Is there any advantage in a spey rod?

[Lazarus Cooke]

I've always spey cast, some of the time. This whole business of special
rods for spey casting is quite recent. Are they really any better for
spey casting, or is just a gimmick?

Lazarus

--
Remover the rock from the email address

[Sierra fisher]

I am a bit confused by your question.
Spey casting was developed by the Scots for casting in the River Spey where
you could not wade out very far, and the banks were covered with trees. In
other words, there was no room for a backcast.
The movements that you do to make a spey cast can be done with a single
handed rod or a double handed rod. If you want to cast a long distance, you
are better off with a double handed rod With a single handed rod, I can
spey cast abot 60'. With double handed rod, I can cast 120'.
To answer your question, double handed rods are better if you need to cast a
long distance where there is little room for a backcast



"Lazarus Cooke" > wrote in message
om...
> I've always spey cast, some of the time. This whole business of special
> rods for spey casting is quite recent. Are they really any better for
> spey casting, or is just a gimmick?
>
> Lazarus
>
> --
> Remover the rock from the email address


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.542 / Virus Database: 336 - Release Date: 11/20/2003

[Bill Kiene]

--
Bill Kiene

Kiene's Fly Shop
Sacramento, CA
www.kiene.com

"Lazarus Cooke" > wrote in message
om...
> I've always spey cast, some of the time. This whole business of special
> rods for spey casting is quite recent. Are they really any better for
> spey casting, or is just a gimmick?
>
> Lazarus
>
> --
> Remover the rock from the email address

[Bill Kiene]

Hello Sierra fisher,

You explained it very well. Better than I could have.

I am not into Spey casting yet myself but it seems to be get a little more
popular every year. Fly fishing is a very small part of all fishing and Spey
casting is even a smaller part of fly fishing. Most fly fishers will never
need or want to Spey cast with a two handed rod.

It seems like the candidates for Spey casting are the classic steelhead fly
fishers that actually swings their flies the old way. Spey casting seems to
be harder at first so many are taking lessons to get started right.

A new group of two handed fly rodders might be the surf casters?

Graphite materials have given this sport a new life too.

I think that most should not form an opinion about Spey casting without
really understanding what it is all about.

We have been exposed to Spey/two handed casting because we have had Simon
Gawseworth, famous Spey caster and instructor, of Rio Line Company come for
a week to teach Spey casting at our fly shop in Sacramento for 4 years now.
Also, local Spey casting instructor Jeff Putnam has his office in the rear
of my shop for his fly fishing schools and travel business. Also, a half
dozen or more fly fishers in town including several of my staff are avid
Spey casters. They will be down on the American river right here in town in
a group working on their craft. It reminds me somewhat of martial arts
because it seems to be a life style for some and a brotherhood too? Having
the lower American River 15 minutes from our shop might be adding some
energy to this new, old sport of Spey casting.


--
Bill Kiene

Kiene's Fly Shop
Sacramento, CA
www.kiene.com

"Sierra fisher" > wrote in message
...

> I am a bit confused by your question.
> Spey casting was developed by the Scots for casting in the River Spey
where
> you could not wade out very far, and the banks were covered with trees.
In
> other words, there was no room for a backcast.
> The movements that you do to make a spey cast can be done with a single
> handed rod or a double handed rod. If you want to cast a long distance,
you
> are better off with a double handed rod With a single handed rod, I can
> spey cast abot 60'. With double handed rod, I can cast 120'.
> To answer your question, double handed rods are better if you need to cast
a
> long distance where there is little room for a backcast
>
>
>
> "Lazarus Cooke" > wrote in message
> om...
> > I've always spey cast, some of the time. This whole business of special
> > rods for spey casting is quite recent. Are they really any better for
> > spey casting, or is just a gimmick?
> >
> > Lazarus
> >
> > --
> > Remover the rock from the email address
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.542 / Virus Database: 336 - Release Date: 11/20/2003
>
>

[Peter Charles]

On Sat, 22 Nov 2003 16:30:15 +0000, Lazarus Cooke
> wrote:

>I've always spey cast, some of the time. This whole business of special
>rods for spey casting is quite recent. Are they really any better for
>spey casting, or is just a gimmick?
>
>Lazarus

They've been around a very long time. Alexander Grant set the world
record spey cast of 195' in 1895 (that's not a typo) that has yet to
be equaled. As SF mentioned, the term originated on the river Spey
however today there are three distinct schools of "spey" casting: the
original, long-line, spey casting, Skagit casting of the PNW, and
Scandinavian shooting head casting. All of these styles use long,
two-handed rods but the type of action, handle, guide placement, and
length will vary. Lines run from salmon DTs of 120' for traditional
spey casting up to 30' to 45' shooting heads and specialized WF
designs of up to 140'.

Each style has developed it's own repertoire of casts with traditional
mainly using double and single speys plus it has added the snake roll
over the past few years. Scandinavian style underhand casting (simply
means the bottom hand does most of the work) is mostly a variant of
the single spey though are casts are used as well. Skagit casting has
developed an entire repertoire of unique casts including Snap-Ts,
Snap-Cs, Perry Pokes, etc.

A good spey rod has an action that works well into the butt section
and a stiff tip that won't collapse under the twisting effects of spey
casting a long line. I have an 8'6" VSR Diamondback 6 wt. that is a
fabulous spey rod simply as it has these characteristics. Two-handed
spey rods perform longer casts with less effort and can mend line over
very long distances. Spey casts also are very efficient fishing casts
as the fly spends more time in the water and less time in the air.
When searching for fish, one can cover far more water with a spey rod.

It's hardly a gimmick.



Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

[Peter Charles]

I should also mention that two-handers are getting wider use for
overhead casting on the coast. This afternoon, I was playing around
in the yard with a line that I had modified into a shooting head and I
was casting a consistent 100' (measured) into the teeth of a brisk
breeze. And it was easy.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

[Lazarus Cooke]

In article >, Lazarus
Cooke > wrote:

> I've always spey cast, some of the time. This whole business of special
> rods for spey casting is quite recent. Are they really any better for
> spey casting, or is just a gimmick?
>
> Lazarus

Sorry I didn't explain well enough. I didn't say I didn't know what a
spey cast is, or where it comes from. I know the Spey well ** indeed,
if you want to learn about the early Spey flies you could do worse
than to look at a book by a distant relative, "Autumns on the Spey".

I live in Britain, where people have always used the long rod for
salmon. So I have always used a fifteen rod for salmon fishing. (or
most of the time. On some west country rivers I'll use a nine foot
trout rod, which works very well, but for the bigger, rocky rivers in
Scotland or Ireland I'll generally use a fifteen or twelve foot rod, as
much to control the line in the water as for length of casting.)

So, depending on the direction of the wind, the state of the bank and
so on, I'll sometimes cast overhand, sometimes spey. I was taught to
spey cast at the same time as I learnt to cast overhand.

Recently, though, (viz., in the past ten years or so), I've seen rods
marketed in two fifteen foot versions, one normal, one so-called "spey"
rods. The distinction seems daft to me.

Lazarus

--
Remover the rock from the email address

[Lazarus Cooke]

In article >, Peter Charles
> wrote:

> I should also mention that two-handers are getting wider use for
> overhead casting on the coast.

It never occurred to me that two-handed rods are a gimmick. I've used
them since I was tiny. I agree with the late Hugh Falkus (I quote from
memory) "the mystery is not how Americans fish for salmon with a
single-handed rod, but why".

Lazarus

--
Remover the rock from the email address

[Peter Charles]

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:13:06 +0000, Lazarus Cooke
> wrote:

>In article >, Peter Charles
> wrote:
>
>> I should also mention that two-handers are getting wider use for
>> overhead casting on the coast.
>
>It never occurred to me that two-handed rods are a gimmick. I've used
>them since I was tiny. I agree with the late Hugh Falkus (I quote from
>memory) "the mystery is not how Americans fish for salmon with a
>single-handed rod, but why".
>
>Lazarus


I was just following on from, "Are they really any better for
spey casting, or is just a gimmick?" I thought it a strange question
coming from the other side of the pond.

More Americans and Canadians are fishing for salmon and steelhead with
two-handers than ever before. I guess it isn't a mystery anymore.


Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

[Peter Charles]

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:10:08 +0000, Lazarus Cooke
> wrote:


>
>Recently, though, (viz., in the past ten years or so), I've seen rods
>marketed in two fifteen foot versions, one normal, one so-called "spey"
>rods. The distinction seems daft to me.
>
>Lazarus


Ahhh, well look at my first post about the three schools and the
distinction is no longer daft. It's pretty hard to use shooting heads
proficiently on a rod that was designed to lift and cast a long line.
It can be done but it isn't half as much fun compared to using the
right rod for the job.



Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

[Lazarus Cooke]

In article >, Peter Charles
> wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:10:08 +0000, Lazarus Cooke
> > wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Recently, though, (viz., in the past ten years or so), I've seen rods
> >marketed in two fifteen foot versions, one normal, one so-called "spey"
> >rods. The distinction seems daft to me.
> >
> >Lazarus
>
>
> Ahhh, well look at my first post about the three schools and the
> distinction is no longer daft. It's pretty hard to use shooting heads
> proficiently on a rod that was designed to lift and cast a long line.
> It can be done but it isn't half as much fun compared to using the
> right rod for the job.

Sure. A shooting head is a shooting head. Which you can use with an
overhead cast or a spey cast. And a spey cast is a spey cast. Which
you can use with a shooting head (although I'd never do so) or a DT or
whatever. What's one to do with the other?

L

--
Remover the rock from the email address

[Peter Charles]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:52:20 +0000, Lazarus Cooke
> wrote:

>In article >, Peter Charles
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:10:08 +0000, Lazarus Cooke
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >Recently, though, (viz., in the past ten years or so), I've seen rods
>> >marketed in two fifteen foot versions, one normal, one so-called "spey"
>> >rods. The distinction seems daft to me.
>> >
>> >Lazarus
>>
>>
>> Ahhh, well look at my first post about the three schools and the
>> distinction is no longer daft. It's pretty hard to use shooting heads
>> proficiently on a rod that was designed to lift and cast a long line.
>> It can be done but it isn't half as much fun compared to using the
>> right rod for the job.
>
>Sure. A shooting head is a shooting head. Which you can use with an
>overhead cast or a spey cast. And a spey cast is a spey cast. Which
>you can use with a shooting head (although I'd never do so) or a DT or
>whatever. What's one to do with the other?
>
>L

Would you call a Perry Poke a Spey cast or a Skagit cast? If you call
all casts that depend on a D-loop, a "Spey" cast then it's pretty
difficult to draw a distinction. You say you've never casted a
shooting head, perhaps that's why you're having problems with the
notion of different styles of rods and lines.

Basically, long-line casting technique with DTs or long belly WF lines
depends on a big D-Loop. A moderate, through action rod casts them
very well. Now strap on a shooting head or a short belly WF line and
try it. It'll cast, but not with the same proficiency. Try it again
with what Sage calls their Euro rods (fast, tip-to-middle action) and
watch them fly.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

[JR]

Peter Charles wrote:
>
> Basically, long-line casting technique with DTs or long belly WF lines
> depends on a big D-Loop. A moderate, through action rod casts them
> very well. Now strap on a shooting head or a short belly WF line and
> try it. It'll cast, but not with the same proficiency. Try it again
> with what Sage calls their Euro rods (fast, tip-to-middle action) and
> watch them fly.

Peter, would you say Sage's 9141-4 "European" is a longer casting rod
than the 9140-4 "Traditional"? Would the latter be a better (i.e., more
forgiving) rod for a novice?

JR

[Peter Charles]

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 17:10:08 +0000, Lazarus Cooke
> wrote:

>In article >, Lazarus
>Cooke > wrote:
>
>> I've always spey cast, some of the time. This whole business of special
>> rods for spey casting is quite recent. Are they really any better for
>> spey casting, or is just a gimmick?
>>
>> Lazarus
>
>Sorry I didn't explain well enough. I didn't say I didn't know what a
>spey cast is, or where it comes from. I know the Spey well ** indeed,
>if you want to learn about the early Spey flies you could do worse
>than to look at a book by a distant relative, "Autumns on the Spey".
>
>I live in Britain, where people have always used the long rod for
>salmon. So I have always used a fifteen rod for salmon fishing. (or
>most of the time. On some west country rivers I'll use a nine foot
>trout rod, which works very well, but for the bigger, rocky rivers in
>Scotland or Ireland I'll generally use a fifteen or twelve foot rod, as
>much to control the line in the water as for length of casting.)
>
>So, depending on the direction of the wind, the state of the bank and
>so on, I'll sometimes cast overhand, sometimes spey. I was taught to
>spey cast at the same time as I learnt to cast overhand.
>
>Recently, though, (viz., in the past ten years or so), I've seen rods
>marketed in two fifteen foot versions, one normal, one so-called "spey"
>rods. The distinction seems daft to me.
>
>Lazarus


Penny dropped. You're wondering why North Americans refer to "spey"
rods when you would call it a "salmon" rod. Correct? It's just the
name that's caught on over here, the rods are the same. There's
always been a terminology problem over here as "two-hander" is too big
a mouthful and "salmon" is pretty useless when we use them for chasing
steelhead.

There also basically two classes of two-handed rods which Sage has a
addressed with it's "Euro" and "Traditional" models but these names
haven't widely caught on. Despite these attempts, we tend to call any
long fly rod with a two-handed grip a "spey" rod.

As I mentioned earlier, the two classes of rods are based on shooting
head vs. long line. In the UK, shooting head rods aren't that common
yet so I'm not surprised that you find the distinction useless. Spend
some time doing the Skagit or underhand casts with different rods and
you might have a different appreciation. I spent a couple of days
recently casting rods using short belly and medium belly lines as part
of a group contributing to a magazine article on "spey" rods. We
performed both Skagit and Spey casts with each rod, using both lines.
There was an amazing difference in some rods when we switched from
short to medium bellied lines. There is only 10' difference in the
head so you'd think the difference would be negligible, but no, some
rods were useless with the short heads and others were useless with
the long ones. There were six of us casting and we were unanimous in
our opinions about this. There's no doubt in my mind that some rods
work well with DTs and traditional spey casting while others work much
better with the short heads.

We were also affected by the lack of a standardized rating system for
lines and rods. None of us liked the new fast Hardy's on the short
lines but loved them on the long. In retrospect, they weren't getting
loaded on the short lines and we should have gone up a line weight.

I think we'll see the so-called spey-action rods disappear from the
market as the faster rods take over. I own a Lamiglas that was made
to Mike Maxwell's "true spey rod" standards and it handles a DT very
nicely. It will cast shooting heads but it isn't pleasant or
efficient. The newer, faster rods seemed to do both jobs well so
there doesn't seem to be a reason for maintaining a distinction.
Given that Hardy has introduced two fast action cannons, the days of
the slow rod have to be numbered. One of the Loomis reps in the group
normally fishes with a GLX but on casting the Hardy Gem, he fell in
love and said that were it not for his Loomis affiliation, he would
toss his GLX for the Gem.

Give it a few years Lazarus and, except for some UK diehards, we'll be
back to only one type of rod.



Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

[Lazarus Cooke]

In article >, Peter Charles
> wrote:

> Would you call a Perry Poke a Spey cast or a Skagit cast?

I don't know what either a Perry Poke or a Skagit cast are
> If you call
> all casts that depend on a D-loop, a "Spey" cast then it's pretty
> difficult to draw a distinction.

I'd call casts that depend on a D-loop a roll cast (some people here
also call it a switch cast). For me fundamental to a Spey cast is a
change of direction.


> You say you've never casted a
> shooting head, perhaps that's why you're having problems with the
> notion of different styles of rods and lines.

No. Just with the distinction between a rod specially made for Spey
casting. Partly, I suppose, because I may well end up doing both Spey
and overhead casts on the same river on the same day. I don't really
want to carry two rods around for which way the wind happens to be, and
how awkward the bank is behind me.

Lazarus

--
Remover the rock from the email address

[Peter Charles]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:48:44 +0100, JR > wrote:

>Peter Charles wrote:
>>
>> Basically, long-line casting technique with DTs or long belly WF lines
>> depends on a big D-Loop. A moderate, through action rod casts them
>> very well. Now strap on a shooting head or a short belly WF line and
>> try it. It'll cast, but not with the same proficiency. Try it again
>> with what Sage calls their Euro rods (fast, tip-to-middle action) and
>> watch them fly.
>
>Peter, would you say Sage's 9141-4 "European" is a longer casting rod
>than the 9140-4 "Traditional"? Would the latter be a better (i.e., more
>forgiving) rod for a novice?
>
>JR


I've only cast the 9141 -- knowing the 9140 "brownie" by reputation
only. The 9141 will enable the novice to cast further than a 9140 but
both rods, in the hands of a proficient caster, would cast about the
same distance.

"Good for the novice" is a tough call as it depends on a number of
factors. Slow rods, such as the Sage brownie, require a finesse touch
to cast well. Very little power needs to be applied by the caster to
cast these rods well so the novice tends to overpower them. The
faster rods tend to tolerate this a bit better. IMHO, a good "novice"
rod would be one that provides a lot of feedback to the caster -- the
caster should be able to feel the load quite easily.

That said, I wouldn't buy either rod. Out of the six testers, five
thought the Scott SAS 1409 to be a fantastic rod (the one exception
tended to prefer slower rods) and all consider it better than the
9141. It's a fast rod, like the 9141, but unlike the 9141, it casts
very lightly. It's a very powerful rod yet it's tractable over a
fairly broad range of casting conditions and it wasn't too fussy about
what line we used as it casted both regular and long Delta Airflo
9/10s quite well. The Scott SAS 1409 would be my top recommendation
to anyone starting off with a 14' 9 wt.



Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

[Peter Charles]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:30:50 GMT, (Greg Pavlov)
wrote:

>On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 08:28:04 -0500, Peter Charles
> wrote:
>
>>Given that Hardy has introduced two fast action cannons, the days of
>>the slow rod have to be numbered. One of the Loomis reps in the group
>>normally fishes with a GLX but on casting the Hardy Gem, he fell in
>>love and said that were it not for his Loomis affiliation, he would
>>toss his GLX for the Gem.
>
> The Hardy Gem was the first "spey" rod I cast that made
> spey casting seem almost easy to me.


I've casted about 30 odd spey rods over the past few years, including
all of the top names, and IMHO the Hardy Gem with the right line on
it, is the best of the bunch.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

[Peter Charles]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:26:15 +0000, Lazarus Cooke
> wrote:

>In article >, Peter Charles
> wrote:
>
>> Would you call a Perry Poke a Spey cast or a Skagit cast?
>
>I don't know what either a Perry Poke or a Skagit cast are
>> If you call
>> all casts that depend on a D-loop, a "Spey" cast then it's pretty
>> difficult to draw a distinction.
>
>I'd call casts that depend on a D-loop a roll cast (some people here
>also call it a switch cast). For me fundamental to a Spey cast is a
>change of direction.

OK, a D-Loop and a change of direction.

>
>
>> You say you've never casted a
>> shooting head, perhaps that's why you're having problems with the
>> notion of different styles of rods and lines.
>
>No. Just with the distinction between a rod specially made for Spey
>casting. Partly, I suppose, because I may well end up doing both Spey
>and overhead casts on the same river on the same day. I don't really
>want to carry two rods around for which way the wind happens to be, and
>how awkward the bank is behind me.
>
>Lazarus

Most of the spey rods I've casted can also overhead cast very well
however they can need different lines to do both jobs well.

I don't think that identifying a rod as a "spey" rod precludes it's
use as an overhead rod. However, a good spey casting rod usually will
have characteristics not found on "overhead only" rods. I have an
8'6" single hander that is a wonderful spey caster but not so some of
the other rods I own. To execute a big change of direction,
especially on the single, a stout upper section is needed. A lot of
the rods on the market have wimpy tips that would collapse on such a
cast. I think it's really a question of optimization of the design.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

[Peter Charles]

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 22:26:15 +0000, Lazarus Cooke
> wrote:

>In article >, Peter Charles
> wrote:
>
>> Would you call a Perry Poke a Spey cast or a Skagit cast?
>
>I don't know what either a Perry Poke or a Skagit cast are
>> If you call
>> all casts that depend on a D-loop, a "Spey" cast then it's pretty
>> difficult to draw a distinction.
>
>I'd call casts that depend on a D-loop a roll cast (some people here
>also call it a switch cast). For me fundamental to a Spey cast is a
>change of direction.
>
>
>> You say you've never casted a
>> shooting head, perhaps that's why you're having problems with the
>> notion of different styles of rods and lines.
>
>No. Just with the distinction between a rod specially made for Spey
>casting. Partly, I suppose, because I may well end up doing both Spey
>and overhead casts on the same river on the same day. I don't really
>want to carry two rods around for which way the wind happens to be, and
>how awkward the bank is behind me.
>
>Lazarus


I should reiterate my earlier point that the term "spey rod" is being
used over here to describe any two handed rod regardless of its
intended usage.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

[Stephen Welsh]

Peter Charles > wrote in
:

> Most of the spey rods I've casted can also overhead cast very well
> however they can need different lines to do both jobs well.
>
> I don't think that identifying a rod as a "spey" rod precludes it's
> use as an overhead rod.

Hmmm ... I had one of your countrymen (a transplanted guiding type
from the BC area I believe) recommend a 15' spey rod
for overhead casting in the surf. Apart from the all-to-apparent
"guide-speak" I was a bit dubious about the weight of the rod having
tried an 11 foot single hander some time back and feeling I was
buggering my arm trying to heft it. More a technique problem
amplified by the length and weight of the rod than anything and I
suspect fixable with time in practice.

Could one be used overhead for any length of time without undue
tiredness?

Steve

[Peter Charles]

On 25 Nov 2003 03:02:01 GMT, Stephen Welsh
> wrote:

>Peter Charles > wrote in
:
>
>> Most of the spey rods I've casted can also overhead cast very well
>> however they can need different lines to do both jobs well.
>>
>> I don't think that identifying a rod as a "spey" rod precludes it's
>> use as an overhead rod.
>
>Hmmm ... I had one of your countrymen (a transplanted guiding type
>from the BC area I believe) recommend a 15' spey rod
>for overhead casting in the surf. Apart from the all-to-apparent
>"guide-speak" I was a bit dubious about the weight of the rod having
>tried an 11 foot single hander some time back and feeling I was
>buggering my arm trying to heft it. More a technique problem
>amplified by the length and weight of the rod than anything and I
>suspect fixable with time in practice.
>
>Could one be used overhead for any length of time without undue
>tiredness?
>
>Steve

No joke, my 15'6" 11 wt. is easier to cast all day than my 9' - 10
wt. It's all about length, two hands, and good technique. Well, come
to think of it, there's a few things in life that this fits but it's
also true for two-handed fly rods. How would you like to cast a line
150' with less effort than it takes to double haul?

I'm presently waiting for a CND Atlantis 1111 to arrive. It's
dedicated to overhead casting in the salt. Both it and my Daiwa 11
wt. are intended for overhead use.

They are catching on.

Me in 1999:

http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/trip-26.html




Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

[mmcgr]

Peter Charles wrote:
> No joke, my 15'6" 11 wt. is easier to cast all day than my 9' - 10
> wt. It's all about length, two hands, and good technique. Well, come
> to think of it, there's a few things in life that this fits but it's
> also true for two-handed fly rods. How would you like to cast a line
> 150' with less effort than it takes to double haul?
>
> I'm presently waiting for a CND Atlantis 1111 to arrive. It's
> dedicated to overhead casting in the salt. Both it and my Daiwa 11
> wt. are intended for overhead use.
>
Peter

I have had an interesting experience in this respect. I am on my second
spey rod (spey in the generic North American sense). The first I build
on a blank from Angler's Workshop. It was nominally a 12' 7/8 wt,
advertised as a "great for summer steelhead, spey and fast action." I
took it to a casting class and had the instructor try it. He reckoned it
was a catastrophe as a rod for spey casting. Casting some of his rods, I
did reasonably well, but my rod just forgave nothing, not even when I
tried uplining it a couple of weights using lines the instructor had
available. Next rod was a St. Croix 13' 7/8 wt which was much more
satisfactory. In the mean time, I was wondering what to do with the
first rod. The other day it finally occurred to me to try it with a
head. I have a 30' LC13 head with 30lb Amnesia (Damnesia?) running line
which I normally use with a single hand 10 wt rod. I took the
combination down bayside (I live on the west side of San Francisco Bay).
I got the head out on the water and stripped off a bit of running line.
I tried a roll cast with the whole head well sunk in the water to see it
the rod would lift it all--no problem. With the 10 wt single hander I
can only roll up about 20' of LC13 with the rest inside the tip top.
Then I have to cast a time or two to get the rest of the head out the
tip top plus the right amount of overhang. Finally I can do the real
cast. With the two hander with the head on the surface, I made a
backcast out to the side, came back over the top, stopping at 12 o'clock
and let fly. Wham! the line hit the reel taking all the running line I
had stripped off. I progressivley stripped off more running line and
cast further and further as my jaw just dropped at distance I was
getting. It was so easy! Just roll the head up with a single easy roll
cast and then throw the line into the next area code. A day with the 10
wt single hander takes 800 mg of ibuprofen to minimize the effects. This
two hander will be a piece of cake.

Mike

[Stephen Welsh]

Peter Charles > wrote in
:

> No joke, my 15'6" 11 wt. is easier to cast all day than my 9' -
> 10 wt. It's all about length, two hands, and good technique.
> Well, come to think of it, there's a few things in life that
> this fits but it's also true for two-handed fly rods.

;-)

> How would
> you like to cast a line 150' with less effort than it takes to
> double haul?
>

Yes, I would like that very much. On good days with the right swell
(gutters in close) these distances are unnecessary but I'm finding
with time on the water these days are rather more rare than my
initial experiences would have me believe - 150ft would
be very useful indeed.

"The ease with which I could reach out close to a 100 feet and cast
over incoming breakers, set some to thinking."


Steve (tick, tick, tick ...)

[Jarmo Hurri]

Peter> I spent a couple of days recently casting rods using short
Peter> belly and medium belly lines as part of a group contributing to
Peter> a magazine article on "spey" rods.

Peter,

This is a most interesting thread that I've been following very
closely. Could you drop us another line on the topic once the magazine
gets out.

--
Jarmo Hurri

Spam countermeasures included. Drop your brain when replying, or just
use .

[Lazarus Cooke]

In article >, Stephen Welsh
> wrote:

> Peter Charles > wrote in
> :
>
> > Most of the spey rods I've casted can also overhead cast very well
> > however they can need different lines to do both jobs well.
> >
> > I don't think that identifying a rod as a "spey" rod precludes it's
> > use as an overhead rod.
>
> Hmmm ... I had one of your countrymen (a transplanted guiding type
> from the BC area I believe) recommend a 15' spey rod
> for overhead casting in the surf. Apart from the all-to-apparent
> "guide-speak" I was a bit dubious about the weight of the rod having
> tried an 11 foot single hander some time back and feeling I was
> buggering my arm trying to heft it. More a technique problem
> amplified by the length and weight of the rod than anything and I
> suspect fixable with time in practice.
>
> Could one be used overhead for any length of time without undue
> tiredness?

Yes. The leverage caused by using two hands means it's as easy as using
my Sage 3-8-9

Lazarus
>
> Steve

--
Remover the rock from the email address

[Peter Charles]

On 25 Nov 2003 09:29:23 +0200, Jarmo Hurri >
wrote:

>
>Peter> I spent a couple of days recently casting rods using short
>Peter> belly and medium belly lines as part of a group contributing to
>Peter> a magazine article on "spey" rods.
>
>Peter,
>
>This is a most interesting thread that I've been following very
>closely. Could you drop us another line on the topic once the magazine
>gets out.


Sure, no problem

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

[Peter Charles]

On 25 Nov 2003 04:53:21 GMT, Stephen Welsh
> wrote:

>Peter Charles > wrote in
:
>
>> No joke, my 15'6" 11 wt. is easier to cast all day than my 9' -
>> 10 wt. It's all about length, two hands, and good technique.
>> Well, come to think of it, there's a few things in life that
>> this fits but it's also true for two-handed fly rods.
>
> ;-)
>
>> How would
>> you like to cast a line 150' with less effort than it takes to
>> double haul?
>>
>
>Yes, I would like that very much. On good days with the right swell
>(gutters in close) these distances are unnecessary but I'm finding
>with time on the water these days are rather more rare than my
>initial experiences would have me believe - 150ft would
>be very useful indeed.
>
>"The ease with which I could reach out close to a 100 feet and cast
>over incoming breakers, set some to thinking."
>
>
>Steve (tick, tick, tick ...)
>

and when I mentioned my sore shoulder, it was from using a single
hander. I went over to the two-hander to give my shoulder a rest.

The ST. Croix I was using isn't much of an overhead rod. My Daiwa
Lochmor X is designed as an overhead rod and is far more effective
than the St. Croix.



Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

[Lazarus Cooke]

In article >, Peter Charles
> wrote:

> Penny dropped.

SNIP


> Give it a few years Lazarus and, except for some UK diehards, we'll be
> back to only one type of rod.
>

Yes, it took me a while (I've only just seen the two posts where you
explained it) to realize that we've been arguing at cross-purposes.

I think, though, that for once a certain amount of light was generated
along with the heat!

Very interesting. Thanks for the discussion.

I must admit that I tend to the European tendency of being ridiculously
old-fashioned (I still fish (sometimes) for trout with cane and silk),
and I fish fairly elderly Bruce and Walker salmon rods. For some
reason, while most British fishers like Hardy for trout, there's been a
tendency - probably encouraged by the great recent writers on salmon
such as Hugh Falkus - to favour Bruce and Walker for salmon.

I haven't fished the new salmon rods. I only fish my Sage 3 8 9s
because I was once in "City tackle" or something like that in New York,
and the owner persuaded me to buy one. One of the best purchases I've
ever made.

:Lazarus

--
Remover the rock from the email address

[Peter Charles]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 15:31:51 +0000, Lazarus Cooke
> wrote:

>In article >, Peter Charles
> wrote:
>
>> Penny dropped.
>
>SNIP
>
>
>> Give it a few years Lazarus and, except for some UK diehards, we'll be
>> back to only one type of rod.
>>
>
>Yes, it took me a while (I've only just seen the two posts where you
>explained it) to realize that we've been arguing at cross-purposes.
>
>I think, though, that for once a certain amount of light was generated
>along with the heat!
>
>Very interesting. Thanks for the discussion.
>
>I must admit that I tend to the European tendency of being ridiculously
>old-fashioned (I still fish (sometimes) for trout with cane and silk),
>and I fish fairly elderly Bruce and Walker salmon rods. For some
>reason, while most British fishers like Hardy for trout, there's been a
>tendency - probably encouraged by the great recent writers on salmon
>such as Hugh Falkus - to favour Bruce and Walker for salmon.
>
>I haven't fished the new salmon rods. I only fish my Sage 3 8 9s
>because I was once in "City tackle" or something like that in New York,
>and the owner persuaded me to buy one. One of the best purchases I've
>ever made.
>
>:Lazarus


If your interested in reading a bit more about the North American
approach to these rods, the http://speypages.com/ is a good place to
start. Dana is a Canuck working out of BC and he fishes the Thompson
among others, for steelhead through much of the year. There are some
videos on the site, describing various casts.

Ed Ward's article is a pretty good explanation of the evolution of the
North American Skagit style casts.
http://home.att.net/~slowsnap/spey16.htm



Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

[Peter Charles]

On 25 Nov 2003 04:53:21 GMT, Stephen Welsh
> wrote:

>Peter Charles > wrote in
:
>
>> No joke, my 15'6" 11 wt. is easier to cast all day than my 9' -
>> 10 wt. It's all about length, two hands, and good technique.
>> Well, come to think of it, there's a few things in life that
>> this fits but it's also true for two-handed fly rods.
>
> ;-)
>
>> How would
>> you like to cast a line 150' with less effort than it takes to
>> double haul?
>>
>
>Yes, I would like that very much. On good days with the right swell
>(gutters in close) these distances are unnecessary but I'm finding
>with time on the water these days are rather more rare than my
>initial experiences would have me believe - 150ft would
>be very useful indeed.
>
>"The ease with which I could reach out close to a 100 feet and cast
>over incoming breakers, set some to thinking."
>
>
>Steve (tick, tick, tick ...)
>

Got to the http://speypages.com/speypages.htm and check out the
seventh video where Henrik Mortensen demonstrates the underhand cast.
This video also describes the basic powerstroke of the overhead cast
with a two-hander. Note how is bottom hand isn't even gripping the
rod -- how effortless the stroke. This stroke would produce a 100'+
cast with ease.



Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

[mmcgr]

Greg Pavlov wrote:
> On 25 Nov 2003 03:02:01 GMT, Stephen Welsh
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Could one be used overhead for any length of time without undue
>>tiredness?
>
>
> I'm sure that you've seen some of the heavy weight tackle
> that conventional tackle surf casters use.
>
> Personally, I think that two-handed overhead casting fly rods
> coupled with shooting heads are functionally close to
> conventional surf tackle, tho you can still cast much further with
> the latter. My first surf fly rod was a two-hander that I had
> built because it seemed to make much more sense to me
> than attacking surf on ocean scale with one-handed 9 footers.
> Now, 3 years into it, I do use a few 9 footers in the surf as well,
> but the two-handers do make more sense to me overall.

I'd just remark that there is the important distinction here that with a
fly line you can deliver a fly or lure whose weight is not important to
your ability to cast far, unlike conventional tackle. Also depending on
your choice of line you can fish much more of the water column.

Mike

[Stephen Welsh]

Peter Charles > wrote in
:

> Got to the http://speypages.com/speypages.htm and check out the
> seventh video where Henrik Mortensen demonstrates the underhand
> cast. This video also describes the basic powerstroke of the
> overhead cast with a two-hander. Note how is bottom hand isn't
> even gripping the rod -- how effortless the stroke. This stroke
> would produce a 100'+ cast with ease.
>

Looks easy enough ;-)
Kush's snake roll is pretty impressive too!

Well, yestereve I went into the shop and cast about for the owner.
Fine chap is Milton, anyway he's getting in a Loop Black Line 8/9
for me to have a try of. And.... as luck would have it the T&T
rep.
wandered in at about the same time ... he was a little vague on
details but seemed to think there were some double handers laying
about ... somewhere. Fingers crossed on that one coming through.
There doesn't seem to be a lot of DH gear available downunder even
though there is a DH distance event at the casting champs.

That's a good site too thanks Peter,

Steve (scratting around for tackle ...what fun! :-)

[Stephen Welsh]

(Greg Pavlov) wrote in
:

> I'm sure that you've seen some of the heavy weight tackle
> that conventional tackle surf casters use.

I've been known to wheel out a 14 footer for hurling metal ...
it doesn't get a look in most of the time though - I much prefer
the presnetation possibilities of fly over metal - when you can
reach the fish that is. :-)

>
> Personally, I think that two-handed overhead casting fly rods
> coupled with shooting heads are functionally close to
> conventional surf tackle, tho you can still cast much further
> with the latter. My first surf fly rod was a two-hander that I
> had built because it seemed to make much more sense to me
> than attacking surf on ocean scale with one-handed 9 footers.
> Now, 3 years into it, I do use a few 9 footers in the surf as
> well, but the two-handers do make more sense to me overall.

I've had some fantastic fishing with the nine-footers as long as
conditions permitted - I don't see a lot of point using a D/H
out to fish a hole that is 50 feet off the beach. Wind may have
a say in that though.

I'd have to agree with you though, the D/H would seem to make
more sense overall.

Steve

[Peter Charles]

On 27 Nov 2003 21:32:14 GMT, Stephen Welsh
> wrote:

>Peter Charles > wrote in
:
>
>> Got to the http://speypages.com/speypages.htm and check out the
>> seventh video where Henrik Mortensen demonstrates the underhand
>> cast. This video also describes the basic powerstroke of the
>> overhead cast with a two-hander. Note how is bottom hand isn't
>> even gripping the rod -- how effortless the stroke. This stroke
>> would produce a 100'+ cast with ease.
>>
>
>Looks easy enough ;-)
>Kush's snake roll is pretty impressive too!
>
>Well, yestereve I went into the shop and cast about for the owner.
>Fine chap is Milton, anyway he's getting in a Loop Black Line 8/9
>for me to have a try of. And.... as luck would have it the T&T
>rep.
>wandered in at about the same time ... he was a little vague on
>details but seemed to think there were some double handers laying
>about ... somewhere. Fingers crossed on that one coming through.
>There doesn't seem to be a lot of DH gear available downunder even
>though there is a DH distance event at the casting champs.
>
>That's a good site too thanks Peter,
>
>Steve (scratting around for tackle ...what fun! :-)


The Loop Black Line 8/9 is a fairly lightweight, medium action, spey
outfit and it probably won't be too impressive overhead. The T&T
however . . .

Still, the all time overhead champ for me is my Scottish-made Daiwa
15'6" 11 wt. Very light, easy casting, and unfreakingbelievable
distance.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

[mmcgr]

Greg Pavlov wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 04:30:29 GMT, mmcgr > wrote:
>
>
>>I'd just remark that there is the important distinction here that with a
>>fly line you can deliver a fly or lure whose weight is not important to
>>your ability to cast far, unlike conventional tackle. ...
>
>
> You're wrong about the "conventional tackle:"
> I was fishing woolly buggers, stone flies, bead
> head nymphs, zonkers, and globugs several
> years before I ever cast a fly rod.
>
You miss the point. Those are all weighted flies, and possibly you added
some shot, all of which weight you needed to make a spin cast possible.
You would have gotten nowhere with a dry fly without a bubble. The only
reason a fly cast fly needs weight is to sink it.

Mike

[Stephen Welsh]

Peter Charles wrote:
>
>
>
> The Loop Black Line 8/9 is a fairly lightweight, medium action, spey
> outfit and it probably won't be too impressive overhead. The T&T
> however . . .

Thanks for the comment on the Loop ...I'd have preferred
the next size up (10/11) but that one doesn't come here ...
some weird decisions get made around the traps.
I'm really hoping the T&T guy can help out .. a lot.

and ...

>
> Still, the all time overhead champ for me is my Scottish-made Daiwa
> 15'6" 11 wt. Very light, easy casting, and unfreakingbelievable
> distance.

DW576W - 220 quid + p&p from a couple of places in the UK.

;-)



11wt might be over the top for the size fish - up to 3 kilo but
if that's what it takes to beat the wind and get the distance so be
it.


Steve (Actually fishzilla was 3 times that size ... zzzzzzzzzzzzzz :-)

[Stephen Welsh]

(Greg Pavlov) wrote in news:3fca6a52.75167995
@news.cis.dfn.de:

> WIth a two-hander I always feel like I have to
> go through a series of extra motions and some things
> are just a pain to do, like trying to untangle line at the
> tip of the rod. One reason for that, I'm sure, is that I am
> a klutz.
>


Don't feel bad, I have a friend who fishes a 6'6" glass rod and
*still* has trouble untangling line at the tip.

:-)

Steve

[mmcgr]

Greg Pavlov wrote:
....But your original claim was
> "... that there is the important distinction here that with a
> fly line you can deliver a fly or lure whose weight is not
> important to your ability to cast far, unlike conventional
> tackle. ..." That is not true: all types of gear can "deliver"
> a fly. The only real difference in that regard is that the
> weight needed to do so might be concentrated in
> several split shot or something similar, or stretched out
> over a 30 ft line.

Sigh... again you miss the point even while in effect conceding it. If
weight is not concentrated at or near the end of the line, the only way
a fly or lure can be cast is with a fly line.

Mike

[mmcgr]

Greg Pavlov wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 05:10:37 GMT, mmcgr > wrote:
>
>
>>Sigh... again you miss the point even while in effect conceding it.
>
>
> That is not true and you know it.
>
then pray tell me how a essentially weightless fly or lure can be cast
without a fly line.

Mike

[rw]

Greg Pavlov wrote:
>
> Fly fishing
> is fun and rewarding but it's fundamentally anachronistic.

How about when that bubble spooks not only the individual sipping trout
you're stalking, but also every other freaking fish in the pool?

I strongly disagree with your statement that flyfishing is
anachronistic, although it may have anacronistic features, seen most
obviously in the devotions of some gear whores for bamboo rods and silk
lines and the like.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[Sandy]

Greg Pavlov wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 01:21:59 GMT, rw >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> How about when that bubble spooks not only the individual sipping
>> trout you're stalking, but also every other freaking fish in the
>> pool?
>
>
> I agree in theory. But the two times I saw someone using a
> bubble he was catching fish. There was a good chance that
> they were stockers, tho.

I have fished bubble and fly, controller and fly and waggler and fly for
wild and stocked fish and caught both. The bubble and controller are for
lakes and reservoirs the waggler or avon float for rivers and streams (see
this link for this method
http://www.geocities.com/angling4sport/r_t/freshwater/trotting.html ) my
wife caught her one and only fish using this method not long after we were
married (good God thats was 30 years ago) on a wild highland stream that had
never seen a stocked fish.

The controller is a short 4"-6" piece of clear acryllic bar tapered at both
ends with a swivel drilled and glued in one end. Your cast of flies is
attached to this and the other end tied to another swivel on the end of your
spinning line. The controller is basically the weight , but because of its
shape can be made to swim at different depths by speeding up or slowing down
the retrieve, its depth can also be controlled by how long you let it sink
before retrieving, it can even be run across the bottom of the lake if
needed.

I haven't fished these methods for a long while now but i know they are
still used over here in Scotland and are still very effective in catching
fish, whether I think they are sporting or not is a different matter, but
everyone to his own.

--
Don`t Worry, Be Happy

Sandy
--

E-Mail:-
Website:- http://www.ftscotland.co.uk
IRC:- Sandyb in #rabble uk3.arcnet.vapor.com Port:6667
#Rabble Channel Website:- http://www.ftscotland.co.uk/rabbled
ICQ : 41266150

[Stephen Welsh]

Peter Charles > wrote in part
:

>
> No joke, my 15'6" 11 wt. is easier to cast all day than my 9' -
>
> They are catching on.
>
> Me in 1999:
>
> http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/trip-26.html
>

Found this while googling about this morning ...

http://www.flyfishinsalt.com/article.jsp?ID=32299&typeID=
334categoryID=259

Article is on DoubleHanders in the surf with some line and wt
recommendations


Steve

[Peter Charles]

On 7 Dec 2003 00:01:26 GMT, Stephen Welsh
> wrote:

>Peter Charles > wrote in part
:
>
>>
>> No joke, my 15'6" 11 wt. is easier to cast all day than my 9' -
>>
>> They are catching on.
>>
>> Me in 1999:
>>
>> http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/trip-26.html
>>
>
>Found this while googling about this morning ...
>
>http://www.flyfishinsalt.com/article.jsp?ID=32299&typeID=
>334categoryID=259
>
>Article is on DoubleHanders in the surf with some line and wt
>recommendations
>
>
>Steve


Stev, the URL doesn't seem to link to an article though I was able to
access the site OK. Where is it in the site? Must've spent 10
minutes looking for it to no avail.

Very interesting site, BTW.



Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

[Charlie Choc]

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 10:51:21 -0500, Peter Charles
> wrote:

>On 7 Dec 2003 00:01:26 GMT, Stephen Welsh
> wrote:
>
>>Peter Charles > wrote in part
:
>>
>>>
>>> No joke, my 15'6" 11 wt. is easier to cast all day than my 9' -
>>>
>>> They are catching on.
>>>
>>> Me in 1999:
>>>
>>> http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/trip-26.html
>>>
>>
>>Found this while googling about this morning ...
>>
>>http://www.flyfishinsalt.com/article.jsp?ID=32299&typeID=
>>334categoryID=259
>>
>>Article is on DoubleHanders in the surf with some line and wt
>>recommendations
>>
>>
>>Steve
>
>
>Stev, the URL doesn't seem to link to an article though I was able to
>access the site OK. Where is it in the site? Must've spent 10
>minutes looking for it to no avail.
>
The URL is missing an '&' between 334 and categoryID. Try
http://www.flyfishinsalt.com/article.jsp?ID=32299&typeID=334&categoryID=259
--
Charlie...

[Peter Charles]

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 11:02:56 -0500, Charlie Choc
> wrote:

>On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 10:51:21 -0500, Peter Charles
> wrote:
>
>>On 7 Dec 2003 00:01:26 GMT, Stephen Welsh
> wrote:
>>
>>>Peter Charles > wrote in part
:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> No joke, my 15'6" 11 wt. is easier to cast all day than my 9' -
>>>>
>>>> They are catching on.
>>>>
>>>> Me in 1999:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/trip-26.html
>>>>
>>>
>>>Found this while googling about this morning ...
>>>
>>>http://www.flyfishinsalt.com/article.jsp?ID=32299&typeID=
>>>334categoryID=259
>>>
>>>Article is on DoubleHanders in the surf with some line and wt
>>>recommendations
>>>
>>>
>>>Steve
>>
>>
>>Stev, the URL doesn't seem to link to an article though I was able to
>>access the site OK. Where is it in the site? Must've spent 10
>>minutes looking for it to no avail.
>>
>The URL is missing an '&' between 334 and categoryID. Try
>http://www.flyfishinsalt.com/article.jsp?ID=32299&typeID=334&categoryID=259


Got it, thanks.

The article confirms everything I found in '99 when I took my St.
Croix to the beach. I found some other advantages as well. When you
have a surf driving the fly inshore, you can lose contact with the fly
if you can't keep up with it while stripping. With the long rod, you
merely have to sweep the tip toward the beach and you'll maintain a
taut line throughout the last few feet of the surf line -- a place
where stripers will often hit. A two-hander is also much easier to
cast on your wrong side, either cross-body or wrong hand up -- a
valuable feature when the wind is howling on your normal casting
shoulder.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharles/streamers/index.html

[Stephen Welsh]

Peter Charles > wrote in
:

> Got it, thanks.

Sorry 'bout the missing & ... tossed up using makeshorterlink
and shoulda done ... ah well.

>
> The article confirms everything I found in '99 when I took my
> St. Croix to the beach. I found some other advantages as well.
> When you have a surf driving the fly inshore, you can lose
> contact with the fly if you can't keep up with it while
> stripping. With the long rod, you merely have to sweep the tip
> toward the beach and you'll maintain a taut line throughout the
> last few feet of the surf line -- a place where stripers will
> often hit.

I wasn't so much concerned at losing contact with the fly as
losing contact with the cast ... it happens ... losing 100ft + of
line sideways in the surf does concern me a little ... then I
thought I can use this to sweep the beach of "downstream" anglers -
well for at least 35 yds or so. Until some ******* cuts the line
.....

> A two-hander is also much easier to cast on your
> wrong side, either cross-body or wrong hand up -- a valuable
> feature when the wind is howling on your normal casting
> shoulder.

That's good to know.


Steve (Pest at range)