Although I agree that there may be a net gain in hook setting force in a longer rod, I think Emory’s argument is a valid one. To test his theory I suppose it would be a simple matter of taking a rod and having the line run through the guides normally and measuring the hook setting force. The next test would be done by removing the line from the tip top, effectively making the 2nd guide the tip top (also making the rod “shorter” by 3 to 4”). The challenge of course, would be how to measure the force/speed at the hook. The application of force at the “source” (human element) would also be a consideration as regards to consistency. The test could also be done by moving the "tip top" to the next guide for even more convincing data.
It’s unfortunate that this discussion has degenerated to insults which could result in discouraging some from giving their views on other subjects. Differences in opinion can be stimulating and lead to valuable insights.

Jim,

We're way beyond theory on this matter - a longer rod is generally better at setting the hook in a real world fishing situation. We know that.

The problem is that what you want to put into a laboratory test isn't exactly what happens out on the water. Hook setting isn't about which rod simply generates the greater force - we know that would be the shorter one. It's about a multitude of factors that all come into play when you have a rod, reel, line, water, slack, etc., and a fish. Much of the time, the force generated by a shorter rod never reaches the hook or the fish. The short distance it can move things means that much of the time one of these variables is never fully dealt with and a complete miss or incomplete set is the result. A longer rod quickly takes up any "give" in the system and is able to apply enough force (acceleration and speed contribute greatly) at the hook to do the job. That's the key - getting sufficient force applied at the hook. Shorter rods don't do this as well as longer rods do in most practical fishing situations.

Too many times I've watched fishermen miss fish and then think they'll compensate for that by setting the hook harder. Some of these guys look like they're going to hurt themselves or their fishing buddy by applying so much force on the set. I've watched one guy flip himself out of his boat setting a hook (he missed the fish). But this extra effort and force rarely fixes the problem. Give them a longer rod and suddenly they're able to set the hook effectively and without all the gymnastics previously involved.


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

Sometimes it can be better to use the laws of physics to explain why something is working rather than to explain why something can’t work.

Longer rods are defintely better at hook setting. So why is this true?

Whoops, typing at the same time. But you answered my question.

When I posted earlier I mentioned how when I test cast rods I use a grass field. When the casting sinker hangs on a grass clump and you snatch it loose with a short rod it flips a foot or two. With a longer rod when you snatch it loose it flies a mile! I envision the same thing happening when you set the hook on a fish with a shorter vs a longer rod.

Bill-
You may have unknowingly arrived at the reason behind this so-called "Global Warming" that we are experiencing. Our weather here in S. Carolina has been colder, earlier than in many years. I hope this is not an indication that catch rates are down and the colder weather a result of fewer hooksets.

Thank you for being included as one of the crazies. When I read your list of those I initially felt left out........had to re-check the entire thread to see if I had imagined posting a response.

Chris

Tom,
You made the statement in response to Ken's post, " We're way beyond theory on this matter-a longer rod is generally better at setting a hook in a real world situation. We know that". A longer rod, all other things being equal, will result in more force at the hook. I have never stated otherwise. But that is not how the discussion started nor what the discussion was about. You have either intentionally or unintentionally changed the parameters of the discussion to better suit the statements that you have made. All other things were not equal in the initial question. The initial question was, will a shorter stiffer rod result in a better hook set than a longer softer rod.
Often the flaw in an argument will be apparent when the logic in the argument is pushed to the limit. So I will ask, how good a hook set are you going to get with a very long rod that is as soft as a wet noodle.
The part of the rod that determines the speed that the line moves and the amount of force at the hook is the tip of the rod. You are right about acceleration and speed having an affect but I will guarantee you that the initial acceleration and speed of the tip of the stiffer rod, if all other things are equal, will be higher than for the tip of the rod that is flexing more. So how much longer does the softer rod need to be. But now I am changing the conditions of the discussion.
Once again, while the rod is flexing a significant portion of the energy being applied is being absorbed by the rod and is not getting to the hook.. A rod will not flex without absorbing energy and the softer the rod is the more it will flex and the more it flexes the more eneregy it is absorbing that does not get to the hook and the longer a rod is the more it will flex and the more energy it will absorb. That is the problem with the very long wet noodle. It is absorbing all of the energy.
It seems very logical to me and I am confident that I can prove experimentally that a softer rod will not necessarily result in a better hook set and neither necessarily will a shorter stiffer rod. It seems obvious that it depends on how long, how stiff and how soft.

Emory, Just MO but I think the parameters of the conversation should stay centered on FISHING and not on scenarios that are far outside of what fishermen do. Nobody fishes with a noodle soft rod, not that soft anyway. Rather than come up with experiments to prove that we are not experiencing what we say we are, why not come up with something that explains why we all believe and have seen that longer rods set the hook better than shorter ones.

When you say you can prove that a longer rod will not set the hook more effectively than a shorter one, how do you explain all those here that have said that they have gotten better results at hook setting with a longer rod? Are they as Bill said, crazy or on drugs? Can you truly prove to them or me that we are all just imagining things?

I do not mean to offend by any means but I think what we want to stay focused on here is actual fishing situations, not far flung scenarios that are outside of what most fishermen actually run up on. Those who actually fish in normal circumstances do know that a longer rod results in a better and more certain hook sets than shorter rods do. How can you convince us that we are wrong when we know for a fact that our experiences have proven this to us?

Anybody can do anything with an experiment to prove or disprove something. But I do think there is anything you can do to overturn my personal experience in setting the hook with a longer vs a shorter rod. I know what I know from personal experience and I would think others here do as well.

I'll have to post in this fashion until they get the hack straightened out. Tom Kirkman

Emory,

We are not talking about absolutes here, we are talking about setting the hook in a real world fishing situation, not an extreme limit laboratory experiment that does not approximate what we do on the water. Just like the folks who pressure a blank by hand, feel it roll and therefore decide that rod spine must be very important, these type tests don’t always have much to do with actual fishing. I have yet to see a fish jump out of the water, grab the rod with a fin and press down on it. Nor do I see folks fishing with 15 foot long, willow soft rods. Neither is a real world test that proves anything within the realm of what we actually do when fishing.

If you read my article in RodMaker on stand-up rods you will no doubt remember that I plainly stated, and supplied the math, for determining how much force any given amount of angler effort generates at the tip of any length rod. The shorter rod always wins hands down. But setting a hook is a different matter than simply the amount of force you can generate at the rod tip.

Setting the hook easily and effectively requires completely removing the “give” in the system. Something that within the confines of the tackle that most fishermen actually use, is more effectively done with a longer rather than a shorter rod and we know this to a be fact. A proven fact.

You can prove that a rod 20 feet long, willow soft, does not effectively set the hook. And I can prove that a short 1 foot long, pool cue rod does not effectively set the hook. So what? Neither is within the realm of what fishermen actually use on the water.

Within the confines of what most fishermen do and use, a longer rod is better at setting the hook than a shorter rod. These folks that have chimed in above with their personal experiences concerning the use of both, have reason to believe that they set the hook better and lose less fish with a longer, rather than a shorter rod. They aren’t seeing or imagining things nor imbibing of controlled substances. They have simply experienced a real world fishing situation and know what their personal experience has been with regards to setting a hook when they moved from shorter to a longer rod.

If you still want to perform an experiment, my suggestion is to perform one within the real fishing world, not something that takes place in some mythical fishing realm that none of us in this life will ever fish in.



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

I agree that setting the hook requires removing the "give" in the system but I think what you are missing is the rod flexing is "give" in the system. From the standpoint of the amount of force at the hook it is the same as the line stretching. When the line stretches it is also absorbing energy.

My comments about a very long very soft rod is intended as a mental experiment not an actual experiment and is intended to examine the logic at the limits. An actual experiment would naturally require more realistic rods.

I think that most of the folks that have chimed in above are just piling on, just agreeing with whatever Tom Kirkman says. I see this same thing here almost every time that I visit this board. They are not really thinking about the experiences that they have had with hook setting with different length rods. Look at the post above by Ken. He is making exactly the same argument that you made which was not the original question and I am not going to explain again how he like you are misrepresenting my argument. He has not paid any attention to the argument that I have made he has paid attention to the argument that you made.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/28/2008 11:41PM by Emory Harry.

Guys
I have to say that after my prev post on this thread and the direction the discussion took I started a long post in examination of the changes in the parameters of the strike in the context of the original question............. even noting that the customer had agreed to just replace the tip & not trim 4" off the blank.
this ran the gamut of :-
- lower/higher rod arc distance ( sweep of the strike ).
- increased/decreased leverage
- slack line
- winding / stripping during the strike
- line tension
- hook pressure.
etc.
Each parameter dealt with individually & then in combination.
It was pages long, I deleted it & did not post.
The significance of the question & the decsion being already made just didn't warrant the exercise 7 the megabytes in the transmission.
However the discussion has continued in somewhat narrow terms & maybe the following is warranted.
You can be the judge of that.

Bottom line it identified a couple of key issues
In regards to the forces involved in hook penetration a change in rod length from 9 ' to 8'8" is negligible in line tension& applied force from the anglers end, transmitted into a penetrating force at the hook point.
We need to remember that a hook point is a lot less than 1/1000 th of a square ins in cross section.
A measly one pound of line tension generates well in excess of 1000 lbs per square inch of force at the hook point.
If you don't think thats enough try it on your own finger if you are silly enough.
( if high & fast force application was a critical issue then circle hooks would never work..................& work they do..............with a slow steady strike..........or no rod movement at all.....................UNTIL after the hook is engaged.
irrespective of the hook type its all about getting that hook initially engaged not the amount of force on it.................. just so long as there is some force on it to resist any effort by the fish to dislodge or eject it.
With that measly 1 lb of line force and the resultant +1000 lbs/sq ins of force on that hook is there any force a fish can generate to dislodge that hook ................not likely .................its all about keeping 1 lb of force on that hook as a minimum.
Of all the things you can do to increase penetration ............its sharpening your hook to needle sharpness ..............halve the hook point cross section & you double the penetration force.
Its all about getting a small force in the line between you & that hook initially.
Its not about "give" in the rod tip ...........any give there results in millisecond time delays & no delay in starting to exert some force..................virtually irrellevant.
Timing of the strike is a big issue & varies from fish to fish & the technique employed............ a lot............no general statement there is justified.
Reaction time is critical

Taking up any slack is critical.............. you simply have to be tight to the hook to exert any significant force...............in balance of effects a longer rod enables faster slack recovery & force to be exerted on the hook by line tension. Winding the reel or stripping flyline during the strike can mitigate a shorter rod and increase slack line recovery with any rod ( an often forgotten technique by lure fishers where slack line conditions are encountered)

rod action is important & varies from species to species related to the nature of the strike of the species in question........... a lot..............no general statement there is justified either.
A "snap" or incision bite is very different in its required response to an inhalation strike.
( no slack or give in anything is an advantage in a "snap" bite but is a recipe for many missed inhallation strikes ).
ie its why we have softer crankbait series rods for bassfishing , particularly using braid .....................hey.
The type & size of lure & hook placement in it dictates optimal rod action & power.
ie its why we have ; frog rods, worm rods, pitching rods, casting rods, fly rods etc etc.

Ok if you have the hook point engaged everyone should be able to accept that we have at least seconds to get higher pressure on the hook and drive it even further into the fish's mouth....................soft mouth , hard mouth makes no difference................other than the depth of penetration for a given force & essentially irrespective of the action of the rod in regard to this timeframe.
A very stiff short rod has disadvantages in these first few seconds.
Headshakes is a terribly common response by a fish to feeling the hook.......................followed quickly by a sprint to get away from whatever this thing is thats suddenly trying to direct them / control them.
When that sprint occurs............ line forces maximise & hook penetration is maximised..............essentially irespective of rod action...........and essentially directly proportional to drag setting.
A critical issue is the headshakes in the first few seconds ..............a softer, longer rod with a reasonable bend in it responds adequately to the headshakes & keeps some pressure on that hook...................the blank typically reflexes faster than the fish can headshake.............a too stiff, too short rod can run out of reflex if its not bent far enough & YOU have to have the reflexes to stop the hook pressure going slack.
...................are you up to the task..................or would you rather rely on your rod to respond to the task.

Everything taken into account a longer rod ( not to the extreme action of maybe a noodle ) is advantageous in getting timely pressure on that hook and maintaining it in the first few seconds.........................in general context.
Hopefully this adequately explains the practical observations made by many posters that longer rods are advantageous in successful strikes.
Again, irrespective of any advantage in rod length a sharp hook does you the most good in successful strikes.
Imbibing in a nip or 2 or 3 too many on a cold day plays havoc with your reaction times...............hey.................but they are damned enjoyable.

DenisB

Denis Brown wrote; "Everything taken into account a longer rod ( not to the extreme action of maybe a noodle ) is advantageous in getting timely pressure on that hook and maintaining it in the first few seconds.........................in general context".
Jeff Friend wrote; There ya go!
Jeff

Emory,

If you carefully read what these folks are saying - they are not simply agreeing with me, they are stating their actual experiences. If I say 2+2 equals 4, and others say the same thing, are they simply wishing to agree with me?

"They are not really thinking about their own actual experiences with hook setting with different length rods"

This may be the most outlandish statement I have ever witnessed on any forum, anywhere. To dare to tell folks that what they have reported here is a figment of their imaginations conjured up simply so they can agree with me is to discount the intelligence, experience and character of many good people here. You owe a huge apology to a lot of folks here after saying such a thing.

If you wish to do further mental experiments, I'd stick to ones that utilize the tackle that we actually use in real world fishing situations.

Emory that is the most pretentious thing I think I have ever had anyone say to me. To pretend that I am not intelligent enough to know of my own personal experiences and that you somehow know more about my fishing experiences than I do is either laughable or insulting. I just have not decided which one, yet.

I am going to sidestep Emory's comments as they are not worth responding to. We all know what we have experienced when moving from shorter to longer rods in regard to setting the hook. His comments and mental experiments cannot change anything we have experienced. Instead of believing that our experiences are not real, it is more logical to believe that his mental experiments are seriously flawed.

Setting the hook is all about the SWEEP of the rod tip. How far you can move the line. None of my rods, long or short, are wimpy noodles. When I sweep the rod the tip moves and moves the line with it. It may flex a little, but it does not remain in place. It MOVES and it moves fast. It removes any and all slack, creep, give or whatever else you want to call it. At some point you hit solid fish and the deed is done. With a shorter rod it often happens that you never hit solid fish because not all the slack, creep or give has been fully taken up. This is where the added length gives you a hook setting edge and I think everybody here who said they got better hook sets with a longer rod pretty much said the same thing. We know what we know borne out of our actual fishing experiences and nobody's mental experiments can change that.

Where might this fit? "Those who are wise store up knowledge, but the mouth of a stubborn fool invites ruin"
Jeff.

The lengths of the rods I use have little to do with hook setting capabilities and I doubt that anyone else has given much consideration to hook setting in choosing rod lengths. It may be interesting to speculate about the rod’s length effect on hook setting, but rod length selection is usually based on other criteria. If I were to have a problem with hook setting, my solution certainly wouldn’t be going to longer rods. I’d be giving up too much of what I consider to be favorable attributes of a shorter rod for the techniques and type of fishing I do.

I think Emory’s point (rod flexing is “give”) is a valid one, even though some of you won’t acknowledge or agree with it. . I respect the opinions/theories on this forum, but I don’t always agree with them. It’s more important to me to understand their logic rather than to argue it. It’s easy to see why valid points in this “discussion” are being overlooked or ignored due to emotions.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/2008 01:37PM by jim spooner.

Jim Spooner wrote; "I doubt that anyone else has given much consideration to hook setting in choosing rod lengths"
Jim Spooner wrote; "If I were to have a problem with hook setting, my solution certainly wouldn’t be going to longer rods".
I resepectfully disagree with you. There are MANY OF US out there that give rod length consideration when it comes to hook set. While Emory's rod flexing point is valid, I sincerely doubt that both yourself & Emory are the only ones out there to give rod length consideration in hook setting. MANY OF US also understand that rod length has it's role in the various techniques fo fishing in general.
I also feel it would be short-sighted to NEVER consider a longer rod when hook sets are a problem. I cannot count how many times a longer rod has fixed " missing fish" for my clients over the decades.
If my client is fishing with a 6'6" MH Fast action rod & missing fish. I will put a 7' or even 7'6" MH Fast rod in their hands & once they get acclimated to it, they catch more fish. This is a FACT, not theory.
Jeff

I would like to debate this further particularly with Denis Brown. I think that he has made several good points but I think that he is missing a couple of others. However, I think that things have degenerated and gotten personal to the point that nothing more can be accomplished.

Tom,
I do feel badly about making personal comments and I think were uncalled for. However, I do not aplogize because I think that the comments that I made are true and I made these comments after there were several comments from others that I took as insulting aimed aimed at me.

If you think that any of the folks here that relayed their personal experiences to the effect that they get a better hook set with a longer rather than a shorter rod are concocting stories simply to align with my own experience, well... you do indeed owe them an apology. It is tantamount to calling them either fools or liars. Neither of which any of them deserve.

You can believe what you want to believe and I don't expect you to change your mind, but it is wrong to discount a person's experience as untrue unless you have evidence to support that decision.

What you should be doing is an experiment to find out why those folks are having better hook setting results with longer rather than shorter rods. Not why they can't possibly have experienced what they say they have experienced.


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

Jeff,
It’s interesting to me that you and others DO consider rod length for hook setting. I should never have said "never". (or implied it????) I won’t argue that your solution for some of your clients was a valid one….can’t argue with results. As long as there were no other “trade-offs”.
Fortunately, I don’t have to “solve” for anyone else, especially in short-term situations. That might explain my short sightedness. I’m also fortunate that hook sets are not a problem for me, so thankfully, I don’t have to consider giving up another favorable attribute to solve for it. It’s kinda like going to “spirals” to avoid the inherent rod torque….not a problem for me…lucky me.
Btw, in regards to “fixing missing fish”…..There are times that I will risk “missing” fish by using a given method or technique where nothing else seems to work….if I can at least get the fish to commit. I don’t think the longer rod would help me get the fish and if it did, the increased length would have inhibited the technique.