|
|
Posts: 1046
| Just can`t help but notice that a big percentage of the rods for sale on all the boards(not just this one) seem to have an over abundance of shorter action rods for sale. Is it that alot more people are heading towards the longer is better syndrome?? Just seems alot of the mid to upper 6'er`s around. Just wondering if anyone else see`s this and if this is maybe because of all the good superlines on the market now?? That would be my guess. Just a little something different to think about! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | And they always told me size didn't matter. The shortest rod I own is 6'9" St. Croix. I have a couple of those and they work great for ripping big cranks, mag dawgs, gliders and other heavy stuff. Every other rod is over 7' up to 8'. I think therre are tons of advantages for the longer rods and wouldn't dream of going shorter than 6'9"
Edited by nwild 3/17/2004 7:41 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1335
Location: Chicago, Beverly | I'm the opposite of Norm. My longest Musky rod is 7' . I can't see getting one much longer for several reasons, storage in the boat and the cottage being among them. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20273
Location: oswego, il | For hard twitching and gliders, I like my 6'2" avid. I can't get the same action with my longer rods as I can with my que stick for these applications. |
|
| |
|
| I agree, i tend to be able to create more action on my lures with a shorter rod. plus i'm only 5'8", so i actually prefer a 6'6"rod.
i own rods up to 8', but don't use it very often
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4266
| I think that the size of the angler has lots to do with it. I've got a couple of 6'10" St Croixs that my wife and daughter use. I have a 6'9" Avid that I only use for heavy artillery. Everything else is 7'6" or 8'. but I'm 6'2" and the longer rods are way more comfortable for me to use.
I also like the flex of the loger rods and was never comfortable with the "pool cues". When there is no give in the rod, it's harder to fight fish.
Beav |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1916
Location: Greenfield, WI | I'm 6'3". All my rods that I cast with are all from 6'9" to 7'2". These rods in combination with most all my fishing done from my Tuffy Esox Magnum, make my figure eights very easy and comfortable to do without bending. I get little or no back or shoulder fatigue after a long day of fishing. I can't imagine fishing all day or weekend with the 5'+ stiff "pool cues" of years back.
Other than a worn out line guide being replaced periodically, the old St. Croix, Thorne Brothers, Lamiglass rods work great. A number of my rods are 10-15 years old and are still going strong!
Edited by Steve Van Lieshout 3/18/2004 7:50 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1046
| Beav,svl, bring an excellent point to light(the boat) I have 44" sides on my boat so its kinda tall and my wife is 5'2" and throws a 7'6" mh ganderguide. So ones craft does have something to do with choices, I guess my point kinda was it just seemed like there were many dumping off the pool cue like stuff which was never a personal favorite of mine and I guess I just wanted to know if there was a big amount of people fishing those sticks. I don`t really by into the need for a shortstiff rod to work those big jerks as I really get great action on my 7'6" mh st. for that application, I guess its all in the operator. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 259
Location: Alexandria, MN | I use the shorter rods (6'2") for my Jackpots, Mantas, HR's and other baits that I like to
give a quick sharp snap. It seems to give me a better right/left movement, with less forward
movement. I tried to go longer, but my hooking % went way down. I stick 90+% of the
fish the hit on the short rod, and went down to about 50% on the longer rod. I think it is mostly a
confidence thing. I don't want to make a change that will cost me fish. I still saw fish and got bit, working these
lures with longer rods, I just couldn't get them stuck as well. I agree with the idea that the longer rods are better
for fighting the fish, better control and some shock absorbing power, but I couldn't get to the fighting part, because the
hooking part went to hell.
I will continue to use the short rods, but have seen many make the switch. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1916
Location: Greenfield, WI | What is that old saying?..... It's not the size of the sword, it is the skill of the swordsman!
Make the best of what you have or can afford. But when you have a choice, look long. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 7106
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | Rod lengths for me:
*7'2" St. Croix
*(2) 7'6" Aurora
*7'6" Lamiglas
*7'9" Loomis (2" put on the butt for better casting)
*8' Aurora
*8'5" Custom Frank Rod
As you can see, I kind of like a longer rod, but my reasoning is that my back is getting pretty rotten over time and I tend to throw larger baits all day. The longer rod (with the right amount of backbone) seems to throw the bait for me. But it is hard to find a really stiff long rod (damn that sounds bad) for some applications.
I do miss my 6'9" St. Croix and my 7' Lamiglass, both were application specific, and I dont know if I could throw too long with them before reaching for the Vioxx.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 736
Location: Hartford, WI | Im short, well I'm taller thatn KLY But with that being said, I like the longer rods. Like 7 foot or longer. The biggest reason is the sides and casting decks on my boat are high, and the longer rods let me get to the water without all the back bending and it has saved my back a lot since.
Jim |
|
| |
|
| For me the boat height is a big deal. In my boat I'm too high off the water to be comfortable with shorter rods, if I had an E. mag it would be a different story. So, I have two very nice All Stars for sale...see my post in the swap board...
Jono
|
|
| |
