Winston B2X disappointment

With rods, differences in personal preferences and casting technique have such a big impact that it’s pretty difficult to talk about good and bad rods. Also, instead of “dissapointments”, I would talk about “discovering personal preferences”, or, in the worst case, making mistakes.

For example, I once spent $600 on a rod and after fishing that rod for 3 years had to come in terms with the fact that it was not the rod for me (at this point anyway). I was able to cast far with this rod, with tight loops and all, but I just didn’t like the feel at normal fishing distances. Although I felt a small resentment towards the rod, I had to acknowledge that the underlying reason was that my preferences were different: I know that a huge number of people consider that rod to be the best rod in the world.

I would also like to remind people that serious commercial interests may be involved in discussions like this.

How would the Common Cents system evaluate a rod that was nice and soft at the tip yet had more than the usual amount of power in the butt section? Since this ‘system’ seems to be somewhat secret (I can only find it through back issues of a magazine) I only have a small idea of how it supposedly works. Once the tip of the above mentioned rod flexes to a certain percentage (if I get the gist of the system correctly), the die is cast and the rating is made. Would it not just call the above rod a ‘soft’ rod and be done with it?
Well?

Bill,

What is the CCS value system?

Thanks

Bald midge

I’m glad they said they were lighter than any rod THEY have produced. If rods get much lighter we’ll need a lanyard and stakes to pin 'em down!