This has been a pretty lively thread. I am really impressed by two things. First, it is pretty spectacular that executives representing both sides of this debate are particpating in it. I'd be willing to bet the Batson clan is plugged in as well. We are very, very fortunate in this craft to have this kind of industry access and support. I can't think of another product I buy - regardless of what I spend on it - that I can go to a forum, post a question, and have the experts from the major manufacturers reply to me directly (and for all to see). I really appreciate their participation and am grateful for this forum.

And everyone has been a really good sport. Nods of respect to both Mr. Heim and Mr. Isling for representing their companies courteously and professionally. And I think many of you saw Bill Batson congratulate AmTak on the European award win. These exchanges have made me MORE likely to purchase ALL of thier products in the future.

Bottom line, I personally think innovation and attention is a great thing for our craft and can only help us. We are all better off to have ALL of t these compmanies not only survive but thrive. For me, I will continue to use both the KR type system and the MWV system with guides from all three companies (and likely others). Customers are reaching out to me to learn more about this stuff and that is a great thing in my mind...regardless of whcih set up they go with.

I for one am going to keep examples of both set ups in my shop for customers to try. I don't think they can go wrong either way.

Yes it has been a lively and interesting thread! As a long, long, long time lurker it has prompted me to make my first post even. What I am seeing here would be impossible on any other custom rod building message forum. First you have here a forum where the actual manufacturers and distributors participate freely and almost daily. Nowhere else does this happen. Mostly because anywhere else you would have the usual flaming and bashing that most other rod building forums seem to have on a steady basis. Even the makers and sellers sometimes go after each other! But here the people seem to know they can disagree but they have to sensible about how they do it. Kudos to RBO for fostering this kind of atmosphere where manufacturers and distributors feel safe to discuss the merits of their own and their competitors products. Second you have a situation where two companies are trying to better each other in regard to their guide systems. Great! The end result can only be better and better guide trains for the custom builders. Competition is good!

Ok my turn, I have been using MWG since they were first made available before I joined the American Tackle Co prostaff and I was sceptical at first until I took the time to build comparison rods and check them out personally.

I don't particularly like the idea that some shelf rods are going to be using MWGs because from day one I have been making premium priced rods that perform great. I make rods for customers to earn a living so I need to be confident that every rod I sell will perform very well because my sales are generated by others seeing customers rods. Lets put everything aside for a minute and call it a draw between MWGs on KR and NGC for performance it's not but lets pretend it is. My signature series rods retail for $480 + shipping all performance being equal which titanium guides would you put on a rod? If your in the business of making money than a quick shopping cart comparrison will make it pretty clear which product wins this race. Shelf rods with MWGs are going to impact on my products first mover advantage that's a givin but it also drives home the fact that the mwg system works and works really well.

As part of my prostaff deal I perform hundreds if not thousands of demonstration of the mwg equipped rods and that has taken me from a tiny few rods a month to being well on track to producing 300 rods this year the mwg challenge (demos) along with my customers actively promoting the rods has got me to a stage where I either extend my build times or even take on staff and I honestly consider the differentiation of my product using the mwg system is the reason.

Long story short mwgs meen profits.

Cheers

Mark Newcombe
Old Bar NSW
Australia
markscustomfishing.com
American Tackle Pro-Staff

I agree, this is an interesting, lively discussion and I thank everyone for their contributions. But I would still like to hear more objectivity from those who don't stand to benefit commercially from one system or the other.

With all due respect, the whole 'because it sells - it must work' argument is a pretty weak one. One only needs to look at all the different 'revolutionary' additives that shampoo companies add to what is essentially the same core ingredients of their previous products. I used one recently that had 'active manuka honey'??? It is highly beneficial for companies to promote the use of something 'new and revolutionary' because it sells, not necessarily because it works. And the inherent human nature of customers wants it to work too (I know I do!). Hence, they will tell others that it works better than the previous product (even though it actually might just be a placebo effect) and they will buy it too and on it goes. And smart businesses know this. As long as they can tick the box that the product has no potential health hazard, then they are free to market it as they wish. It is then up to us customers to provide a critical eye and ask questions - which is what I hope I am doing. Sure some of their claims might be correct, but equally, some of their claims might be nothing more than marketing hype.

One of the best ways for a company to verify the benefits of their product is to have a fully disclosed, independently and scientifically-rigorous testing of the product. My pet hate in marketing hype is the use of unsubstantiated terms such as 'scientifically proven' or 'substantially different' and 'pretty clear' etc. It's more politics than science. And I hope everyone knows which profession is more inclined in making non-factual claims. Science isn't perfect either, but when it's done properly it's as good as we've got at the moment.

One of the absolute biggest no no's in science is the nasty thing called 'conflict of interest'. That term is the enemy of objective data, and therefore it is extremely difficult to give any merit to 'scientific' data or claims offered by the company themselves. Independent testing is one way around this, but the testing parties are then being paid by the company which then infers another conflict of interest. But if Mr. Heim and Mr. Isling are confident enough in their product being better than the other, how about contributing an equal amount of funds to an independent scientific company to test your products side-by-side? That way both your companies will be equally invested and we can get an independent, objective viewpoint on the merits of each of your products in comparison to each other. I would think that would be one @#$%& of a selling-point! (By the way, I don't work for a scientific testing company).

If you read my post I was trying to make the point that microwaves differentiate my product. I totally agree with you about independent varifacation but like I stated lets assume they are at least equal in performance, pricing and defferentiation was my point.

Yes I am ATC prostaff and proud of it but I will not put a guide system on one of my rods that is inferior. My whole reason for my post was to take a different view of the argument one that directly impacted on my bottom line as a company that builds performance competition ultra and light rods. Having me say how good they perform is not going to hold any water if you perceive my opinion as one that is tainted due to my connection with ATC. Thats why I prefaced my argument with lets assume equal performance accross the board.

Because they sell is not as weak an argument as you may think most companies are not going to risk brand rep by using inferior products unless it is purely based on trying to achieve a certain retail price point, when I found out that some of the big industry players are going to be using this system I was happy as I see this as a proof of concept even though my own testing did that a long time ago.

My last point is maybe a white paper means something else in the USA, my understanding of a white paper is that it is a study commissioned by a party who has a vested interest but it is carried out by an independent contractor and the results are not influenced by any vested party, at least that is my understanding of a white paper here in Australia.

You will never get accross the board agreement on anything and that is a great thing it is what drives innovation and product progression, my suggestion to you it to buy a set keep an open mind and test it for yourself, if you are not willing to do that contact American Tackle Co and find out if there is a prostaffer near you, we are located all over the plannet and would be more than happy to let you test our rods then you can make your own decision who knows you may be pleasantly surprised, I was.

Cheers

Mark Newcombe
Old Bar NSW
Australia
markscustomfishing.com
American Tackle Pro-Staff

Mark Newcombe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Because they sell is not as weak an argument as
> you may think most companies are not going to risk
> brand rep by using inferior products unless it is
> purely based on trying to achieve a certain retail
> price point, when I found out that some of the big
> industry players are going to be using this system
> I was happy as I see this as a proof of concept
> even though my own testing did that a long time
> ago.


I agree completely that companies will not risk their reputation on an inferior product. But I never said MWGs are an inferior product, nor did I say that my 'active manuka honey' shampoo was an inferior product. I'm just making an objective point that differentiating a product doesn't necessarily improve performance (yet it still may), and that conflict of interest is a genuine and important concern when making valued claims about the particular benefits of the product or technique. And yes, a non-inferior product that is different from what is being sold from it's competition will sell if marketed properly, no matter if it improves performance or not. And it would if other industry players want to adopt this marketing push, then that's because they've evaluated that it will most likely improve their sales too. That's proof of concept that the product sells, not proof of concept that the product performs better. And I have tested (i.e. played around) with MWGs, but not extensively enough to think it fair to comment either way, except to state that they are not inferior to any other comparable guide set.

For decades, Fuji has employed a staff of full time engineers and designers working year round to improve component performance on rods of all types. Many times the work has resulted in the publication of ideas and/or concepts that have had far reaching affects on the rod building industry. As Darrin indicated, competitive products can and have been used to accomplish the performance gains outlined by Fuji. The idea that this could be a bad thing is evidence of exactly what Am Tak hopes to do with MWG.

Fuji holds over 1000 patents on innovations in component technology yet has seldom attempted to enforce its ownership of any particular patent, choosing instead to let it accrue to the benefit of the industry and the craft. We feel this open, selfless attitude has done more to foster the evolution of better and better rods than any single product ever could. Fuji has successfully built the brand on quality and performance rather than stringent protection of each and every innovation.

The most critical thinkers out there have independently reached the conclusion that both systems work ”well”. If that’s the case then builders are faced with a decision. Do they want to build rods that look and perform like rods built by other rod builders (and even some factories), or do they wish to offer a product that plays off the characteristics of any given blank and results in a "one-off” rod that reflects skills acquired over time.

There are no doubt builders in both categories and wherever you find yourself is perfectly alright with us. It is also the very reason this discussion has no winners or losers.

We are always happy to answer any questions you may have about Fuji products. Drop us a note at info@anglersresource.net

Mr. Isling wrote: "The idea that this could be a bad thing is evidence of exactly what Am Tak hopes to do with MWG."


I have no idea what you are saying here. I am not saying that piecing together a good guide sequence is a bad thing. That would be like saying not to buy 90% of our guide offerings?? We are only trying to promote our latest complete system, the MicroWave Line Control System. I merely pointed out that custom rod builders have been employing ideas that Fuji capitalized on commercially. There are still good guide train combinations out there and in fact I’ll state it here, “If you do not want to use the MWG’s, please consider making your own guide configurations using American Tackle products to employ effective line management”.

Darrin Heim
American Tackle Company

It's Ising, Darrin. Not Isling.