Certainly, it's debatable. Anything's debatable when you use the word "better". All engineering is a matter of tradeoffs, and weight is one of them. If lighter means more fragile, then lighter isn't better if durability is more important to you. It's one factor.
Agreed.
I don't buy into that, other than that a rod should be tested with an appropriate line and reel and that line and reel isn't going to be the same for all rods. A classic cane rod with an agate stripping guide may not cast a hard plastic line well at all, but do be great with a thinner, more supple line like Cortland Sylk.
A reasonable thing to do, except that the weight assigned to each category is going to differ from angler to angler, and some categories that I rate highly (how well does it mend a line, how well does it roll cast, how well does it protect a tippet, etc) aren't even mentioned.
It's defining "peformance" that this question is really about. And it's subjective.
This one would zero with me (unless you included "does it have two tips?")
No argument there.
This would be the most heavily weight factor for me. I fish for fun. If the rod isn't any fun to fish, it won't get fished, and is therefore totally useless.
Certainly a factor, but as I get older, less so than it used to think it was.
Totally agree, but I suspect this is subjective, and will vary from individual to individual, depending on casting stroke. A rod is heavy if I get a sore shoulder from casting it for a day.
That depends on what you mean by "power". If you mean "the ability to cast to the distance the rod will likely be used at, and maybe a little more" then yes, it is important. OTOH, if you just mean "how far does it cast" then it's only important if casting a long distance is important. If you mean "how well does it cast into the wind?" then that factor is more or less important depending on whether you plan to fish it in windy conditions. This factor deserves your 20 point weight it you're looking at a salt water rod, but is fairly unimportant if you're looking a a six foot three weight.
I couldn't agree more. Also, at those distance, will it turn over a 15' leader (if you're looking for a rod for spring creeks). If you're looking for a dry fly rod, will it turn over a bushy dry? If you're lobbing weighted nymphs, will it cast with an open enough loop to keep them away from your head?
I thought we were talking about good rods, not all purpose rods. At 45 feet, you're starting to get to the point where dry fly fishing is less practical, because you can't handle the line on the water well enough, and setting the hook is starting to become hard. Most nymph fishing is done (here & especially in Europe) at far shorter distances. The only rods that I ever expect to fish at that distance are ones that I reserve for fishing large rivers. (Any rod will handle 35 feet.)
As I said earlier, some factors that I would consider important are totally missing here. Does it slap line down on the water so hard that all fish within 15 feet scatter? Does it have enough power to turn the size fish I expect to catch on it? If I'm fishing a wet or streamer downstream, does it have enough "give" that 1) the fly gets in the fish's mouth and 2) doesn't break the tippet at the same time?
How does my shoulder feel after a day's fishing? This isn't nearly as directly correlated to rod weight as you might think at first. I have some very fast 6 weights that a few hours of throwing popper 60 feet to smallmouth will leave my shoulder sore for days; I also have an old bamboo 6 weight that is heavy just to carry to river, but it casts those same poppers the same distance, into the wind, without it putting a strain on my shoulder at all. Guess which one I think is the better rod?
Re: How Do You Rate a Rod??
Also, Understand that Lighter is Better. Period. All things being equal, this isn't debatable.Certainly, it's debatable. Anything's debatable when you use the word "better". All engineering is a matter of tradeoffs, and weight is one of them. If lighter means more fragile, then lighter isn't better if durability is more important to you. It's one factor….
It appears that you either didn't read closely enough here or you are intentionally nit picking and literally grasping at straws right off the bat. ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL in no way, shape or form supports your commentary. How would two equal rods, one lighter than the other, be more fragile?
Most importantly, great rods aren't always expensive. Agreed.
I believe all comperable rods of a given rod length and taper shoud be compared against each other. To do this, we use the same reel and line when testing. Based on yearly sales numbers, the Ross CLA and either the Sci. Ang. GPX or Rio Gold Fly Lines are used in all of my tests of the medium to faster type freshwater rods. The slower rods get trout appropriate tapers, such as Rio's Trout LT or Sci Anglers Mastery Trout Taper. Each line is therefore appropriate for the rods being tested. We do use THE SAME line for all tests and our staff agrees on the line before the tests begin. Please note, we feel there are other excellent line companies, Cortland and Airflow among them. Also, please understand that 3M makes both Rio and Sci Angler's (and Orvis) lines so there isn't a revolutionary difference among the lines we select. Based on the tapers, we select lines to optimize performace and simulate what the average buyer will choose. Based on sales numbers, we pick what we feel is most likely the best to most people.
I don't buy into that, other than that a rod should be tested with an appropriate line and reel and that line and reel isn't going to be the same for all rods. A classic cane rod with an agate stripping guide may not cast a hard plastic line well at all, but do be great with a thinner, more supple line like Cortland Sylk.
If we did this we would not have an equal comparison to base our findings. PLUS, we test a group of similar rods to begin with and a common ground is needed to evaluate a group. Also, why would we test a classic cane rod? As far as I know, Leonard and Payne are no longer made and therefore not available or even applicable to my post. We test modern rods that are actually for sale across the country in most fly shops. Obviously, if it was 1954 and we were testing all 7'6" 5 weights, we would probably have the common sense to match these bamboo beauties with the appropriate line. Also, a STANDARD reel is ABSOLUTELY part of the equation. Again, placing a different reel on every rod to give the rod the best swing weight would completely go against the standard of common ground. It appears you missed the point of this entire post. Of course all tests have a degree of subjectivity. We believe we have dramatically minimized this and we've even recognized that a small part of the test NEEDS to be subjective. Some anglers place a huge value on subjective things and that's ok.
We assign the following point system to each rod tested. This is the nuts and bolts of how I ascertain which rod is best. Also, keep in mind that this information is pretty common among evaluators of rods. This info really isn't anything revolutionary or new:
A reasonable thing to do, except that the weight assigned to each category is going to differ from angler to angler, and some categories that I rate highly (how well does it mend a line, how well does it roll cast, how well does it protect a tippet, etc) aren't even mentioned.
Actually, by using our rating criteria you can do just that. In fact, this is WHY we rate them. If a customer is going for a great performing rod that is clearly the absolute best for asthetics and overall craftsmanship, then he can already justify spending an extra amount, even a significant one. By the same token, if a customer wants a rod that he perceives as fun to fish, then he is going to place a high weight on the Ferris Beuller's Day off category. Our test allows a buyer to customize his or her priorities. It also lets a buyer know which rods are truly the best and why. This doesn't mean they are going to buy the rod that is at the top in our test. We fully understand that and happily take their money just the same. A good fisherman can clean a river out with a Fisher Price rod if he wants to. I have watched stocked fish get hooked in a river during fishing classes with just tippet and the teachers hand and arm. The limb protected the tippet just fine.
<B>
Price:</B>
10 points. Cheapest gets a ten, then so-forth.
In this economy, I've considered giving this category 20 points, but I have yet to do so because I work off the belief that performance matters more than price, gaurantee, fun factor and craftsmanship. It's defining "peformance" that this question is really about. And it's subjective.
Performance is certainly in no way subjective when the test is standardized. That's why factors like the same lines, a group of testers, the same reels and doing the same things with each rod give us such an excellent picture as to what that rod can and can't do well.
<B>
Category X</B>
: 10 points. A combination of things like warranty, turn around time in season, level of fix, refurbishments, service without being asked (like cleaning cork or noticing other things that are wrong), section replacement or in some cases entire rod replacement.
This one would zero with me (unless you included "does it have two tips?")
You've made kind of a silly statement here. If a customer is fishing and breaks their rod when stringing it up in mid June (peak season nationally) and one company charges $35 to fix it and takes a month while the other charges nothing and takes two weeks, you will respect why it is our job to place the best rod we can in their hands to begin with.
Since we sell all brands, we have witnessed every imaginable problem with the nuts and bolts of how gaurantees actually work. In fact, we find that most customers kind of expect the Dealer to just replace the rod for them. Countless temper tantrums on the parts of these individuals (which are always sad but VERY creative) could be avoided if they considered this category when buying the rod.
Further more, the attention to detail and overall service each company gives when repairing a rod speaks volumes as to their commitment to customer service. You must enjoy waiting at the back of lines, no?
<B>
Craftsmanship</B>
: 10 points. Quality of cork, finish, wraps, details, case (or lack there of), components..etc.
No argument there.
Wow, you cut us a break. Are you sure you can't find something to criticize? Craftsmanship is actually important when selecting a rod?
<B>
Ferris Beuller's Day off Factor</B>
: 10 points. How fun is the rod to fish.
This would be the most heavily weight factor for me. I fish for fun. If the rod isn't any fun to fish, it won't get fished, and is therefore totally useless.
Perfect. Again, there is no law against giving as much weight to any category as you want to. The IFGA Police won't arrest you. This is also the one category we can't measure. We go with the opinions of the test casters only. How fun was the rod to fish? Was it work? Did it load easily? Did you feel in touch with the line at all times? Were you stunned by the rod, or just mildly impressed? Most importantly, did this particular rod stand out from the group we tested? How so?
<B>
Overall weight</B>
Certainly a factor, but as I get older, less so than it used to think it was.
This is a completely over-rated category and one many rod manufacturers lie about or distort as well. However, we stick with it for obvious reasons. As modern rods develop and technology increases, lighter is better (ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL).
<B>
Swing Weight</B>
: 10 Points. I've talked about this in past posts and likened it to a golf club at the clubhouse, rods with low swing weights are very fun to fish because then seem to move back and forth during the cast with ease. You can detect swing weight right at the rod rack. Pick up a rod and try it. If it seems effortless to false cast with it, it has a very low swing weight. If it feels in the hand as if it takes effort, it has a high swing weight.
Totally agree, but I suspect this is subjective, and will vary from individual to individual, depending on casting stroke. A rod is heavy if I get a sore shoulder from casting it for a day.
Subjective? Us? Never. This isn't a category where we need anyone to agree. It's just a factual category that is no different than measuring the weight of a rod with our Postal Scale.
Swing Weight is the weight of the rod, out ahead of your hand, when the rod is held in a horizontal position. Wit can be calculated by placing a small piece of packing foam in the center of the digital scale and using it as a fulcrum. If the rod is placed horizontally on the scale, positioning it so that when the fulcrum is centered, the uppermost part of the rod handle will be three inches to the right of the fulcrum of foam. The rest of the handle and reel seat extends back to the right, while most of the rod extended horizontally back to the left. Then to measure the swing weight in ounces, simply press down on the center of the rod grip (where your hand should be) and read the downward pressure on the scale with the rod in a horizontal position. Golf Shops use a similar method but they have a machine to do this. Normally we wouldn't need to share this information with a customer, other than to give a lightning quick and concise point so they could understand why it's important.
<B>
Swing Weight vs. Power</B>
: 20 Points. This is the most important performance category yet so it's double weighted. You want to know which rod is best right? WELL. Which rods feel lightest yet deliver the most power. The winners in this category are the ones that make you wish you were fishing them. This category is for all the fly fishing club guys who say, "you have to test cast the rod to really know, man!" They are right (sort of). A rod with wonderful swing weight can flunk when you cast it. Causes are it's not lined right or that it doesn't translate to actual casting.
That depends on what you mean by "power". If you mean "the ability to cast to the distance the rod will likely be used at, and maybe a little more" then yes, it is important. OTOH, if you just mean "how far does it cast" then it's only important if casting a long distance is important. If you mean "how well does it cast into the wind?" then that factor is more or less important depending on whether you plan to fish it in windy conditions. This factor deserves your 20 point weight it you're looking at a salt water rod, but is fairly unimportant if you're looking a a six foot three weight.
We whole heartedly disagree with you here. First of all, we're not testing a 6 foot three weight against a 10 weight when we do our tests. We leave tests like that for fools.
Second of all, in a group of similar rods, this is a very important category. The winners in this category are rods that feel the lightest in the hands of our testers, yet deliver the most usable power. With 10 similar rods, this category comes to life in an actual test. A heavy saltwater group of rods can all easily develop high line speeds. But, the duds in this category will feel like clubs in the hands of the casters. THAT'S BECAUSE Swing Weight vs. Power alone don’t make a great casting rod. The way the rod flexes to deliver this power tells the rest of the story and that is what we look for in this or any other group of rods (say…a group of 6 foot three weights for example!)
Performance at 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25 feet. 20 points. Nuff Said. Most of the fishing you do is in this range. FOOLS who test cast rods before they buy them just go right to distance. I've seen it a million times. I couldn't agree more. Also, at those distance, will it turn over a 15' leader (if you're looking for a rod for spring creeks). If you're looking for a dry fly rod, will it turn over a bushy dry? If you're lobbing weighted nymphs, will it cast with an open enough loop to keep them away from your head?
This is the category where many highly advanced rods disappoint me. It seems as if many really weren't made to actually fish. It's also the category that is most confusing to customers because almost all advertising in the industry leads them away from looking hard at this category. However, a rod that is strong here is also likely to flop in the next two categories and that is precisely why some rods actually are better than others. Most customers aren't going to start their fishing careers by purchasing multiple rods. They often need versatility and so do we all if we wish to be able to adapt to changing conditions on the stream and get the most out of the rods we chose to purchase.
<B>Performance at 25, 35 and 45 feet.</B>
20 points.
An all purpose rod SHINES in this category and deservedly so.
I thought we were talking about good rods, not all purpose rods. At 45 feet, you're starting to get to the point where dry fly fishing is less practical, because you can't handle the line on the water well enough, and setting the hook is starting to become hard. Most nymph fishing is done (here & especially in Europe) at far shorter distances. The only rods that I ever expect to fish at that distance are ones that I reserve for fishing large rivers. (Any rod will handle 35 feet.)
We're actually talking about a group of rods tested. If we pick 10 9' 4 weights, why then we're going to test them! A good rod will not win a test. The competition is too strong. There are a lot of good rods on the market. We want to know which ones are great.
Drilling a fly into the wind is important and you need accuracy for the times you do it at distances. Those who fish bigger water (like the Upper Delaware Tributary for example) fish well beyond 40 feet with dry flies every single day during the late spring and summer. When a large trout rises, you need to be able to respond. Some rods that fish great in close, require the caster to double haul to force it to reach out easily while other's don't. So, we feel what sets a great rod apart from a good rod is the ability to do as much as possible with it. The term All Purpose in no way detracts from this thought.
However, feel free to give this category little to no weight if you are buying a rod for a more narrow purpose. But understand, you suffer the consiquences if you ask it to do more.
Performance at 50, 60, 70 and beyond feet: 20 Points.
[\QUOTE]
It's pointless to even talk about this factor for most trout fishing; I'd give it 0 weight. OTOH, if I'm looking for a rod for bass fishing in the Potomac, I'd give it the full 20. It totally depends on the expected use. As I said earlier, some factors that I would consider important are totally missing here. Does it slap line down on the water so hard that all fish within 15 feet scatter? Does it have enough power to turn the size fish I expect to catch on it? If I'm fishing a wet or streamer downstream, does it have enough "give" that 1) the fly gets in the fish's mouth and 2) doesn't break the tippet at the same time?
How does my shoulder feel after a day's fishing? This isn't nearly as directly correlated to rod weight as you might think at first. I have some very fast 6 weights that a few hours of throwing popper 60 feet to smallmouth will leave my shoulder sore for days; I also have an old bamboo 6 weight that is heavy just to carry to river, but it casts those same poppers the same distance, into the wind, without it putting a strain on my shoulder at all. Guess which one I think is the better rod?
Your perogative entirely if you feel this is a pointless category in Trout Fishing. However, we can in no way shape or form agree with you. Streamers are a part of fishing and they are often fished with Teeny lines in rivers. Shooting a cast or two is part of any streamer guy's day.
A rod that slaps the line down hard on the water when fishing dry flies is being operated incorrectly and or the caster is using way too heavy of a line with entirely the wrong taper. The rod is the last of the problems in your analogy. If the loop is allowed to unfold in the air and the appropriate leader is being used, this will be much less of an issue.
Fish turning power is tensile breaking strength and blank flex. The bigger the quarry, the more need to consider things like this. Wet's and Streamers Fished downstream have slack in the line. When tippets break, it's because too much slack came tight too quickly. Better line management minimizes this with rods that are even stiff. Also, choosing the correct tippet diameter and corresponding test weight will further eliminate this. Since when do you need a light tippet for this kind of fishing anyway? Also, what bearing to any of these points have with regard to how far a rod casts? WE AREN'T TESTING OLD BAMBOO RODS AGAINST ORVIS HELIOS BLANKS. We're testing groups of similar rods of the exact same line weight and length.
