Not sure you understood what John_N and I were saying. It is all subjective, including the 'shootout' which pretends to be scientific but is really just an exhaustive list of impressions about a wide, but not universal, sample of rods.Originally Posted by Streamcaster
Considering that the DXF is not matched against the XF2, not sure how you come to the conclusion that one is better than the other. Further they both were #7 in the rankings, so I can argue they were the same. If you want to take it further, author writes how the XF2 is like the Fenwick Aetos, which ranked LOWER than the DXF, so one could also conclude the DXF is better. This study is also idiosyncratic, and while I'm not sure I trust the methodology each year, I certainly would not trust these studies across years.
Regardless, it would be a mistake to use this as more than a general guide of rods you might like, and considering the number of rods both new and old missing from the lists, I'm not sure it is much more than just an interesting article. Sort of the equivalent of walking into the fly shop and asking the guy behind the counter what the 'best' rod is.
If I told you the XF2 in #5 is a fast-ish rod with a softer tip than I would usually like, what does that mean to you in terms of whether or not you will like the rod? Until you get one in your hands and cast it, you will not really know if you like the action. Then comes the debate on how well the rod actually fishes, although I have yet to find a rod that I liked to cast that did not also fish well, but others might disagree.
By the way, if you really want to muddy the waters, Grey's/Hardy's had/have an awful reputation on warranty issues. Not sure they ever cleared it up before the most recent sale, but the stories were bad enough that I refrained from ever buying one of their rods or reels...and this was after hearing a lot of good comments about the XF2.
Reply With Quote