Peetz Wood Reel on a Peetz Rod with wire line roller guides. Pure old school!!! Knuckle buster at its best. Made in Victoria, B.C.

I have similar hanging in the rod racks, along with the wood reels.

Lots more hearsay and dissembling, still no data or evidence, still no credible evidence of superiority (or inferiority) of any particular rod blanks, but a lively discussion - Sorta like "Who makes the best apple pie?" I like to share my prejudices as well as the next guy, but I try not to pretend my opinions are facts - or pretend they are supported by facts.

Once again, what rod blank are you interested in and what rod blank are you attempting to compare it to ? My guess is you don't have any issues with rod blank performance. You have mentioned certain rod blanks that you have used in the past and are very happy with them .

I think it's time to take notice that you are the ONLY person who repeatedly asks for data that doesn't exist and never has existed and the worst part about it is that you know this .

Everything one reads on forums is opinion. Unless data are provided, but even then the credibility of the data can be questioned. In time one becomes pretty good at evaluating the credibility of the opinions of others. And in time one becomes pretty good at figuring out that an agenda is being pushed.

Every declaration one sees in print or hears on the media is either true or false. Thank heaven so much scientific effort goes into determining the truth. Without measuring physical performance and outcomes and revealing them every issue becomes a shouting match - or an advertising match.

"Thank heaven so much scientific effort goes into determining the truth"

OK lets approach this in a different manner , what case scenario are you upset about and having trouble with ? There must be a certain rod that you aren't happy with that you bought from someplace that isn't performing up to your satisfaction for some reason .

Were you told that a $300.00 fly rod was going to perform on the same level as a $1,250 Loomis Asquith ?

chris c you must enjoy banging your head into a wall. If you would like a change of pace I could hit you with a 2 X 4.

"Every declaration one sees in print or hears on the media is either true or false."

I couldn't disagree more. Many things, from food to drink to art to women to cars, and even fishing rods, are a matter of taste. Heck, some want value, some want status, and some want performance.

Russ in Hollywood, FL.

I have an old 9 wt. (!) TFO - BVK fly rod which I can cast a measured 95 feet - every bit as far as I can cast a Loomis Asquith. As for accuracy, that's 100% dependent upon the caster, 0% on the rod. These are facts, not opinion. Why? They can and have been measured, observed, and duplicated. What bothers me? For one thing the perception of fly casting/fishing as a sport for people who gladly pay one THOUSAND+ dollars for a fish pole to wave around.

How did you measure accuracy and come to the conclusion (FACT) that the accuracy is 100% dependent on the caster? I submit even your distance number is only a "FACT" for the conditions of the test (line/caster skill/altitude/etc). When you compared the distance of the TFO with the Asquith did you use the same line for both, or the optimum line for each? Who chose the line and why? Who defines optimum? How do they define optimum? Is it not possible that a different caster might do better with rod A than rod B, or vice versa? Is it not possible that rod A might cast better up wind and rod B better down wind? But the test was most likely done with no wind?

It's not as simple as measuring the weight of a gallon of water.

I think your last sentence reveals the whole issue of the string. Those who choose to pay $1000 for a fly rod most likely are very happy with their purchase, even knowing that they didn't have to pay that much for a pole to wave around. Doesn't bother me that they are happy.

Phil, You don't provide facts either: [www.rodbuilding.org]

IMHO the fly LINE is more critical to fly casting success than the rod. It is possible to cast a fly line 70 feet or farther with just your hand - no rod. BTW: "cast 95 feet" IS a statement of fact - one that you won't see made by advertisers or their shills.

As triggered as some here get about marketing I am glad we don't have a ton of market power. Otherwise every fishing ad would end with, "The quality of angling services cannot be compared to the quality of angling services of other angling equipment manufacturers."

How does one prove a negative "fact," like the "fact" that a rod has nothing to do with accuracy?

Michael Danek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How does one prove a negative "fact," like the
> "fact" that a rod has nothing to do with accuracy?

Build a cast replicating machine to compare different rods/ guide layouts/ line wt...etc and conduct a scientific study of the distance and repeatability of the lures landing spot. All in a controlled environment as well.

Edit: format



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/15/2021 03:43PM by Aaron Petersen.

You can prove a positive, but not a negative. You cannot prove that something does not affect anything.

So prove a positive already - but don't assume truth because someone said or wrote it Reveal the relative accuracy of some specific rods - but use numbers and distances, not your "feelings", as evidence.

First, a FACT is already proven or else it would be a hypothesis.

Second, In the case of this "negative" it is quite simple to isolate the rod blank and compare the delta between landing groups. If a high end blank and lesser blank of the same length, ERN, and action is built identical, then side by side in a controlled environment on a machine designed for identical casting we could compare landing groups and find a mean average of the groups delta. If the deltas are not the same the data would not support your hypothesis. If they were then the hypothesis of the blank not being a factor in casting accuracy (consistency really) would be validated.

The Yellowstone Angler recently abandoned publishing physical measurements of the accuracy of the fly rods they used to provide - and replaced them with vague terms such as "super accurate" and "terrific accuracy*. The actual meaning of these terms is up to the buyer's imagination - the more gullible, the better. Rifle manufacturers gladly advertise the accuracy of their product - with NUMBERED distances, because some rifles are demonstrably more accurate than others. Funny that manufacturers of "accurate" rods and their advertising agencies NEVER provide objective evidence of the "accuracy" of their rods - in inches or feet - although sensible fly-rod buyers would love to have such information. What's stopping manufacturers and advertisers from providing the truth about their product in feet in inches - besides false advertising lawsuits?

Phil,

It is likely due to not having a standard test the industry can agree on for such data.