Congratulations on devising your system. I’m sure it works for for you and I’m certain it has features similar to the CCS. The basic tests are indeed very simple. It is too bad you didn’t share your ideas with others at that time. It would have saved me the trouble of creating the CCS. However, I believe your major problem was that you did not have an unambigous vocabulary and no one agreed on what the various terms meant. With the CCS, I created and defined new terms to solve that problem. I think it worked.
As far as casting goes, I would rate myself “so-so”. Seems strange, but I relate it to my golf & bowling years…I was a 6 handicap golfer & 203 average bowler & the key to my success was adapting to conditions with whatever equipment I used, ie stiff shafts/regular shafts…high, mid, or low kickpoints & rubber, plastic or urethane balls. I am JUST as determined to learn to cast well with WHATEVER action rod is in my hand at the time. Not criticizing, but I am a HUGE believer in “fundamentals”, & if I am to dramatically improve, I need to spend some time with someone like JC, LF, Or countless others & work on becoming fundamentally sound with different rods/actions. Sorry if I got off track, but I think ALL action rods have a purpose & if I am to be truly successful in this sport, I need to understand each action, along with when & how to employ it.
Mike
Hey there Mike ( ohiotuber);
I agree with your post 100%. A few weeks ago I posted a note praising Wright McGill,Eagle Claw for their service. It had to do with a low end rod that I loved and " it matched my casting style or I it’s". I own 6 rods ( yes, that’s all) and each is probably of a different “action” .I have no problem adjusting my casting style to match the rod.
But, I must qualify everything I have said, however, by stating that none of my fishing situations require my cast to be longer than 20-35 feet. I’m sure that at those distances, rod action becomes less of an issue or even a non-issue.
Mark
PS: I have over or underlined rods to make them load to my comfort level.
I’d rather be in Wyoming!
[This message has been edited by Marco (edited 01 July 2005).]
I have always liked the fast action but recently I cast som slow rods (Orvis Superfine, Sage VPS Light, Scott G) and they weren’t half bad . I really do think that if you can cast a variety of actions effectivly it is better than if you can only cast one effectivly.
If you haven’t already answered your own question, I think the answer depends upon what your definition of “identical” is.
Wiith ERN and AA values only, the question was a good one. As you noted, the addition of CCF changed the picture.
Nevertheless, I believe it is the goal of the quality control departments of the rod makers to make each rod of any given model identical to the others. Sometimes you have to test them to make sure.
It’s going to be over 100 degrees today and for the weekend. I wish I were back.
Young Bill,
Yeah, I did share with anyone who wanted to
know
and helped a major rod co with guide spacing on a 4 pc rod. At the time I never thought I had anything special. Thought everyone had their own special methods that worked for them. It was only when I plotted their spacing on my charts that I saw how varied things were. Thought that maybe they knew something I didn’t.
Take two rods (as close as you can get to Identical including their weight) Add a small amount of modeling clay to the tip top of one and see how it changes the action! Have another go at it distributing one ounce of clay in proportion to the blank diameter in little gobs all the way down the rod. My guess is that this would be about as close as you could get to the two rods you describe without going to a hell of a lot more trouble. The action will change dramatically. It will be loading easier, in effect it will be a different rod altogether. By changing the weight you will have also changed everything else as well.
I guess my pref is for med-fast to fast, … though I haven’t cast enough different rods to know what “fast” would really be
JC has it on the head too … The only time a rod isn’t right is (imho) when we ask it to do something it isn’t meant to do, … like bombing the banks from a drift boat with a “light” fast action rod.
I also have less fun with a stiff fast rod on small trout (under 4 lbs).
For 90% of my fishing (juvenile salmon and bruiser trout), I like my XP’s in 5-8 wts all 8.5 ft or more. Someone how has compared rods can tell me if these are med-fast of fast rods.
So JC…you say that if you can DH effectivly you ‘really’ know how to cast? Hmmm…if so I must be a decent caster then. Yeah…I am not quite sure how you can ‘learn’ to cast a different rod more than to make the adjustment to make it work for you…
“GET THE DRIFT?”
[This message has been edited by Mike Murgida (edited 01 July 2005).]
Hopefully my journey does not end by hopping off the bank and into the river then being eaten by a trout …on a more serious note though, you have said it all in your signature:
“How long does it take to learn fly-fishing? No one knows.”
But still
…‘learning how to ‘really’ cast.’ By that I mean things like, for sure the DH, and how and when to use a little or a lot of it. This is far more important than those who can’t do it will ever understand. It, alone, allows a change in loop size and line speed to be controlled independent of everything done with the rod hand.
…if the DH is that important (which it is) and I can DH pretty well and do it with out thinking now (which was a goal of mine)…that is where I conclude I must be some what of a decent caster then .
“GET THE DRIFT?”
[This message has been edited by Mike Murgida (edited 01 July 2005).]
Again, you are correct, however your terminology is faulty. The action of a rod is determined by where it initially significantly bends. It is an intrinsic property of the rod and cannot be changed by anything you might do.
By adding and distributing clay along that rod, as you suggest, you will change the frequency or feel of the rod. As you also noted, everything anyone might do to a rod (varnish, guides, line etc.) will change the frequency of the original rod blank. That is why a quantitative measure of frequency (such as measured by CCF) is such an important factor in describing any rod. Pretty soon the rod makers will have to address this feature or “lose face”.
Dr. Bill
Yes! Yes! Yes! I agree. Can the terminology change so much over time just by common misuse as to make the terms mean something else or even nothing at all? IMHO the semantics need some work when communicating anything to do with fishing including the dynamics of the flyrod. In the above, I was using the “action” word as is in comon use today, such as “that rod has a nice action”. I believe that you are quite right in trying to assign rigid meaning to words in common usage but you may have better success with fishermen by making up new terms or words and inserting them into the language when no one is listening!
. I really do think that if you can cast a variety of actions effectivly it is better than if you can only cast one effectivly.
.