On Aug 15, 2:14 pm, Scott Seidman wrote:
mdk77 wrote in news:1187143425.516939.209290
@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com:
Another newbie question. Did the graphite rods progress from IM6 to
IM7 to the super-high modulus rods that are high-end models today? In
other words, was there a time when IM6 was the best graphite
available?
Just curious.
To some extent, I like to think that recent "improvements" in graphite are
nothing more than a way for the industry to get you to buy something you
already own. Then I try the Winston Borons, and think those are a huge
improvement. Do I "need" it? That's another story.
--
Scott
Reverse name to reply
That is a very interesting and germane observation.Many anglers,
probably most, donīt "need" the gear they have, and virtually none of
them needs a new rod every year. Most especially so if they only do
one particular type of fishing.
Although it often upsets people to hear it, most would be perfectly
fine with "mid range" rods, or even cheaper Korean and Chinese rods,
( which are also mainly mid range), than paying top dollar for the top
rods. The reasons are also exactly the same as in the car analogy
which is often used. There is no point buying a Maserati or a
Lamborghini if you only drive a few miles to work in heavy traffic
every day, and are not even a very good driver, but people still do
it.
You will still get to work, and possibly more reliably and in a more
robust fashion, and of course a lot cheaper if you buy a Ford. escort
( or whatever the American or other equivalent may be).
For top performance, you are obliged to sacrifice other things, and
you may well not even be able to use that performance, so you
sacrifice the other things for no good reason, and end up worse off
than you were. An expensive rod might under certain circumstances,
catch you a couple of fish you might not otherwise have caught, but
ONLY if you can use it to its full potential. It might also cause you
to catch fewer fish because you canīt use it properly anyway. In
which case you would be much better served with a cheaper but more
robust and generally suitable rod.
The main ( sensible) reason for buying a new rod, if if you have
improved your casting to the extent that the rod you have no longer
allows you to extend your abilities ( assuming you desire to do so).
Much the same now applies to expensive and specialty lines. At one
time the standard advice was to "buy the best line you can afford",
but what is the best? The most expensive? At one time there was not
really much choice, and buying the most expensive one more less
ensured that you did indeed get the best available. That will not work
now. Also the standard advice to beginners is no linger quite so
easy. I tell my pupils to use a cheap line for the first season, when
they are learning,n and then to throw it away and buy a good one, once
they actually know what they want. The lines may not cast as well as
some more expensive models, although even most cheapies cast well
enough if cast properly, but they will likely be ruined in a first
season anyway, also from practising on grass, catching up in trees and
bushes, being stooden on, etc all things that beginners do a lot! Why
waste money on an expensive line for that? Long before you can use it
properly anyway?
--
Regards and tight lines!
Mike Connor
http://www.mike-connor.homepage.t-online.de/
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/Flycorner?hl=en