I have no objection to users, sellers, and buyers of fishing poles exchanging information about how rods "feel" : fast, medium, slow, powerful, delicate, soulful, stiff, lively, smooth, etc.. I don't understand why some rod builders shun objective measurements of time and space pertinent to fishing rods? They can ignore these physical measurements just as I ignore claims of "light" and "powerful" and "responsive". Riding in a wheelbarrow at 20 miles an hour feels "fast", on a bicycle not so much.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/15/2020 10:00AM by Phil Ewanicki.

No "road test" is going to be fully objective. YA shootouts do present deflection charts, swing weight, etc, which are on the objective side of the equation. They try to equalize their testing by using the same reel and line. The rest is their individual and collective opinions. Overall I think the shootouts provide some level of quality feedback to the consumer who cannot try out so many rods. No different than car reviews in Road and Track or Motor Trend. Ultimatley, one has to test drive themselves or just purchase based on others' opinions.

David: Right you are. The YA Shootout also provides objective facts such as average distance casted [by a variety of casters] in feet and inches, average accuracy in feet and inches, weight in ounces, cost in dollars and cents, guarantees in months or years - but strictly subjective fly fishers can ignore these distractions.

Phil,

What are the set of objective data that you use to select a blank for a particular purpose and/or individual?

How do you communicate with and angler that comes in and says: "I'm currently roll casting a nymph using a particular combination of rod, reel, and line and find that I need to work too hard at the distance I'm casting. I would like a rod that that is a bit softer and more soulful, similar to a particular fiberglass rod of my youth. I would like it maybe a few inches shorter to better handle around the overhanging brush and yet still have enough oomph to pull a solid fish up a riffle."

You may dismiss the subjective terms in your personal building, and that is fine. I agree a full set of objective numbers will help you dial in rod selection very quickly and learn how to select there right blank very quickly. However, if you communicate with fishermen and other rod builders, you still need to have a fundamental understanding of the language they are speaking and the concepts that they are trying to convey.

When it comes to objectivity, the accuracy measurement is meaningless. The smaller the number the better the set of casters chosen. Grab 10 touring bass pros and hand each of them an Ugly Stick and grab 10 guys in the fishing aisle at the big box store and hand them a custom jig rod. After each group makes a set number of casts, flips, pitches, what do you think the average accuracy results will show? Over the last couple of years my time on the water has plummeted for a number of reasons, so now my accuracy is way off. The rod in my hand has nothing to do with it. It's my personal muscle memory and casting stroke that must improve to restore my accuracy. The only fix is time on the water or time in the yard practicing.

Joe: I have given up building rods for people I haven't talked to at some length and have not seen casting, which pretty much restricts me to friends and family. I think if you take the Y.A. articles and compare the accuracy of flycasters at different distances (in feet and inches, not "good" or "deadly accurate") you will find some rods as well as some flycasters excel at certain distances. This information is valued by many flycasters.