CaryGreene

BST Users
  • Content count

    2,427
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by CaryGreene

  1. What happens is a weighted fly also loses energy as it drops, completely killing a long cast. This is why Mark doesn't like heavily weighted flies. He prefers a large fly to shock his audience into believing it is impossible to cast. Also, he likes to catch big fish so he uses and ties large flies to target them. In theory, a large, weighted fly would not even turn over & if by miracle it did, the fly would drop soon there after which would negate Asa's theory.
  2. I'll have to work on a video of the cast. Is there a way to upload an excel file to this post?
  3. We used to invite Mark to do his long distance presentations at the shop. He did numerous demos for us over the years. He used an 11' head on a 9wt rod that he liked (a Scott if I remember correctly). Mark often did the presentation with a fly off the shelf Asa. The flies were right out of the bin & weren't weighted in any way so your theory is interesting but not accurate. Anyone who knows Mark knows he likes a weighted fly, yes. He also goes for trophy sized fish and big flies help him catch them.
  4. Now we're getting somewhere! Esa, you are assuming the line I use is an exact 9wt. Even most commercially made fly lines are not what they say they are on the box. In this case, I used a 9wt.Airflo 40+ line on a 9wt. Sage Method fly rod. The grain weight if this line is 325 grains, making it equivalent to an 11wt line. Furthermore, the Sage Method 9wt is more like a heavy 10wt. rod. This particular fly line has a length of 123 feet right out of the box. If you lay to head out in front of you pick it up and swing up behind you correctly zip it forward and let it go it will routinely hit 123 foot lengths and turn over a 10 foot leader. This line features a D/C head length of 38' which is actually a piece of cake to arealize with one back cast. Technically the two items used both say 9 weight, one says it on the blank the other says it on the box. Are they really both "true 9 wt. products? No. Most of the rods and lines we are all fishing with aren't either. The grain weight of a fly line & power of a fly rod have a lot to do with what you can and can't do. If you achieve the right balance it is easy to throw a very very long cast without much effort. By the way, it does "count" for an every day fisherman who just wants to make a very long cast. I'm not in a tournament. It's not cheating to optimize a rod/line pairing.
  5. In the 2014 Yellowstone review they chose the line they used for a reason. It weighs 210 grains (making it a true 8wt line) and it has a fairly long head. The only difference a D/C Sinking Head line would provide is a heavier grain weight, say a 200 grain or a 225 for a true 8wt rod. If 3 very good casters feel that a particular 8 weight is best with a 300 grain head, they could have easily found this out by just throwing a 10wt or even 11wt Bonefish line which would perform similarly & give us a common denominator & the answer you're looking for. The performance of the heavier Bonefish lines, with grain weights of 240, 280, 330 etc... would be equal to the density compensated line of similar grain weight. If the Yellowstone Shhotout would do this in their test we in the Northeast, who use density compensated heads and and some immediate lines which are measured in grain weights, would easily be able to tell how a particular rod is going to perform under the applications we would most likely use it in....but they don't want to! They are rigidly judging 8wt. rods. If it says 8wt on the blank, and they test it with an exact 8wt 210 grain line, then it should perform a certain way in close, at medium distance in further out. The thing is most of the rides made today aren't what it says on the blank. To put it simply, we just need them to use a variety of different weight Bonefish lines with each rod tested, and we would know how particular rod would perform with various lines on it.
  6. Mike I agree with all of your points they are as always right on the money. Sometimes a softer rod forgives mistakes that are related to not going forward or backward right when you're supposed to. Slightly slower or more moderate rods are flex a little longer without letting the line/loop drop while faster rods require better timing and when its time to move, the caster needs to move witout any delay. So my experience with beginner casters is that they tend to do fairly well with slightly softer rods and grow into them at which point they move on to faster rods. Opposed to guys like you or me, who generally like a faster action rod due to the experience we have accumulated over the years we know when the line is straightening up behind us and we know when it's time to go forward. One thing you can do to help someone is to make him watch their back cast. They can then tell when it's time to move forward and probably will adapt to a quicker ride sooner if they do this. It's surprising how many people don't watch their back cast. I watch mine all the time. It's not like the casting police are going to fine me.
  7. Well, a whole lifetime really. Easier to do with a D/C or a shooting line, correctly weighted for the rod's Max Load. Add a head wind and waay harder, or even impossible. Nobody can give anybody advice unless it's done in person. I used to watch an Argentinian caster (Archie) out on Long Island do 100' with a 7'6" 3wt. But the best advice or actual help I ever got was from my good friend Davey Sekres, from Queens. Really it's just about trying, trying, practicing and then not loosing ground, which I'v done a lot too over the years. Guys like Sedotti use heads. This is way easier. Try practicing with a 5wt and a crummy floating line. It helps technique wise. If the line doesn't load your rod work so that you can make it load the rod. Also a double haul only gives you the extra 30 or so feet so when you practice don't do the double haul. Lastly line management comes into play when you're actually fishing. Maybe I can give you an extra 30 feet right now, not in person obviously, if you will honestly describe what happens once you strip a line back to yourself, say you'Re on the pavement or in the back yard and you begin your cast maybe with 30 feet or so already out. Describe to me what do you do? Be as detailed as you can be. If I saw you in person I could probably help you a little. Another good thing is to watch yourself on video. If you know what to look for you can self diagnose little hiccups in your casting stroke. Here's the thing, I'm talking about working with floating lines because they are harder to cast. Heavier lines make it far easier to shoot. There are 10 or 15 pretty decent "current" floating lines being produced, try one with a longer rear taper which will allow you to hold more line in the air. Practicing without a haul will help you hold line in the air which is very important when you want to rip it. Follow the basic principles. Are you driving 180 degrees away from the target? Only way to tell is does your fly line land in a straight line that is pointing directly away from the target? Stop your back cast and see if this is happening. Next freeze your forward cast are you punching directly into the target? Are your feet off to the side at a comfotable angle & is your entire body pulling and driving along with the rod. Keeping your hand under your chin in general is great idea reaching high while casting can gum up a lot of things unless you're really really good. Where is your tip stopping both on the back cast and the forward cast are you throwing a tailing loop? Then look at your haul. Are you pulling a line straight or at an angle against the shooting guide? Try to haul parallel to the rod. Try to you sharp crisp snaps don't overdo it on the haul. Your Sharp power stops between casting strokes along with a slight degree of drift in the hand moving backwards and forwards from the target and staying on the same plane are all key elements to maintaining the maximum amount of energy you can put into a cast. Then we get into line management which is kind of the final piece to actually fishing and getting this kind of distance that you're looking for.
  8. Dag-Nabbit Graeme, hopefully we can all get along well enough to aspire to that thread for our opinions on rods, lines & reels for that matter!
  9. Yes, you read it right. Not a typo.
  10. Funny thing is, a lot of female casters who promote the "right rods for women" are often endorsed by certain companies so you have to watch out for bum advice. Not saying the above lady is or isn't, but I sure know some red heads who are!
  11. Yes, I have a couple Clearwaters. A St. Croix Avid or an East Fork, both 8wts, are more about feeling the cast because the aren't built on Compound tapers which greatly diminish line feel (but help cut down the need to replace rods due to breakage. The Casting for Recovery rod is an exception as it us based on the Compound taper, but it is marketed towards women and is light & very peppy, unlike the Clearwater, the CFR is very good at longer Saltwater casts. The Clearwater is ok in close, but as you reach out further the rod's compound taper and extremely heavy tip require all kinds of arm generated extra effort to load it. It is not conducive to intuitive casts which female casters tend to be superb at. Also ane equally as important, female casters often prefer smooth and easy to load rods. The Avid brings a delight to most female beginner's faces and if they want a little faster feeling rod, the G.Loomis East Fork is super and you could even jump all the way to a G Loomis Native Run and really go all out. All three are exceptionally easy to load & hands down the better choices. Also even more forgiving than the TICR - but heavier, would be a Professional Series, most women don't like them as compared to the other choices I mentioned, which I only mentioned from experience, selling over 20 thousand rods a year for a decade, teaching casting classes and fly fishing schools. I've had many women love the ones I mentioned, especially the Avid.
  12. The best thing you can do is take her to the fly shop and let her test a few, if indeed she realIly wants a fly rod and not something else for Christmas! If it's the rod she wants, put a few really gentle, forgiving sticks in her hands. My money would be on a St. Croix Avid 9084, or perhaps a TFO TICR, or if you feel like springing, possibly a Winston B3 or a nice, light Sage Salt. A while back I bought my late fiance (she died of breast cancer) a TFO Casting for Recovery 8wt. She loved the feel of that rod and the TICR is the same thing. Honestly, the Avid and women get along really well. NOT the Imperial, NOT the ULTRA, NOT the ELITE. The Avid! The Integrated Poly Curve and overall smooth, moderate fast action of that blank is magical, light and very fun to cast. Another price point rod that would warrant a look is G.Loomis East Fork. Great feeling rod and women love it.
  13. This is exactly what we need. Not afraid to call a spade a spade. I am going on record. I love it!
  14. Your criteria is right on the money Dick. After selling TFO's for so many years for Cabela's, I have to say - no one ever came into the Fishing Department and said, "I hate my TFO, do you have anything that casts better?" Now that I'm retired, I have to say that I still feel TFO is a decent rod for the money. I hate that they don't have a tube and obviously, I wish they were US made, but it is what it is. Completely said off the cuff, I have a 9' 4wt TICR that I think to this day, stacks up fairly well vs. most everything. I find the Professional to be very heavy and a little on the soft side as compared to the TICR. I also find the TICR-X to be too stiff for the rated line sizes and the Axiom to be just really different and beyond compare. The BVK is a poor choice to me for fresh water but for chuck and duck, it is really good. Also, I actually love the 8'6" Finesse 5wt and find it to be better in close than a comparable Orvis Superfine of the same length. Most of my long time fly fishing friends respect TFO rods, though only a few of them actually fish them much these days. They are a great price point rod that compares generally well to other more expensive rods. Honestly, with my above mentioned TICR, it is absolutely fine.
  15. Hi Kirona, What do you think of these two rods side by side? Is one better than the other or do they each do certain things well?
  16. I think a lot of posters are using older rods and considering upgrades, so I thought we could all help each other with rod commentaries. Hopefully not from a quick 20 minute fly shop test, yes.Otherwise it's all in play, no rules. I'm sure with each review if anyone has anything they want to add or contribute, it will be helpful to us all, or some of us anyway. I've been fly-fishing a long time (only 43 years mind you) but I still love hearing what a beginner, an intermediate or an advanced caster has to say about new and older gear too. The more I learn, the more I realize how much there is yet still to know!
  17. Marking off 35 feet, 50 feet, 70 feet, 90 feet, 100 feet, and then 120 feet with chalk on the pavement even if that's what's necessary to find a place that you can cast is the only way to bring one's casting into perspective. I found that most rod / line combinations max out at about 90 feet. I also try to work with only floating lines when I'm just really beating myself up. When I can get a floating line to do 120 plus the length of the leader without being assisted by wind then I'm feeling pretty good. I find it very difficult to throw, for example, a Rio Outbound much farther than 90 feet (90 actually measured feet) with most rods. Modern lines that are very front loaded - meaning that the head weight is in the first 15 or 20 feet of the forward portion of line - really fall apart as they shoot. This coupled with the extremely thin diameter running line that is fused immediately behind the bulky head makes it hard to carry a significant amount of line in the air like 50 to 70 feet worth. The best I can seem to with an Outbound is to carry the head plus maybe an extra 15 feet of running line on a back cast. This gets me out near or at 100 feet. Certain lines have tapers that allow a caster to do carry more line in the air and they tend to shoot furthest in terms of floating lines. When I invited Steve Rayjef and his Golden Gate anglers long distance casting club out to Cabela's for the day to do a demonstration, I got in a long conversation with Steve about this very subject. He felt the same as I do - longer belly lines certainly shoot further because they load rods better. What is really throwing that extra 15 or 20 or 25 feet of line is the rod not just the fast moving head. That's what I have found, anyway. I usually mess around/practice with 5 weight rods but I think the same exact principles are true with the heavier weight rods. Your point about actually measuring the distance is really super super important. Folks a 90 foot cast is a very long cast when you measure it out. Surprisingly so. Hit a hundred feet and you oughta be pretty proud. Reach out past that mark without wind assistance, with a floating fly line, and you're really starting to accomplish something that if you can repeat this under normal fishing conditions in salt water may be a real asset and game changer for you, when you need to deal with wind or reach fish. Which is almost always! It's clear that no rod and line combination will do much for anyone who can't really cast and load rod with their stroke. This is why most of the time I don't believe in over lining because the caster is hoping that the line will load the rod. There are times when it is necessary based on the line people are using, which just tells me they have the wrong line or that there rod is rated or advertised as something it's actually not. Becoming a better caster is a lot more important than having fancy or high-tech equipment. I mean take a rod that was made 10 or 15 years ago throw a density compensated line on it and it shouldn't be too hard to throw the whole fly line! - let's face it a 25 foot super heavy head will carry virtually weightless running line that distance pretty easily & you should be able to hit that fairly consistently. Now try an intermediate line and it gets a little tougher.. but when you finally move to a floating line for practice purposes, that's whete we can really learn something about achieving rod load with your stroke. I have taught hundreds of casting lessons and it's amazing to watch a caster progress to the point where they're actually getting some rod load in their stroke. Also casting is like a golf swing if you don't do it regularly you lose it and then you have to get it back. The best casters I know are passionate about casting and they try to make time to do it as much as they can, both in real fishing conditions and also when just doinking around. When you take the time to physically measure out these distances were talking about, you pit yourself against your best performances and you stand there zipping line back and forth wondering how the heck Steve Rayjef can fling of floating line 135 feet every time. Because he's a bear! A freak of nature! Ha!
  18. Marking off 35 feet, 50 feet, 70 feet, 90 feet, 100 feet, and then 120 feet with chalk on the pavement even if that's what's necessary to find a place that you can cast is the only way to bring one's casting into perspective. I found that most rod / line combinations max out at about 90 feet. I also try to work with only floating lines when I'm just really beating myself up. When I can get a floating line to do 120 plus the length of the leader without being assisted by wind then I'm feeling pretty good. I find it very difficult to throw for example a Rio Outbound much farther than 90 feet with most rods. Modern lines that are very front loaded meaning that the wait is all up in the first 15 or 20 feet of the head really fall apart as they shoot. This coupled with the extremely thin diameter running line that is fused immediately behind the bulky head makes it hard to carry a significant amount of wine in the air like 50 to 70 feet worth. Certain lines have tapers that allow a caster to do this and they tend to shoot furthest in terms of floating lines. My belief is that they actually load the rod better and what is really throwing that extra 15 or 20 or 25 feet of line is really the rod not just the fast moving head. That's what I have found, anyway. In general I'm talking about 5wt rods but the same is true of the heavier weight rods like 8's, 9's and 10's. Your point about actually measuring the distance is really super super important. Folks a 90 foot cast is a very long cast when you measure it out hit a hundred and you oughta be pretty proud. Reach out past that mark without wind assistance any really starting to accomplish something that if you can repeat this under normal fishing conditions in salt water may be a real asset and game changer for you. It's clear that no rod and line combination will do much for anyone who can really cast and load RROD with their stroke. Becoming a better castor is a lot more important than your equipment. I mean take a ride that was made 10 or 15 years ago throw a density compensated line on it and it shouldn't be too hard to throw the whole fly line let's face it a 25 foot super heavy head will carry virtually weightless running line that distance pretty easily you should be able to hit that fairly consistently. Now try and intermediate line and it gets a little tougher but when you finally moved to a floating line that's we can really learn something about achieving rod load with your stroke. I have taught hundreds of casting lessons and it's amazing to watch a caster progressed to the point where they're actually getting some rod load in their stroke. Also casting is like a golf swing if you don't do it regularly you lose it and then you have to get it back. The best casters I know are passionate about casting and they try to make time to do it as much as they can both in real fishing conditions and also when just doinking around. When you take the time to physically measure out these distances were talking about, you put yourself against your best performances and you stand there zipping line back and forth wondering how the heck Steve Rayjeff can fling of floating line 135 feet every time. Because he's a bear! A freak of nature! Ha!
  19. Mike, you sure are right. One of my Mair reasons for forcing myself to go out and cast every day I'm able to, even for just a half hour sometimes, is to see what I can learn. On days when I'm just in the right mood, I pick up the junker 5wt and a beat up line to match it. If I can throw that and it stands to reason I'll be better at throwing the higher end tackle and in general, better on the water. I really keep waiting for some new breakthrough to let me cast to the moon.
  20. Research shows that if all things are "perceived" as being equal, people buy for looks or price/function.
  21. It has become rapidly harder to buy a fly line in the past 15 years. In the past 3 years, things have really become complex. Lines are now marketed for "today's modern fast action rods." Soooo, lines are a full line size heavier becausssse rods are too? Yep. Pretty much. But we don't really know for sure because there is no standard do it all source for a review. What "we" need is a one click source that would show the AFTMA Standard Weight Range, then the weight (in grams) of every fly line's castable head, then every rod's true rating and flex index. Trying to figure all this out is a full time job. Trust me. I do a little of it every day, to fit or suit/achieve my own purposes. There ought to be an industry guide to save us all from utter confusion. I would love to see an independent club or some entity do this too. Even an independent tackle dealer like Yellowstone is biased as to what rods or lines they are willing to review. For example, they won't review Cabela's or Bass Pro's private label rods because they aren't available to independent dealers. Eventually I get things right and find a line that really sizzles and brings a particular rod to life, but each couple of years I have to disappear into the work shop and get to work on the pond for several hours. I wouldn't have to do this if I didn't keep selling off a rod here and there and with fishing as much as I do, I'm always eager to experiment with new lines and equipment so I guess it's a hobby of choice, I'm not complaining. Today I was playing with a Sage Si2, a Sage Si3 and a Sage Salt (all 9wts). I did notice that the same WF-Floating line seemed to be fine on all three in today's dead calm conditions (fairly strong 130 foot casts with one back cast and if I used two, backing was pulling off the reel even on the Si3 which is the oldest of the three rods I was feeling out. I feel the need to do things like this to stay in touch with rods I'm not planning on parting with. as I wonder, how will these rods I'm not planing on replacing respond to the new lines that are being made in various conditions. Lines wear out after all and there are real differences between manufacturers and tapers. An interesting study would also be subjective in nature, but use 3 really popular rods and test all the lines in each class, WF-F, Wf-I and DC. Each of us should know how the rods we use would compare based on the results and it might help us pick lines that way. Making an $89 mistake really isn't so fun is it!?
  22. Uhhhh. Not to rain on this hear parade but, ummm that's what Yellowstone Anglers reviews do. Sooo?
  23. Too bad we couldn't do a Striper's On Line Rod Review Clam Bake, meeting up in Rhode Island at Ninigret Pond to fish the worm hatch, down some Ganset's and do a review that we feel fits Northeast Saltwater Rods. Imagine, a 2016 early June Shootout! To Mike's point, my evaluation would be my view and it wouldn't necessarily work for others. Let me illustrate this point then propose something that might be a solution for us & a fun experiment to kill winter months. I'm going to use 5wt rods as an illustration because I'm immersed in testing them the past two weeks. Let's use Yellowstone's 2015-2016 review as a baseline. Lot's of their basic info isn't subjective at all. It's actually very scientific, very objective and very accurate. We all recognize this to be true I'm sure. I for one am very satisfied with their measurements of how heavy a rod is, what the rod's swing weight is and how the rods perform at various distances they test at. Great. But I will use seven 5wt. Rod's this coming season. They will get fished on the Upper Main Stem of the Delaware River, the East Branch, down in my home town of Roscoe, NY and up in the Adirondaks. So I'm looking for a lot more than the Yellowstone review is going to give me and I do my own testing to figure some things out, from my perspective as Mike points out. First, I want a dry fly rod. Not the kind of dry fly rod that Yellowstone Anglers seems to consistently talk about. I will be fishing in close, sure. Within 30 feet, yep. But for me, the kind of dry fly rod I need will throw a #12 Rusty Spinner 70 to 90+ feet, at dusk. I need to feel it load. One wrong flinch and I have a good old dusk bird's nest on the business end. No good. I need power into the wind. I need a soft tip. I need to be able to throw an open enough loop to keep everything from knotting up. I need to turn over a 20 foot leader. So what I need is going to be very specific for this application. Next, I want a streamer rod that can fling 120 feet into the wind with a Teeny DC 200 line. Chuck and freeking duck. Don't care what so ever about anything other than how far it casts and yet, I need to feel the rod load. Why? Fishin in the dark o' course. Thirdly, I need a high stick nymph rod, preferably a switch, at least 11' long. It's got to have some flex and bounce to it and I'd appreciate it if it were exceptionally light due to the length and the fact I will fish it from sun up to sun down for 3 to 5 straight days. For my next application, I need a drift boat rod. I'll be punching dries 50 to 75 feet and soaking some beefy little nymphs. Versatility and durability. It will get stepped on. Need a great guarantee with super fast turn around. Many manufacturers are ruled out instantly for this intended use. Now I need the small stream rod. Heavy cover, has to be short & powerful enough to roll cast in tight, hence the desire for a 5wt and not a wimpy 4wt line. Flipping a strike indicator is NOT easy for 4wt lines as compared to 5's. Almost finishing up, I need an all purpose do it all rod for when I'm biking the tracks or the trails. I might be fishing an intermediate line on a remote trout pond. I might be swinging wets at night looking for trophy trout. I might be fishing emergers during a hatch. This would be for the times when I do want a pretty versatile, do it all stick. Lastly, I need a BWO rod, to throw #16 to #28 dry flies and midges up to 35 or 40 feet AND be able to protect a Verivas 10X tippet plus handle the power of a wild rainbow. This rod will NOT be used on small streams. It is a big water rod. You can now see that what Mike is saying will certainly mean that my review of a rod will not match up with Yellowstone Angler's much more generic comments. Now, with Saltwater rods, we can make this a lot easier. I'm happy to do a saltwater rod review that includes some current and some gold standard rods from the past 5 or 10 years. I would only ask that you tell me what rods to include in the review and what tests. other than what I have in mind, you want done. In this way, my evaluation is really done for you, not me. The first important thing we need to look at is how do rods perform with a variety of lines on them. We want a WF-F for the worm hatch, the flats and the tropics. We want a WF-I for typical shore applications. We want a DC for the boat or for shore fishing into rips and outflows. What weight rod do we want to test? 8wt? 9wt? Which company's lines do we want to use in the test? Airflo, Rio, Scientific Anglers or Other? Then, which specific lines will we use. We can only come to the answer by voting or by you telling me what to use. If I were to pick, you'd get a biased opinion. Next, what are the performance categories going to be? Well, we pick up line, often roll casting to arealize a head. We sometimes quickly throw a short cast in a complete panic. That's all kind of one category. Next, we work mid range a lot so that's definitely important. Lastly, we throw as far as the Gods will allow us to huck. 90 to 130 feet? yep. But you tell me, am I leaving out a category you'd like reviewed? This is what I can do for you, but I have one last point, the best point, which I saved for last. I'm creating a separate thread for rod testing. It will be a "DUMP". If any of us has the urge to test some rods out, let's do some Northeast reviews. It will benefit the community and be objective. I will only ask that anyone doing the testing can not officially represent a specific company, like an Orvis guide testing rods, this would be a bad idea for them and for us if our goal is to provide fairly neutral opinions. If we do this, you can have Mike's opinions, my opinions, and the opinions of the whole community to think about before you make up your own opinion. Look for the Rod Test Review DUMP thread and by all means contribute away. I will collect imput here and also there and contribute some tests you'd like to see done, once I get the feedback any of you wish to give me prior to any testing & considering/adding to or editing what I've said above. Sound good? Let's hope a sudden blizzard doesn't stall the momentum we have going. This is a great opportunity for anyone with an opinion to help us evaluate rods.
  24. I'm testing the new Zephurus and Wraith right now, alongside the Method, the NRX, the Salt, the Bolt, the Helios, the Legend Elite, and all the other rods from years past like the Si3, the BVK, the Si2, the T3, the Trident, the SLT, the TCX, the TCR, I will do a post when I'm done if you guys want it.