# Another 8 WT shoot out going on now



## ifsteve (Jul 1, 2010)

What this is: A good review by a group of pro casters.
What this isn't: Anything close to an unbiased study.
There are two fundamental flaws with how the shootout is conducted.
1. More than three testers and included some "off the street guys."
2. Several different fly lines (from different fly line manufacturers). Using a fly line across all rods is great. But you can pick a certain line that matches a certain rod and is not so good on others.

Now I recognize that they can't go try a bunch of different fly lines and use a bunch of different casters. But a little more depth behind this would give it much more credibility.


----------



## sjm1580 (Jan 11, 2014)

The 8 wt challenge would be more credible if they tested all rods with every fly line available on the market, both under lining and over lining the rod, and with every possible casting style and talent level, under all climatic conditions (but the same as not to give unfair advantage to a certain brand). 

Or they could just do it the way they do it and listen to the occasional complaint.


----------



## Guest (Dec 4, 2015)

Testing the winds back out on Boca Grande again this year ?


----------



## Backwater (Dec 14, 2014)

I agree with Steve.






Though I give George all the respect he deserves, here's what I see....

1st, this is a review for their customers, mostly. He's a sales guy marketing products he sells, naturally! It's what he does! Nothing wrong with that but then there is a level of biasness (is there such a word?). Yes bias! He's also a trout guy and "prefers" a softer tip action. That's not always the case for others. Some like and possibly need a softer tip rod, while others like a faster tip. George is a very competent caster has a decent casting stroke. But I know of Bill Blanton (met him many years ago) and he's got that Lefty Krey style/ fishing casting stroke. Nothing wrong with that and is good for him some others, but I question that's a full range of mechanics to fully test each rod thoroughly that can speak for many different styles of casting and casters (and believe me, there are many!). Still, it offers a different opinion. The other guys in the test are trout guys trying to get out of the cold, vacation and fish some and do the test they came to do. Sure, those guys, including his son are fine casters. But how do they really rank as pro fly rod testers and competent casters that can study the finite dynamics of each rod that are not getting some compensation from a particular rod mfg and therefore maybe a little bias themselves (consciously or subconsciously) towards that company and their rods. For instance, take Steve Rajeff or even his brother Tim. Both amazing world renown fly casters (pioneers even!). Steve is many times over a world record holder for his casts. Tim has a few two. Steve works for and has stock in Loomis, while Tim is part owner in Echo. Now who's rods will they lean towards?? ~pause~ Exactly! 

I believe to do it right, it needs to be done from a panel of rod testers that are competent and proficient casters. Maybe a panel that IFFF helps put together of Master Casting instructors and other competent casters (from steel headers, competition casters to saltwater casters from all over, not only here in the U.S. but in other countries, who are professionally evaluated and invited to be on the panel. Remember, though, IFFF is also sponsored and gets contributions from some of the rod mfgs, so there has got to be a total non bias operation in that panel with a variety of people on the panel who wants to contribute their knowledge and experience to the "greater good" of the fly fishing community. 

Furthermore, each rod should be tested in many separate conditions, including, lawn, on the water, winds, moving waters and a category that includes heavy and bulky flies tied for that specific line weight. Also like ifsteve says, throw multiple lines (say several well revered floaters, an intermediate tip, an intermediate line and a full sink line). Also several different reels based on weights (light, regular and slightly heavy reels). Lastly, simulate various fighting and lifting situations and rod pressures with scales and grid walls to map out rod flex, power and capability.

I think to be fair across the board to all parties and all companies, All rods from all companies should be tested, not a bias select few, but all of them. That way it's fair across the board.

I'm sure this will cost money and expenses to do and maybe the rod companies can contribute an entry fee (and no palm greasing) for all rods entered. I also believe there needs to be different categories, such as entry level rods, intermediate/ mid price range rods and high end rods, in freshwater and saltwater catagories, along with a straight baseboard of all rods comparing to each other. This way, someone could look at the end results and see what rods will best work for their situation within their budget, not what some shop tells them since they only carry 2 brands! Oh, I might of stepped on some toes there.  or what someone recommends that might not know where that person is at with their price point, the casting style, their fishing conditions and the fish they pursue. 

Ahhh, if only......

Anyway, thanks for reading. Let the food, boos and hisses fly! lol

Just my honest nonsensical opinion! 

Ted Haas


----------



## jonrconner (May 20, 2015)

Backwater,
I have to take issue with your comment about soft tip rods, these ARE fast action rods, the bend stays in the tip and the rest of the rod is stiff and gives you a long lever, a stiff tip drives the bend down into the middle part of the rod and slows the action. This is a very common misperception,but if if you look at flex profiles of various rods you'll see that it's true.
Also there are trout guys who are very good casters, they're the ones who do a lot of saltwater fishing!
JC


----------



## Backwater (Dec 14, 2014)

jonrconner said:


> Backwater,
> I have to take issue with your comment about soft tip rods, these ARE fast action rods, the bend stays in the tip and the rest of the rod is stiff and gives you a long lever, a stiff tip drives the bend down into the middle part of the rod and slows the action. This is a very common misperception,but if if you look at flex profiles of various rods you'll see that it's true.
> 
> JC


You are talking about the difference between tip flex and mid flex rods I presume. What George is talking about in the video is the soft tip of a NRX vs the no flex tip / faster action of a Method. That's what I'm referring to.



jonrconner said:


> Also there are trout guys who are very good casters, they're the ones who do a lot of saltwater fishing!
> JC


Jon, where are you located?

Don't you think that us guys down on the water here in Florida (or for that matter, any coastal area) does a little more open water saltwater fly fishing than say, some trout fishermen from Colorado? We deserve some credit at lease, don't we?


----------



## ifsteve (Jul 1, 2010)

Bottom line: How many threads do we see on here why a guy has rod X and cant get a good cast. First thing people ask is what fly line are you using then suggest several different fly lines. To test rods with only one fly line is just not a good test.


----------



## jonrconner (May 20, 2015)

Backwater said:


> You are talking about the difference between tip flex and mid flex rods I presume. What George is talking about in the video is the soft tip of a NRX vs the no flex tip / faster action of a Method. That's what I'm referring to.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I live in Vermont.
I'm sure you're a good caster, but just because someone lives near the coast doesn't necessarily make him a good caster and distance isn't everything, I see plenty of crappy casters in the salt, even ones who fish tons.
People become good casters because they take an interest in getting good at it, not because of their location. 
JC


----------



## sjrobin (Jul 13, 2015)

jonrconner said:


> I live in Vermont.
> I'm sure you're a good caster, but just because someone lives near the coast doesn't necessarily make him a good caster and distance isn't everything, I see plenty of crappy casters in the salt, even ones who fish tons.
> People become good casters because they take an interest in getting good at it, not because of their location.
> JC


Fished in the wind, low visibility water today in Texas East Galveston bay. Good caster with a BVK 5 wt he built landed one fat red drum and another came unpinned , both at less than twenty feet with a short six foot leader. I had good shots at a couple I bombed when the fly lands on them. Same fly. Again less than twenty feet. I was using NRX Pro one 8 wt. Should have been using a lighter rod and line in the low vis water. The reds were very shy . Just one example of why you need three fly rods just for Texas redfish. The day started with a couple of big waves over the bow and we put sixty or so miles on the skiff looking for water we could see reds in.


----------



## bananabob (Jun 3, 2015)

Trident Fly Fishing has done pretty much what ifsteve suggested to try and remove some of the bias in rod testing in their own 5wt shootout. While I have found Yellowstone's shootout some what helpful you can't help but notice where the bias lies, especially when comparing several shootouts over the years. Kind of hoping Trident does an 8wt shootout as well in the near future.


----------



## ifsteve (Jul 1, 2010)

It wouldn't take but a couple more hours for George to do his shootout just like they currently do but to try 3 or 4 fly lines per rod instead of one. Would make it much more valid. Even though some rods may favor lines other than a floater I would be fine if they just tried several floaters. Rio, SA, Wulff, and Airflo would be a well rounded test.


----------



## Backwater (Dec 14, 2014)

bananabob said:


> Trident Fly Fishing has done pretty much what ifsteve suggested to try and remove some of the bias in rod testing in their own 5wt shootout. While I have found Yellowstone's shootout some what helpful you can't help but notice where the bias lies, especially when comparing several shootouts over the years. Kind of hoping Trident does an 8wt shootout as well in the near future.



I'd be interesting to see what the line up is this year with both shops, making sure they are including "ALL" the new rods introduced this year and several models of each mfg. Also, it would be interested to see what rods will be on top of each of there lists vs what YSA and Trident are carrying in their shop and on-line store.


----------



## ifsteve (Jul 1, 2010)

Anybody want to wager than Loomis comes out in the top 2 of Yellowstone Angler?


----------



## Backwater (Dec 14, 2014)

jonrconner said:


> I live in Vermont.
> I'm sure you're a good caster, but just because someone lives near the coast doesn't necessarily make him a good caster and distance isn't everything, I see plenty of crappy casters in the salt, even ones who fish tons.
> People become good casters because they take an interest in getting good at it, not because of their location.
> JC


JC, I understand your point. But if you are a successful saltwater fly angler, by shear nature, you have to be able to cast a good lick 40-70ft and in some winds. That's not a prerequisite to throw in trout streams. Most of those cast only require up to 30-40ft and with some wind protection. Not to mention that most of those guys are throwing a 3 to 5wt. So the 8wts feel like a different animal to them. For the saltwater guys, an 8wt is standard and they can go up from there. Believe me when I say I've seen it time and time again when the trout guys come down to play. So with that being said, IMO, I feel there are more salt guys that have a broader range of experience to do an 8wt test then there are trout guys. That's not to say the steelheaders and salmon guys are included in the group.

So what I was referring to up in the original reply that I did, only one true saltwater guy tested the rods and the rest were mainly trout guys most of the time. Do you see what I mean? I believe to truly test and evaluate an 8wt rod, you have to put it through the motions of various situations, both big river salmon and steelhead fish and throw the whole entire gamut of saltwater fly fishing (and the list is broad). 

I've had beautiful casting rods that throw a nice tight pretty loop on the lawn or an indoor casting pond with some spit on the plastic for water. Then take it out in 15-20mph winds and throw heavy clousers with intermediate sink lines at false albies, then hook a 10 pounder and what the rod on all accounts fail miserably! Or take a rod that throws a nice long lick and try to short load and throw close it and what it flail around. I've also seen fly anglers rave about a certain rod and then change lines and it becomes a clunker or take a rod no one thinks it isn't good but put a certain line on it and balance it with the right weighted reel and the thing wakes out and throws just as pretty as can be. So my point is, these "evaluations" are not doing us or the rods any justice because you can't get a clear, non bias opinion and ranking in a broad spectrum of categories. Throwing them on a lawn with a handful of guys picked by one person because he likes them (his son that works with him in his shop, a guide he fished with once or twice, a trout buddy he fished with, etc.) doesn't do the 8wt fly fishing community any justice. Just my opinion.

Back to your reply Jon, I agree with you on your basic reply whereas "just because you live and fish on the coast doesn't mean you can throw a rod worth a hoot." So my reply to that is "True!, Very true!" But most of these guys that do live and fish on the coast have an 8wt go-to rod and is just a requirement to throw in big open water to fish most of these species down here. Most will look at picking up an 8wt for their general fly fishing needs and will change up or down depending on fish and conditions. Most trout guys don't. You live in Vermont (beautiful state for sure). Here's the question, what's the 1st rod you pick up on any given day?? 

So here's my last analogy, If I'm on the water a minimum of 30 days a year with a 12wt in my hand, year after year and a guy from up north comes down maybe once a year to fish 2-4 days a year to the Keys to fish tarpon with a 12wt, who do you think will be (on avg.) more of a proficient caster with that rod?? It's like sending me up north to do an evaluation on 3wts, bamboos and buttersticks! Yes I've thrown and used them and can make them talk. But just because I can throw a pretty roll cast with them, doesn't mean there isn't a whole lot more qualified people on that subject that can better review those rods than myself 

Jon, with all respect to you, that's all I'm saying. Ok?


----------



## jonrconner (May 20, 2015)

Backwater,

There's no point in getting into a big long discussion, but here in New England many trout fishermen spend a lot of time on the coast fishing for striped bass. Our coastline has rough water, wind and strong currents, it demands casting skill just as much as anywhere. 

The guys you see down there there tarpon fishing are not a representative group, they're just guys with enough money to hire a guide for a few days and probably would have trouble tying on their fly, much less casting into the wind.

I caught my first bonefish DIY 35 years ago and spend at least 30 days a season in salt water using mostly an eight weight, but most of the guys I know use nines and tens. On the trout stream I use 4-6 wt depending on the conditions, but that's a different game entirely.

Have fun,
JC


----------



## sjrobin (Jul 13, 2015)

jonrconner said:


> Backwater,
> 
> There's no point in getting into a big long discussion, but here in New England many trout fishermen spend a lot of time on the coast fishing for striped bass. Our coastline has rough water, wind and strong currents, it demands casting skill just as much as anywhere.
> 
> ...


Anyway in the eight wt and under range I have seen a few great long distance fly casters that don't catch fish and guys that are not good casters in form catch everything in their range. But everybody has not so good days no matter the talent level. Makes no difference where you live. Ted is correct on the big rods from a boat to tarpon. Experience is everything in that niche. I have no interest in casting anything over 10 wt. and here in Texas most fly casters use the lightest rod you can get away with. I think most fly casters are better off getting to know one rod and line very well and become very quick and accurate with it. Some casters, Ted is probably one of them, can pick up almost any rod and put the fly where the fish want it.


----------



## Guest (Dec 7, 2015)

Backwater said:


> Don't you think that us guys down on the water here in Florida (or for that matter, any coastal area) does a little more open water saltwater fly fishing than say, some trout fishermen from Colorado? We deserve some credit at lease, don't we?


Don't know if Capt Jamie is in the #8 weight casting again this year, but FFF caster that guides saltwater tarpon & backcountry nearly year round even if his start may have been Colorado trout streams.


----------



## MariettaMike (Jun 14, 2012)

jonrconner said:


> The guys you see down there there tarpon fishing are not a representative group, they're just guys with enough money to hire a guide for a few days and probably would have trouble tying on their fly, much less casting into the wind.


you're really trolling now


----------



## jonrconner (May 20, 2015)

I'm talking about those mentioned who come down 3 or 4 days a year, not the regulars!
JC


----------



## Backwater (Dec 14, 2014)

Jon, I mentioned in my rhetoric about what a good Shootout should be like, I indicated ANY coastal fly casters, including those like salmon and Steelheaders, including a few around the world. Any coastal anglers/casters from The NE Atlantic, Florida, Gulf coast and the Pacific, etc. I've met some striper guys, (especially the surf guys) that I envy their casting skills. I have a friend from South Africa and one from Aussie land that some one needs to do a video on them (they're amazing). I guess what I'm saying is picking people for the panel that are using these things on a regular basis who thoroughly know the ins and outs of them. Ok then, I'll stop whipping the dead horse here. 

sjrobin, I don't think I'm all that in the casting dept. I just know I'm passionate about ffing and whatever I can do here or there to make me better, I'll try to do it. Then I also like to share what I've learned over the years too. to anyone that needs help or wants to listen. I can also be one of those old dogs that likes to learn new tricks too! 

trailblazerEXT, nothing wrong with a guy or gal relocating to 8wt waters and is picked for the panel, as long as the guy has extensive experience with it. I'm sure the Capt does. But remember, just because the guy is a captain doesn't mean he's a great caster or can evaluate subtle rod nuances ( like Jon Conner pointed out in his analogy).

Thanks Mike! I understand what Jon C was referring to. Thanks Jon for the input.

Thanks Robin for the thread post! Good stuff! I would like to see their results. Just hope they take a closer look at the rods, evaluate more rods, create more real world scenarios and have more people who are qualified to thoroughly run those rods threw the mill and give a great, non bias review on each rod and many different situations.


----------



## Backwater (Dec 14, 2014)

ifsteve said:


> Anybody want to wager than Loomis comes out in the top 2 of Yellowstone Angler?


I'll take that wager since a little birdy told me!


----------



## ifsteve (Jul 1, 2010)

Just know that Yellowstone Angler is totally in head over heels with NRX and Nautilus.........


----------



## Blue Zone (Oct 22, 2011)

sjrobin said:


> I think most fly casters are better off getting to know one rod and line very well and become very quick and accurate with it. Some casters, Ted is probably one of them, can pick up almost any rod and put the fly where the fish want it.


Totally agree. I'm not real interested in getting wrapped up on the idea of some pro hitting or missing a dinner plate at 30 or 90 feet. I just can't relate.

I'd say brand loyalty plays a larger role than some would suspect. I've been buying sticks from the same company for the past 35 years. The only rods I have replaced are the ones that have gone missing through theft or lost luggage and couple left behind somewhere, meaning I have never had 2 rods of the same line class. Maybe it's just me?

I'd say performance is more up to the caster adapting to the rod than the instrument itself.


----------



## Guest (Dec 9, 2015)

Backwater said:


> I mentioned in my rhetoric about what a good Shootout should be like
> 
> trailblazerEXT, nothing wrong with a guy or gal relocating to 8wt waters and is picked for the panel, as long as the guy has extensive experience with it. I'm sure the Capt does. But remember, just because the guy is a captain doesn't mean he's a great caster or can evaluate subtle rod nuances ( like Jon Conner pointed out in his analogy)


 If a fishing guide Captain that takes top prize in a FFF casting competition at the Florida convention against the best of the best & is recognized for it, seems that's resume enough to be on the panel of testers. Just because everyone is not familiar with Jamie & he is a hoot, shouldn't be a disqualification ......http://jamiesoutfishin.com/


----------



## hostage1985 (Feb 27, 2011)

Agree that comparisons should address the balance issue between given rods and lines, but as a few have alluded: keep in mind the wind conditions and the specific flies required.


----------



## Backwater (Dec 14, 2014)

trailblazerEXT, Ok then.

Interesting to see that the rod ranking has changed this year (2016) from last 2 years. It might have something to do with a change in the evaluation panel this year from the last 2 years.

ifsteve and Robin, the Scott Meridian took 1st place followed by (steve you guessed it), the NRX.


----------



## sjrobin (Jul 13, 2015)

Backwater said:


> trailblazerEXT, Ok then.
> 
> Interesting to see that the rod ranking has changed this year (2016) from last 2 years. It might have something to do with a change in the evaluation panel this year from the last 2 years.
> 
> ifsteve and Robin, the Scott Meridian took 1st place followed by (steve you guessed it), the NRX.


The Meridian took 1st because it is new and slightly better overall rod than the NRX. Some one finally came up with a rod better than the NRX. High end fly rods are kind of like the skiffs right now, small incremental improvements.


----------



## ifsteve (Jul 1, 2010)

sjrobin said:


> The Meridian took 1st because it is new and slightly better overall rod than the NRX. Some one finally came up with a rod better than the NRX. High end fly rods are kind of like the skiffs right now, small incremental improvements.


And what is your basis for saying that someone "finally came up with a better rod than the NRX."? The NRX has been out for a long time and there are lots of high end rods that have newer technology than that particular rod. 

Bottom line - Does anybody on here honestly believe that these "tests" aren't biased?


----------



## sjm1580 (Jan 11, 2014)

ifsteve said:


> And what is your basis for saying that someone "finally came up with a better rod than the NRX."? The NRX has been out for a long time and there are lots of high end rods that have newer technology than that particular rod.
> 
> Bottom line - Does anybody on here honestly believe that these "tests" aren't biased?



Boy you guys really got ole George pegged. He is intentionally slanting his "biased" fly rod (and reel) tests so he can take advantage of the incredibly lucrative retail fly rod market for his own sinister and world dominating plans; to corner the worlds retail fly rod market (but of course only the brands he likes). He loads the panel with "TROUT" guys because they really can't cast BIG RODS in the wind, and buys them all the chicken wings and beer they can handle as payola, so he can then get and publish the outcome he desires. Kind of hard to believe, but true!

Great JOB


----------



## Backwater (Dec 14, 2014)

sjm1580, have a beer and chill. 

To the rest of ya'll, some added notes and thoughts;

This year I guess they added a couple of local capts and also Dusty Sprague, who is a IFFF Master Casting instructor and one of my mentors. I've chatted with George on the subject and he's adding an mid price point rod class, which is good. But how else can a rod be evaluated and put throw the ringer to find out what she's made of and where it belongs.

George is opinionated and he'll be the 1st to admit it. But the guy has been around the industry. Ok fine. That being said there's merit in what he's trying to accomplish. They are carrying a wide range of rods he's reviewing and wants to show how they compare. Ok fine, I get it.

But just know going in that George is big on the NRX and Dusty was on the Meridian going into it (That's not hear say, I know that 1st hand on both accounts). It's difficult doing that and not lean towards that certain rod your all hot on. So I wonder if all the rods were spray painted black, would the results be the same, especially with a panel of say 10 or even 20 proficient casters. Yes I know a rod like the NRX has an unmistakable feel, as do a few others, but if we have a level playing field on all accounts, much like a jury, would the results be the same?

My original point was to have an outside, non bias 3 party such as IFFF or some other organization to hold an accurate review in a wide range of conditions so that even the little fly shops can refer people to it for a review, as well as individuals. So to do it right, you need a wide range of top casters and rod evaluators to get a mean average result, which allows an individual the ability to choose a few rods to try out that fits his needs within his budget. That's all I'm saying.

Ok so I'll stop whippin that horse too!

It will be interesting to get your comments on the YSA review release.


----------



## sjrobin (Jul 13, 2015)

ifsteve said:


> And what is your basis for saying that someone "finally came up with a better rod than the NRX."? The NRX has been out for a long time and there are lots of high end rods that have newer technology than that particular rod.
> 
> Bottom line - Does anybody on here honestly believe that these "tests" aren't biased?


Steve, no offense intended. I have not cast the Scott Meridian but I have owned or cast a lot of the rods. Sage One, Xi3, GII, other Scotts, BVK, Helios 2, and Loomis CC Pro, IMX, and NRX Pro. Based on the reviews I would like to cast the Meridian. Yellowstone does sell most of the brands so if the tests are biased it would be George influencing market share for one of the brands. Maybe Scott reps sold George this year on their new rod, but he is not the only caster. I think it is the only public comprehensive fly rod review available. My nephew bought his first fly rod based on the 2014 reviews, a BVK. Before he bought the BVK he caught his first fly rod red in the Laguna using a NRX 7 wt. When he saw the price tag he went to the review and saved a lot of $. Loves the BVK. So I think most of us would use the reviews to improve our equipment and buy the best rod we can afford. Or fish with a friend or guide with a bunch of brands on board.
,


----------



## sjm1580 (Jan 11, 2014)

Backwater said:


> sjm1580, have a beer and chill.
> 
> To the rest of ya'll, some added notes and thoughts;
> 
> ...


I think I am beginning to understand your difficulties with George's shootout. 

"So to do it right" , next time he should run his methodology by you for approval before running the test, or better yet instead of him running the test and trying to provide a service, he needs to get the IFFF to run the shootout because all the card carrying casting dudes are certainly unbiased (cough, cough).

I think I am catching on! Please let me know if I am looking at this the correct way?


----------



## Backwater (Dec 14, 2014)

sjm1580 said:


> I think I am beginning to understand your difficulties with George's shootout.
> 
> "So to do it right" , next time he should run his methodology by you for approval before running the test, or better yet instead of him running the test and trying to provide a service, he needs to get the IFFF to run the shootout because all the card carrying casting dudes are certainly unbiased (cough, cough).
> 
> I think I am catching on! Please let me know if I am looking at this the correct way?



Your not looking at it the correct way! It might be cause you haven't read everything before you are reacting.

George is doing his own thing! I get it. That's what he does. He can do that because he can and he's an entrepreneur. Believe me when I say I've talked to him extensively on the subject. So what you are insinuating is not what I'm saying.

What I said is... there should be some sort of group established to run test and reviews without an underlying hidden agenda or motive, but only to give a non bias review on ALL rods out there, instead of the ones that only made the "Cut!" and only thrown by a certain select few. A review that doesn't have a specific label or vendor name attached to it. One that even your home town shop can refer their clients to without the threat of loosing their business to, thru some link to an on-line shopping cart. Ya get it?

Here's another analogy.... If a guy walks into a fly shop to look at flyrods and the shop rep is all bent on RL Winston rods and thinks those guys there at Winston walk on clouds and their rods are the can stir him up some real magic, no matter what his fishing needs are or what is budget is, do you think his persuasion is doing that customer any good in the long run? That point can be questionable.

George can do what he does and he has the right to do so. It's his deal and it's on his dime. I'm just saying its a real need to get something else out there that is not somebody 's dog and pony show! Maybe YSA's review might evolve into that one day, or not. Who knows?


----------



## ifsteve (Jul 1, 2010)

George does this on his own nickle (although that is only partially correct.....they get all the gear for free). And although I think some of his categories are a bit overweighted (and I think swing weight is very subjective and not objective) it is a pretty comprehensive review and provides guys an excellent starting point with a lot of information to evaluate.
But I just have a hard time getting past the use of a single fly line for the tests. To me it would be an order of magnitude more valuable is they just cast each rod with 3 or 4 different fly line makers floating lines. And that wouldn't even take much more effort.


----------



## jonrconner (May 20, 2015)

I really think people should give George credit for putting in the effort to test and explain fly rod performance by different brands, it may not be perfect in your eyes, but who else does it for us? 

I think his tests are useful, they just have to be taken for what they are, they are especially good at identifying the good performers in the budget category, but I wouldn't go out and buy an $800 rod based on the test. 

It's actually exactly the same as the road tests in the car mags, useful but not definitive.
JC


----------



## RunningOnEmpty (Jun 20, 2015)

I was just reading their 5wt shootout and my rods ranked last. How could anyone complain about the swing weight while casting a 5wt? The guy claimed it was hurting his wrist LOL


----------



## Net 30 (Mar 24, 2012)

Jeez….all these conspiracy theories regarding something that used to be so simple. I wonder how everyone survived years ago when there were only a couple manufacturers of glass or early graphite fly rods?

It must add a lot of unnecessary stress not knowing if you have the lightest, fastest, highest modulus, guide endorsed, magazine top rated fly rod to make your 30-60' cast to catch a Red, yet alone 4-9 different lines to test that latest-greatest rod before you venture out onto the water.


----------



## Ken T (Dec 10, 2015)

I have been reading this thread and trying to understand the real value of these shootouts. I think that it is crystal clear how the results would help those in the industry and those who are very technical "Gear Guys".

To the average angler who just loves the sport and wants to catch fish the value of the results may not be all that important. In some instances what the results imply might even be an obstacle to ones progress in improving their overall fly casting.

In the end the shootout results are still just opinion, granted they are the opinion of some very talented people.in the industry but in the end still opinion. There is no guarantee that anyone else using the rods will have the same results. Now I understand that many who have posted in this thread feel that regardless of the imperfections the tests still reveal a good starting point for choosing a new rod.

It is my opinion that these type of shootout results along with slick magazine adds, video adds, Pro Staffs etc. have put more anglers into the wrong rods than they have created the perfect match.

I think I should mention at this time that I am an outfitter and full time guide. I teach people to fly cast every day and I can't tell you how many time I am asked what the best fly rod is..

I can tell you that I have seen talented casters throw huge line accurately with all of the rods in the shootout but I have also seen the same results with fly rods that are antiques, fiberglass, bamboo etc. My point mentioning this is in the fact that rods are produced with different materials and with vastly different actions. I believe that shootout results ultimately become a ranking of the rods that have the actions preferred by the testers. An example would be an attribute that was viewed negatively by a judge could be a plus for a different style caster.

After over 20 years of guiding I have seen about every level of caster that exists. I can say that most every person has natural attributes and mannerisms that are that are ingrained in their being. Some examples; highly athletic, well coordinated, not so coordinated, fast moving, slow moving, strong, weak, tall short, etc.

It is a regular occurrence for anglers to show up for a trip with the latest and greatest only to find that they can't even hit the water with this rod. Here's a quick example. Take any of the super fast rocket type sticks. Put this rod in the hands of a short guy with average coordination who does everything slowly and is not very strong.

It is doubtful that that angler will ever be able to take advantage of the technology in that rod. I can however take that anglers 700.00 rod and stow it away for the day. After replacing it with a slow action, mid or full .flex you can have the same angler looking like Lefty in a few hours.

With that said I doubt that many people really examine their physical attributes and set out to choose a fly rod that compliments who they are. From where I sit the match of rod to the person is paramount regardless of brand, model or price.

I always advise my clients that once you know what rod style fits you go out and buy the best brand / model in your budget.

Another bit of advice before I close up this ramble. If you can seek the advice of a guide or casting professional before you purchase, do it. . Don't ask about rod brands. Just pick up any rod at hand and cast it. Only ask for an opinion of what action would fit you best. Any good instructor will have the answer in a few minutes and ultimately save you a great deal of frustration down the road.

Ken


----------



## Backwater (Dec 14, 2014)

Net 30 said:


> Jeez….all these conspiracy theories regarding something that used to be so simple. I wonder how everyone survived years ago when there were only a couple manufacturers of glass or early graphite fly rods?
> 
> It must add a lot of unnecessary stress not knowing if you have the lightest, fastest, highest modulus, guide endorsed, magazine top rated fly rod to make your 30-60' cast to catch a Red, yet alone 4-9 different lines to test that latest-greatest rod before you venture out onto the water.



Sure Net 30, I can see your point. But with all the technology that's out there these days, isn't it a little tough to keep up with what's hot and what's not, especially for what you are needing within your price point. 

Back in the day, do you remember all rods we threw and owned and silently wondering if we made the best choice, for what we had to work with. Today with mega and virtual shops like YSA, you have more choices but you are still subjected to the logistics of where they are vs where you are and are going on their word of what's best for you. If you don't have the luxury to feel that rod in-hand, then you are subjected to their recommendation of what's good and not so go. With that in mind, "who's" saying it's good? 2nd, would that opinion change if there is more profit margin in one rod or the other? Or if you don't like the mfg rep, or you get more bonus points if you persuade more people to buy a certain item over another, etc. It's sales and marketing in some form or the other. For that reason, I made my point.

On the flip side, ifsteve's point is a good valid point. Who's line are you throwing and how would the rod behave with one particular line vs several others. When it all comes down to it, the rod and the line are 2 of the most important items in an outfit, aside from the caster themselves! Again, you can change a rod's behavior by simply changing the line. George even knows that and will be the 1st to admit it. It's more than splitting hairs. Just sayin...

Anyways, it's all good!

I got the performance report days ago. I'll see if it's ok to post it!


----------



## Backwater (Dec 14, 2014)

Ken T said:


> I have been reading this thread and trying to understand the real value of these shootouts. I think that it is crystal clear how the results would help those in the industry and those who are very technical "Gear Guys".
> 
> To the average angler who just loves the sport and wants to catch fish the value of the results may not be all that important. In some instances what the results imply might even be an obstacle to ones progress in improving their overall fly casting.
> 
> ...



Ken, very well said and thanks for your contribution into the subject matter! 

As a side note, I can tell you there were rods tossed aside and didn't make the cut (or in the bottom) in the 2016 review that some folks on this site love and cherish. Will their feelings be crushed perhaps? Who knows!  To summarize what Ken said,"different strokes for different folks "and what's the best rod for them! Some may never know. 

But here is the disclaimer Ken, it's their version of an 8wt Shootout. They are saying this is what they feel are the best of the best, what they feel are the top ranking rods and the order in which they rank, according to how they feel they rank. Ok fair enough. It is what it is. Hopefully as threads and talks like these progress in the future, their Shootout and others like theirs will evolve and become more generic and more useful to the broader fly fishing community, or unless something else pops up and decides to be that ultimate research testing ground. Who knows?


----------



## Guest (Dec 11, 2015)

Backwater said:


> As there were rods tossed aside and didn't make the cut (or in the bottom) in the 2016,"different strokes for different folks "and what's the best rod for them!
> But it's their version of an 8wt Shootout. They are saying this is what they feel are the best of the best, what they feel are the top ranking rods and the order in which they rank, according to how they feel they rank.


Have paraphrased a synopsis of what the best feeling rod is to those that make fly casting look like they were born with a fly rod in their hands to others & which they would choose to fish with if they had a choice. Dusty, in the local clubs annual fly casting day of teaching & competition can see any fly casting faults anyone is having with any particular fly rod & most likely his extensive experience is rating rods as to those with the least amount of design effort that hinder his touch for distance & accuracy. How that equates to anyone else using any particular fly rod is all in how much they think they can really fly cast as well as the testers........


----------



## MariettaMike (Jun 14, 2012)

Why can't they just take the human factor out by just putting the rods in a rod holder do bow & arrow casts at four different fixed draw lengths and rod angles with the same standard weight line with the same standard leader and the same standard fly.

I'm guessing slow "whippy" rods would make big loops, fast "snappy" rods would make tight loops, soft rods would make high pile casts, stiff rods would make low slam casts with excessive recoil, and hopefully somewhere in there some of them make "perfect" casts. Now define "perfect".


----------



## ifsteve (Jul 1, 2010)

MariettaMike said:


> Why can't they just take the human factor out by just putting the rods in a rod holder do bow & arrow casts at four different fixed draw lengths and rod angles with the same standard weight line with the same standard leader and the same standard fly.
> 
> I'm guessing slow "whippy" rods would make big loops, fast "snappy" rods would make tight loops, soft rods would make high pile casts, stiff rods would make low slam casts with excessive recoil, and hopefully somewhere in there some of them make "perfect" casts. *Now define "perfect"*.


I think thats a rock syndrome question. Bring me a rock and I'll know it when I see it. One thing I know with absolute certainty. My "rock" cast isn't it!!!


----------



## sjrobin (Jul 13, 2015)

MariettaMike said:


> Why can't they just take the human factor out by just putting the rods in a rod holder do bow & arrow casts at four different fixed draw lengths and rod angles with the same standard weight line with the same standard leader and the same standard fly.
> 
> I'm guessing slow "whippy" rods would make big loops, fast "snappy" rods would make tight loops, soft rods would make high pile casts, stiff rods would make low slam casts with excessive recoil, and hopefully somewhere in there some of them make "perfect" casts. Now define "perfect".


Everyone that has a lot of experience(Texas) casting to very shallow moving red fish from a moving boat knows that speed is more important than accuracy in most cases because you have to get the fly near the fish before the fish senses the boat or the caster movement. With the exception of tailing fish(relatively easy), we generally can not see the fish beyond casting range. This fast casting usually happens at close range and can be just as challenging or more so than bone fish depending on wind. So for Texas have a rod/line combo and casting style that you can cast fast without a lot of body/foot movement. This is the Texas redfish perspective only. A six or seven weight NRX with redfish line and six to eight foot leader is a very good rod for doing this in most conditions. They are very tough rods.


----------



## Backwater (Dec 14, 2014)

trailblazerEXT, I've read your last reply 3 or 4 times and I'm still trying to figure out what you are saying. Nevertheless, Dusty is that individual that can look at the most subtle errors and find them. He's found some with me as well. Like I said, he's one of my mentors. I can say that with experience comes the ability to see the subtle differences in rod performances on many different levels. It's hard to know if you don't know what you are looking for.

MariettaMike, I would love to think that would work and would just simplify things. Maybe shear mechanical testing could bring some factors to light. But because of the design, vs the mantrels vs the tapers vs the lamination schedules of what carbon modulus densities are in one part of the rod vs the other, coupled with the rod weights vs wall thickness, not to mention handle widths, feral designs, stripping guides, snake guides, tip top, etc... creates different rod behaviours that only human factors can determine if it all comes together and works in a harmonious combination, or not. And human factors analysing will help determine if it works better for one situation or better for another, especially considering the different casting styles of people. Idealy, as Ken mentioned, a great rod shop would have a rod and casting expert that can match a rod and it's properties with a caster at whatever level he is at, and his fly fishing needs and conditions in which he/she would be using it, all within their price budget. Same goes with the line, same goes with the reel.

Who was the person here that mentioned about a shop that was matching line and weight balancing with the rod. That's a brilliant factor. Too bad we don't see more of that!

ifsteve, that's a relative statement! 

sjobin, true, but would it change in the 8wt NRX and for that matter, would there be better rods for that specific situation? For instance, say a rod is a dream to load up and cast short and quick, but blows if you are trying to throw it 70ft (or vise versa)? As a crude example.... Let's say a good quick short shooter in an 8wt for that specific situation your talking about is a Mangrove, but it tanked at the bottom of their overall performance list! Which says it's not so good over all but it doesn't highlight it on it's benefits and what someone may need it for. That is something that would be good to find each rods pros and cons and elaborate on it more.


----------



## sjrobin (Jul 13, 2015)

Backwater said:


> trailblazerEXT, I've read your last reply 3 or 4 times and I'm still trying to figure out what you are saying. Nevertheless, Dustry is that individual that can look at the most subtle errors and find them. He's found some with me as well. Like I said, he's one of my mentors. I can say that with experience comes the ability to see the subtle differences in rod performances on many different levels. It's hard to know if you don't know what you are looking for.
> 
> MariettaMike, I would love to think that would work and would just simplify things. Maybe shear mechanical testing could bring some factors to light. But because of the design, vs the mantrels vs the tapers vs the lamination schedules of what carbon modulus densities are in one part of the rod vs the other, coupled with the rod weights vs wall thickness, not to mention handle widths, feral designs, stripping guides, snake guides, tip top, etc... creates different rod behaviours that only human factors can determine if it all comes together and works in a harmonious combination, or not. And human factors analysing will help determine if it works better for one situation or better for another, especially considering the different casting styles of people. Idealy, as Ken mentioned, a great rod shop would have a rod and casting expert that can match a rod and it's properties with a caster at whatever level he is at, and his fly fishing needs and conditions in which he/she would be using it, all within their price budget. Same goes with the line, same goes with the reel.
> 
> ...


True words Ted. For Texas fish in generally less than a foot of water the rod would be ideal if you could cast to seventy feet if you needed to. What I mean to say is learn to cast a rod that can do short or long range, unless you have the skill to switch rod types and weights when conditions change. A tough situation would be "Can you reach her?" "Yeah, I got this." two casts later: one short, the next enough but wide behind, "A little closer?" "Yeah." last cast: cloud of sand and epic size wake "I think that was a thirty inch fish" No matter what happens the rest of the day you think about that one miss. Really tough if the big one is the last fish you cast at that day. I think you clear water Florida guys learn to cast greater distances in order to catch very spooky fish you can see at ranges farther than one hundred feet. Much more difficult to be long and accurate. But I would guess that everyone would like to have a fly rod cast and rod that goes long and short very well. And the rod needs to be very light and powerful to reduce fatigue. Man, fly fishing is a complicated but very cool sport no matter what fly rod brand you choose.

Steve


----------



## Backwater (Dec 14, 2014)

sjrobin said:


> True words Ted. For Texas fish in generally less than a foot of water the rod would be ideal if you could cast to seventy feet if you needed to. What I mean to say is learn to cast a rod that can do short or long range, unless you have the skill to switch rod types and weights when conditions change. A tough situation would be "Can you reach her?" "Yeah, I got this." two casts later: one short, the next enough but wide behind, "A little closer?" "Yeah." last cast: cloud of sand and epic size wake "I think that was a thirty inch fish" No matter what happens the rest of the day you think about that one miss. Really tough if the big one is the last fish you cast at that day. I think you clear water Florida guys learn to cast greater distances in order to catch very spooky fish you can see at ranges farther than one hundred feet. Much more difficult to be long and accurate. But I would guess that everyone would like to have a fly rod cast and rod that goes long and short very well. And the rod needs to be very light and powerful to reduce fatigue. Man, fly fishing is a complicated but very cool sport no matter what fly rod brand you choose.
> 
> Steve


Well your right, you have that call for an NRX or some good casting skills.

Your right about the spooky reds we have down here as opposed to what you have in TX and s. LA. The real trick is if you have a chance to run over to Mosquito Lagoon and fish with some of those boys who stalk regular size tailing reds (not the big IRL reds) in that shallow gin clear water where you don't see them in the small pot holes in the grass flats in 12" of water, until they are right smack on ya and then they see you. So you have that split second where you have to be dead quite, fly in hand and only one quick stab at an ultra stealthy presentation right on the tip of their nose. Otherwise, it's all over since those fish get pressured over there.

Hey, it's all good and it's all fun, from catching bluegills on popper bugs to trying to figure out how to get sharks to eat a fly! lol


----------



## Ken T (Dec 10, 2015)

Backwater said:


> trailblazerEXT, I've read your last reply 3 or 4 times and I'm still trying to figure out what you are saying. Nevertheless, Dustry is that individual that can look at the most subtle errors and find them. He's found some with me as well. Like I said, he's one of my mentors. I can say that with experience comes the ability to see the subtle differences in rod performances on many different levels. It's hard to know if you don't know what you are looking for.
> 
> MariettaMike, I would love to think that would work and would just simplify things. Maybe shear mechanical testing could bring some factors to light. But because of the design, vs the mantrels vs the tapers vs the lamination schedules of what carbon modulus densities are in one part of the rod vs the other, coupled with the rod weights vs wall thickness, not to mention handle widths, feral designs, stripping guides, snake guides, tip top, etc... creates different rod behaviours that only human factors can determine if it all comes together and works in a harmonious combination, or not. And human factors analysing will help determine if it works better for one situation or better for another, especially considering the different casting styles of people. Idealy, as Ken mentioned, a great rod shop would have a rod and casting expert that can match a rod and it's properties with a caster at whatever level he is at, and his fly fishing needs and conditions in which he/she would be using it, all within their price budget. Same goes with the line, same goes with the reel.
> 
> ...


You had an excellent point on the pros and cons of each rod. Especially regarding the fact that many of the low scoring rods do have some very strong points.

A quick example would be the TFO Mangrove which you pointed out as scoring near the bottom of the pack. This rod was specifically designed for mid ranges, accuracy and most important lifting strength. This rod is really a good choice for the angler who loves to try to dig them out from under structure. You can see how it would fall off the pace in the shootout with 40 points being awarded in the range that this rod was not designed to excel.

I am sure that there are other great rods that met a similar fate.

The TFO BVK on the other hand did well in the shootout and again no surprise. This rod was designed to be super light and excel in presentation and distance. This rod fit well into the criteria and point structure of the shootout.

When you look at these contrasting differences and the reasons for them the shootout results can become a very useful tool when looking to purchase a new rod.

If you are a highly skilled caster who loves open water fishing you can get a great comparison on the tools and technology to enjoy this type of fishing. On the other hand if you enjoy poling along the mangroves and regularly casting 40' the same results could save you some $ by choosing not to pay extra for the technology and refinements that you will not be using anyway.

Lastly I would say that the guys who put their time in on the testing should be commended regardless of their allegiance to different manufacturers. The overall amount of data and the write-ups on the test criteria results and opinions on each rod was a huge undertaking.

I think that they could even serve the fly fishing community more by including the manufacturers information regarding what the rods were specifically produced for at the beginning of the write up.

KT


----------



## Blue Zone (Oct 22, 2011)

Backwater said:


> Who was the person here that mentioned about a shop that was matching line and weight balancing with the rod. That's a brilliant factor. Too bad we don't see more of that!


Ted, 

Not to beat a dead horse, but I am wondering how these shootouts correlate to the real world. Casting on grass has to be different than casting in water. The fly lines and the flies themselves have to retain some water and in most cases salt. This has to add some weight which in turn would affect performance. I understand how it's all relative, but what are your thoughts?

The reason I bring this up is that I went to a local park over the weekend with my new 10wt and couldn't hit the side of a barn...


----------



## Backwater (Dec 14, 2014)

Blue Zone said:


> Ted,
> 
> Not to beat a dead horse, but I am wondering how these shootouts correlate to the real world. Casting on grass has to be different than casting in water. The fly lines and the flies themselves have to retain some water and in most cases salt. This has to add some weight which in turn would affect performance. I understand how it's all relative, but what are your thoughts?
> 
> The reason I bring this up is that I went to a local park over the weekend with my new 10wt and couldn't hit the side of a barn...



There is a big difference between casting on grass vs real flies on water. The only thing you can really analysis to an extent quickly is how it feels in the air after about the 1st or 2nd false cast to simulate most of the water shakened off and somewhat dried off your line to see how the rod behaves with the line during false cast and on the shoot (considering you are throwing a nothing fly like a bendback, small deceiver or bonefish fly). It's really hard to judge the difference in rods on the pickup from a no drag situation like you get on the lawn. Like someone said a while back on this fly board... "Water tells the truth!"

You should grab your new 10wt and meet up with me since you are temporary in Sarasota and I can see what's going on with your situation. PM me and we can hook up and meet up at a park or on one of the islands..


----------



## Blue Zone (Oct 22, 2011)

Ted,

Sounds great. I borrowed a friend's reel loaded with some kind of Airflow when I did the park thing. I ordered some Ignitor from Orvis thinking that taper might help. Send ya a pm later


----------



## Guest (Dec 22, 2017)

Backwater said:


> Who was the person here that mentioned about a shop that was matching line and weight balancing with the rod. That's a brilliant factor. Too bad we don't see more of that!


It's been years since last heard this from a couple decades out of business fly shop owner where one started with fly size to be fished that determined line weight needed & only then you'd know what rod to purchase; but have been getting fly rods on this rule of thumb since the 60's.


----------



## Backwater (Dec 14, 2014)

Whoa, talk about regurgitating an old conversation.   Still, there's some good info in this thread.


----------



## Guest (Dec 22, 2017)

Backwater said:


> Whoa, talk about regurgitating an old conversation.   Still, there's some good info in this thread.


Haven't had time to do the fly fishing club in years so don't know if they're casting rods out on Boca Grande for another 8 weight shootout this year.


----------



## Backwater (Dec 14, 2014)

I'll be finding out soon


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2017)

Backwater said:


> I'll be finding out soon


Guess could call Jamie since he guides out of Boca &/or Dusty to see if it's on their schedule or have already have done it.


----------



## Backwater (Dec 14, 2014)

I'll text George.

I talked to Dusty about 4 months ago and they weren't sure.


----------



## Rick hambric (Jun 24, 2017)

Why don’t we do our own shootout this spring? I’ll bring a t&t.


----------



## ifsteve (Jul 1, 2010)

Ted, tell George if they don't start using multiple fly lines then there test is still crap. Only half joking.


----------



## Guest (Dec 25, 2017)

Don't know George & haven't been a customer of the fly shop either other than reading some of the webpages, which at times are inaccessible due to being out of date. Since Jamie launches by the Pink, he probably helped arrange for the field for casting.


----------



## bananabob (Jun 3, 2015)

Enjoyed re-reading this again. One thing about George as some have already stated he is a bit bias as well as contradictory. A few years back when Redington replaced the very popular CPS with the slightly faster and heavier CPX he thought it was decent tough rod. Next test he called it junk. Same with first test of Scott's S4S, sluggish and heavy lacking guts. Next test...what a really fine fast long distance rod. What?

As some have stated a blind test ( blind as you can make it ) painting all rods black AND wrapping the reel seat in tape ( since some are very model telling ) would make the test more neutral.

Real world fishing accuracy is always a challenge guessing the distance in three seconds and with minimal false casts critical when dealing with wary spooky fish. Watching the casting videos they have the line measured out to the particular plate and make 5-6 false casts before dropping a piece the yarn. I can do that fairly well too. You take someone who can cast well on grass and they totally choke when under the pressure of a real fish on the water.
That's where the rod you are really comfortable with makes the day wether it cost you $1000 or $200.

That all being said I do look forward to the next test no matter who does it, and all with an open mind.


----------



## Cliff (Oct 13, 2016)

I believe it is not only the rod and line, but the fly. My Sage One will cast an unweighted pattern great. It is smooth and even. But, add just a little weight to the fly and my Echo will do much better. So many variables to consider.


----------



## crc01 (Oct 28, 2016)

These shootouts are a decent base to start on when looking. You have to look at them for what they are though, a bonefish rod shootout. The same things that make them hate an 8 weight may make a redfish guy love an 8 weight. I think the best way to select a rod is to go in reverse order. Figure out what kind of fish you'll be chasing, figure out what kind of flies you'll be throwing at that fish, figure out which line will throw those type and size flies well, figure out which rods will throw that line well, then pick the one you enjoy casting the most.


----------



## Backwater (Dec 14, 2014)

Cliff said:


> I believe it is not only the rod and line, but the fly. My Sage One will cast an unweighted pattern great. It is smooth and even. But, add just a little weight to the fly and my Echo will do much better. So many variables to consider.


Almost too many variables in the equation. The trick is to narrow down a set of variables to work for the masses as a base line for choosing a rod, based on those results.


----------

