Cost of rods

tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
4,306
Firstly that is not what he is saying,
That's exactly what he's saying. I know that because he wrote it down and I read it. He also said it using words that came from his own mouth! Here's some specifics of exactly how he likes his rods to be (which differs from how his other rod designing mates like to build their rods.)

It's impossible for me to tell you what feeling or rod performance suits you best, because that’s only something you can know and work out yourself (see this video). All I can say is what I like; I like a fast rod with plenty of feel, with a butt that is neither too stiff nor too soft (the vast majority of rods I cast are one of the other - but never both!), with a tip that “feels” light and crisp and damps with the minimum of vibrations. I also like my rods to be suited to strictly AFFTA conforming lines, to perform at all distances with both short and long carry, to behave in an expected way throughout the speed range and to be able to perform roll casts comfortably - without feeling the need for a heavier line. And above all else, the entire casting process should happen naturally, with feel, grace and without having to consciously think about any of it. In other words the desired outcome is to become one with the rod.
I have come across a small number of people who feel they need to learn to cast by pure repetition alone, as opposed to learning by feel, sight and sound, they can spend years mindlessly repeating the same wooden stroke, its painful to watch, they work best with a soft lazy rod and a heavy line.
Exactly. So buying a $1,000 rod is not going to help them is it?

And let's not forget, he's trying to flog his $1,000 rod. Which I'm sure is a good rod, particularly in his hands and particularly as he designed it for his own use but in your average angler's hands it's the equivalent of giving a Ferrari to my mum. She ain't going to get the best out of it.

Paul Arden is very very good at casting
That's an understatement. He's amongst the best in the world. He spends at least 2 hours a day 300 days per year just in casting practice and has done for 25 years And many more in fishing and teaching. He's not the guy that get's a day at the river a few times a month in the season.

I'd say phone him, as instructors go he is about as knowledgeable as there is.
Uh? What's this got to do with me?
 

wrongfoot

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 2, 2007
Messages
1,729
Location
Northumberland
[QUOTE="tangled, post: 2717959, member: 73086".

[/QUOTE]

Nice example of an instagram approach to video content, a lot of beautiful style, but not very applicable to the real world. What I immediately noticed was that none of that casting display involved casting and shooting out a short line after fishing back to the hang. One section had two strips before lifting and shooting again. Line hauls mostly to play with/work a long length of line.

What he demonstrated there was a rod performing with his/a perfect sweet-spot of line out in the hands of an excellent caster. I can look "competent" with the perfect amount of line out to suit my limitations, far from looking like that, but OK.

As a rod demonstration it's lacking. It might be a great fishing tool and easy to cast at shorter line lengths (mostly leader) and effortless to shoot line from that to a full belly. He didn't show that and it wasn't about a fishing approach at all. I'm sure it wasn't meant to be, probably content made to get as many youtube likes from the masses as possible and look beautiful. On those terms it's brilliant.
 
Last edited:

Dingbat

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
4,722
Location
Switzerland
And let's not forget, he's trying to flog his $1,000 rod. Which I'm sure is a good rod, particularly in his hands and particularly as he designed it for his own use but in your average angler's hands it's the equivalent of giving a Ferrari to my mum. She ain't going to get the best out of it.
Oh I don't know about that - would garner a lot of male attention - that would have anyone's partner working a lot harder round the house to impress ...
 

James9118

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2009
Messages
2,161
Location
Hampshire
Nice example of an instagram approach to video content, a lot of beautiful style, but not very applicable to the real world. What I immediately noticed was that none of that casting display involved casting and shooting out a short line after fishing back to the hang. One section had two strips before lifting and shooting again. Line hauls mostly to play with/work a long length of line.

As a rod demonstration it's lacking. It might be a great fishing tool and easy to cast at shorter line lengths (mostly leader) and effortless to shoot line from that to a full belly.
It wasn't a rod demonstration - it's just a film of him having fun flinging a fly line about, no more no less. Paul Arden is one of the best fly casters I've seen, but is perhaps one of the worst 'marketeers' of fly tackle also. The fact the film doesn't mention what rod it is or provide any sort of link to his tackle shop says it all.

Paul has provided a casting master-class that is available to everyone for free, it's here: https://www.sexyloops.com/flycast/introduction/

One of the casts is his 'snake-head' shot - this starts with just 2m of line outside of the tip and extends it to a 20m accurate cast with only one backcast. It also covers pretty much every cast you'll need and many that you won't.

James
 
Last edited:

petevicar

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
1,321
Location
Right bank of the river Rhine.
It wasn't a rod demonstration - it's just a film of him having fun flinging a fly line about, no more no less. Paul Arden is one of the best fly casters I've seen, but is perhaps one of the worst 'marketeers' of fly tackle also. The fact he the film doesn't mention what rod it is or provide any sort of link to his tackle shop says it all.

Paul has provided a casting master-class that is available to everyone for free, it's here: https://www.sexyloops.com/flycast/introduction/

One of the casts is his 'snake-head' shot - this starts with just 2m of line outside of the tip and extends it to a 20m accurate cast with only one backcast. It also covers pretty much every cast you'll need and many that you won't.

James
Hi James
I was wondering when you would join in.

Pete
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
36,432
Exactly. So buying a $1,000 rod is not going to help them is it?
I can't speak for 'them', I read 'you', and yes, I think you have convinced me that a £1000 rod is not going to help you, if that was ever in question.
 

tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
4,306
I can't speak for 'them', I read 'you', and yes, I think you have convinced me that a £1000 rod is not going to help you, if that was ever in question.
Despite your attempts to distract, this is not about me - I'm trying to draw out some general points. Based on all the evidence I can get my hands on all modern carbon rods are very good almost regardless of price. The average angler has no fishing need to buy a 'super-rod' because it won't gain them anything in fishing terms.

Even so, the premium rods are still nice things to own.
 

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
36,432
Despite your attempts to distract, this is not about me -
For something that is not about you, you have driven it with a singular passion for 4 years and agreed with few no one that has questioned your view :unsure:

But my point was really just saying that I personally think you are not in a position to speak for 'them', when many, if not all of 'them' could go from beginner to far beyond your definition of 'them' in the 4 years that you would appear to have made little progress from 'not being skilled enough to appreciate', just an observation.
 

tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
4,306
But my point was really just saying that I personally think you are not in a position to speak for 'them',
The finding that price is not a predictor of performance is independent of whoever 'them' is.

when many, if not all of 'them' could go from beginner to far beyond your definition of 'them' in the 4 years that you would appear to have made little progress from 'not being skilled enough to appreciate', just an observation.
I've been fly fishing for over 30 years, you have absolutely no idea how skilled I am at using a fly rod and none of the findings here use any of my own data.

I have asked you many times to provide evidence to disprove the findings from the multiple Yellowstone, Trident and Sexyloops tests or your own data but so far all we've got from you is this ad hominem and unsupported opinion. I'm not even sure what your opinion is, because you've shown no ability to actually understand the argument being made. 'Sad'.
 

skajtrout

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 12, 2015
Messages
931
Oh mate, give it up. I can’t believe you’re still banging on about this over and over and over. Life’s too short for futile arguments, surely the last two months have taught us that at least.

Skaj
 

anzac

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 17, 2012
Messages
1,224
Like everything else, rod choice and reasonable price for what you want comes down to personal preferences.

I'm not what my youngest son calls a 'gear queer', so the variety of mid-range rods and reels (none over ~£250) that I have suits me. They do what I need them to do, and that makes the village ***** in me quite happy.
 

tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
4,306
Well it finally started raining...

Here's all the performance data for 2103 through to 2019 Yellowstone shootouts poured into one chart. (I've pro rata adjusted for different scoring conventions.)

1591194609165.png

So what is it saying?

1. Performance is measured as accuracy at 25', 45' and 70'. Y axis (vertical) is performance, X axis (horizontal) is $.
2. The R2 value is a measure of statistical correlation which is asking the question, 'is there a relationship between price and performance?' To be confident of a relationship statisticians need a value of 0.4 so, as it's 0.18, we can't say that there is.
3. But as Joe Public, I'd say that, yeh, maybe there is a positive relationship in there, Excel managed to draw a inclined curve out of it so at least there's some kind of probability that performance increases with price - but it's very nearly random.
4. If you look at some points.
- At a performance score of 70 you can buy a rod for $400 or $800
- For $1500 you can buy a rod that performs no better than one at $625 and only very marginally better than one costing $250
- The $800 price point is very popular for rods but it produces the widest performance difference from 70 to 90. That's almost 30% difference for the same price.
- For pretty much every price point you can find a good performing rod and a poor performing rod.
- Really cheap, volume produced rods are NEVER included; draw your own conclusions.
- No rods perform terribly and if you look at the spread - ignoring the outliers - all rods hang in a range between 75 and 90. While, again ignoring outliers, price spreads from around $175 to $900. ie, steep diminishing returns.
- With a few exceptions all these rods are good rods.

So, like I keep saying, price does not predict performance.

And this is true of the Trident and the Sexyloops data. Some inexpensive rods perform well and some expensive ones perform poorly. You can't be sure that buying an expensive rod will get you a better performing rod.

For Ohanzee: this does NOT mean that some expensive rods aren't very good.
 
Last edited:

ohanzee

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
36,432
Its interesting that I take 'steep diminishing returns' out of that, and you take 'price does not predict performance'

Not meaning to be picky but both phrases are yours and they both mean different things.
 

tangled

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
4,306
Its interesting that I take 'steep diminishing returns' out of that, and you take 'price does not predict performance'

Not meaning to be picky but both phrases are yours and they both mean different things.
Both statements are true.
 

original cormorant

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2016
Messages
746
And this is true of the Trident and the Sexyloops data. Some inexpensive rods perform well and some expensive ones perform poorly. You can't be sure that buying an expensive rod will get you a better performing rod.
What sexyloops data, where is this published?
 

loxie

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2016
Messages
414
Well it finally started raining...

Here's all the performance data for 2103 through to 2019 Yellowstone shootouts poured into one chart. (I've pro rata adjusted for different scoring conventions.)

View attachment 27230

So what is it saying?

1. Performance is measured as accuracy at 25', 45' and 70'. Y axis (vertical) is performance, X axis (horizontal) is $.
2. The R2 value is a measure of statistical correlation which is asking the question, 'is there a relationship between price and performance?' To be confident of a relationship statisticians need a value of 0.4 so, as it's 0.18, we can't say that there is.
3. But as Joe Public, I'd say that, yeh, maybe there is a positive relationship in there, Excel managed to draw a inclined curve out of it so at least there's some kind of probability that performance increases with price - but it's very nearly random.
4. If you look at some points.
- At a performance score of 70 you can buy a rod for $400 or $800
- For $1500 you can buy a rod that performs no better than one at $625 and only very marginally better than one costing $250
- The $800 price point is very popular for rods but it produces the widest performance difference from 70 to 90. That's almost 30% difference for the same price.
- For pretty much every price point you can find a good performing rod and a poor performing rod.
- Really cheap, volume produced rods are NEVER included; draw your own conclusions.
- No rods perform terribly and if you look at the spread - ignoring the outliers - all rods hang in a range between 75 and 90. While, again ignoring outliers, price spreads from around $175 to $900. ie, steep diminishing returns.
- With a few exceptions all these rods are good rods.

So, like I keep saying, price does not predict performance.

And this is true of the Trident and the Sexyloops data. Some inexpensive rods perform well and some expensive ones perform poorly. You can't be sure that buying an expensive rod will get you a better performing rod.

For Ohanzee: this does NOT mean that some expensive rods aren't very good.
Is that not more about casting rods than fishing rods?
 
Top