I have this nagging feeling that there is something I'm doing wrong or not understanding about the 27X guide layout method.

One early indication was that I seemed to like an extra guide or two over what was suggested. It got discussed in a post and I feel fine about the trade offs I made. What is bothering me now is that I always seem to end up feeling the need for more reduction guides. For example I'm looking at an 8'6" 3 power hot shot rod. I'm happy with how the line lays and loads in static testing and how it fishes. I have five #6 guides and five reduction guides. I tell myself it is because I'm using bigger reels. I mean if the butt and choker guide are located properly, and I have 40 inches between them, surely I need more than one or two guides to span that much distance. Right?

Now I understand there is no right way and all that matters is if I'm happy. Right now I'd rather be unhappy and feel I correctly understand the method put forth. I must be missing something important. I keep reading things like you should never need more than three, maybe four, reduction guides maximum. Yet I have reels with big enough spool OD's that the tip top is the choker guide. For me these reels aren't silly big (250-300 yards of 20# mono) and I don't see a 7' rod as short.

I'm just trying to put it altogether and think I'm missing something. It could be as silly as me counting my butt guide as a reduction guide when it isn't one and therefore thinking I'm messing up:)

Russ in Hollywood, FL.

Well, at some point there is a right and a wrong way, but if what you have works well and you like it, then it's most likely closer to right than wrong.

The thinking behind only using about 3 reduction guides is that generally big reels are fitted to big rods. As such, guides spaced further apart still offer adequate stress distribution. For instance, the optimum number of guides for a 12 foot, powerful surf rod might be identical to the number needed on a 6 foot light power trout rod. Just because the rod is longer does not necessarily mean that it requires more guides. Then again, it might.

I suspect what you're doing is fine. You just need to keep at it and do a little test casting now and then to gain more experience. Over a bit of time you'll get more comfortable with what you're doing.

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

For me, it is "right enough" that I consider it superior to quality factory rods such as St. Croix.

I'll take it from your comments that the butt guide does count as one of the reduction guides. To bad, I was hoping that was the reason for my concerns.

I keep seeing the mention of test casting and that may be another clue for me to hone in on. May I ask why casting performance should be an indication of proper guide layout if I rod is intended for trolling duty (or strictly bottom fishing)?

I'm not trying to be difficult and I am only asking because I do feel like I'm not seeing the big picture. On the other hand.... there is a part of me that is considering that my style of fishing may be so removed from others that general advice doesn't equate.

To test these concepts allow me to ask a pointed and blunt question. If your sole desire for a given spinning rod was to catch sailfish (dolphin is fine if you know them better).... and your idea of the perfect fight was that the initial run should leave you with one yard of line left when that world record fish came along...and you wished your outfight to weigh the least amount possible...and you would troll, fish live bait under a kite, or free line the live bait...but never cast anything at anytime...well under those particular conditions might you lay out your guides any differently?

Thanks in advance for being a good sport as I suspect I may have put you on the spot here.

Russ in Hollywood, FL.

No. I'd still use the fewest guides possible that provided adequate stress distribution.

If your rods are working to your satisfaction, why change anything? Is there some aspect of their performance you feel is lacking?

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