so abstract that most can not comprehend - can anybody explain to me the speed of light? My best shot - is that my time here is so short that I will not devote my time to things that just simply do not matter.

In politics there is no debate about the "setting of the hook"!

The statement "Behold these truths will become self evident" is presently quite evident in all fields chosen -

Many bass fishermen never took physics, don't care too much for politics and typically -

Ignore the rest of the world and GO (F)ISHING!

After a few trips they normally buy a sharpening stone and figure out which rod is best!

While all this is going on the scientists may still be debating in the hallway trying to find the laboratory!

From a builder perspective: More shorties come back in busted than long ones! They say during the hook set every time when I know the rod box ate the thing!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/30/2008 12:58PM by Bill Stevens.

With a huge number of sizes, weights, materials and tapers in rod blanks available even an inveterate tinkerer such as I is astonished that someone would buy a blank and immediately start sawing pieces from it for whatever reason. I think it's unwise to underestimate the expertise and experience that goes into the design and manufacture of rod blanks.

Phil,
Have you never modified a tool to do a specific task better? A rod blank is kind of like a blank canvas for a painter. Guess that’s why it’s “custom” rod building. For me, there are advantages to cutting blanks from the butt AND the tip. I do hate having to buy an expensive blank and cutting 6 to 8 inches off at a couple of dollars per foot.
IMO, a shorter rod, for some techniques, offers me the agility (for lack of a better word) I like. I don’t like a fast (soft) tip, so by cutting an inch or two off, I feel the stiffer tip gives me more lure control and sensitivity. In one of Ken’s statements earlier regarding test casting in the grass with a short rod vs. a long rod, what he sees as a disadvantage, I see the opposite. A “short”, stiff tipped rod allows me to pull or twitch a lure a short distance because the tip does not absorb and store the energy like a fast tip. With a fast tip, this energy is suddenly released when the “obstacle” inhibiting movement is suddenly overcome and as Ken points out “it flies a mile”. Of course, there are trade-offs. With lighter plastics, the rod becomes a “throwing stick”, so to speak, because the rod doesn’t load as much to assist in the cast. And, as enthusiastically pointed out in this tread, “hook setting” can become an issue.
I know I risk being critiqued on my opinion, LOL, but since it’s now off page one, the risk is minimal….plus, the criticism is usually well meaning.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/01/2008 01:57PM by jim spooner.