DT Fly line for a slower action rod.

Mike wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Total nonsense.

Unfortunately, unlike AFTM line ratings (which correspond directly to
the weight of the first 30 feet of the line), the rating of fly rods
is subjective.

It may be subjective and you may not agree with it but fly
rods are rated by the manufacturer to correspond with AFTMA
line ratings. To claim there is no rating is total nonsense.

In my experience, (Winston, Sage, T&T, Scott, Orvis, Redington,
Cabela's etc.), I have never encountered a fly rod which was
rated incorrectly. It may happen, I don't know, but I can't see
what incentive a manufacturer would have to deliberately label
a fly rod with the wrong line designation.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On 6 Dec, 01:15, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Mike wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Total nonsense.

Unfortunately, unlike AFTM line ratings (which correspond directly to
the weight of the first 30 feet of the line), the rating of fly rods
is subjective.

It may be subjective and you may not agree with it but fly
rods are rated by the manufacturer to correspond with AFTMA
line ratings. To claim there is no rating is total nonsense.

In my experience, (Winston, Sage, T&T, Scott, Orvis, Redington,
Cabela's etc.), I have never encountered a fly rod which was
rated incorrectly. It may happen, I don't know, but I can't see
what incentive a manufacturer would have to deliberately label
a fly rod with the wrong line designation.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ooops! Silly me........ Seems I forgot the quotation marks in my
last post, and the source;

"Unfortunately, unlike AFTM line ratings (which correspond directly to
the weight of the first 30 feet of the line), the rating of fly rods
is subjective. For example, I might test a fly rod and consider it
perfect for a number 6 line, while someone else deems the same rod
better suited to a number 7 line. In my experience, American
manufacturers tend to under-rate their rods, which often work better
with lines one or two sizes heavier than indicated."

http://www.michaelevans.co.uk/advice_Choosing_a_Rod.asp

It does not matter how many times you or anybody else writes it, there
is NO STANDARD for rod weights, it is entirely subjective.

In most cases it will be good guide, that is all.

The ONLY measurable standard is for fly lines.

MC

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Mike wrote:

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

Total nonsense.


Unfortunately, unlike AFTM line ratings (which correspond directly to
the weight of the first 30 feet of the line), the rating of fly rods
is subjective.


It may be subjective and you may not agree with it but fly
rods are rated by the manufacturer to correspond with AFTMA
line ratings. To claim there is no rating is total nonsense.

You're just trying to stir up trouble. It's so obvious.

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

http://www.sexyloops.com/beginners/lesson2/aftm.shtml

MC

Mike wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Mike wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Total nonsense.
Unfortunately, unlike AFTM line ratings (which correspond directly to
the weight of the first 30 feet of the line), the rating of fly rods
is subjective.
It may be subjective and you may not agree with it but fly
rods are rated by the manufacturer to correspond with AFTMA
line ratings. To claim there is no rating is total nonsense.

In my experience, (Winston, Sage, T&T, Scott, Orvis, Redington,
Cabela's etc.), I have never encountered a fly rod which was
rated incorrectly. It may happen, I don't know, but I can't see
what incentive a manufacturer would have to deliberately label
a fly rod with the wrong line designation.

Ooops! Silly me........ Seems I forgot the quotation marks in my
last post, and the source; ...

Posting nonsense or quoting nonsense, what's the difference ?
It's still nonsense.

--
Ken Fortenberry

rw wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
It may be subjective and you may not agree with it but fly
rods are rated by the manufacturer to correspond with AFTMA
line ratings. To claim there is no rating is total nonsense.

You're just trying to stir up trouble. It's so obvious.

Have you ever bought a fly rod that was rated incorrectly
by the manufacturer ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

http://www.letsflyfish.com/aftmprobs.htm

On 6 Dec, 01:40, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Have you ever bought a fly rod that was rated incorrectly
by the manufacturer ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

The point is, that nobody has ever bought one which was "correctly"
rated, because there is no correct rating.

The ONLY defined standard is for fly-lines. There is NO defined
rating for rods. ANY so-called AFTM ratings on rods are purely
subjective.

MC

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
rw wrote:

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

It may be subjective and you may not agree with it but fly
rods are rated by the manufacturer to correspond with AFTMA
line ratings. To claim there is no rating is total nonsense.


You're just trying to stir up trouble. It's so obvious.


Have you ever bought a fly rod that was rated incorrectly
by the manufacturer ?


I've bought rods that didn't perform best (IMO) with the suggested line
rating, if that's what you mean.

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

rw wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:

Have you ever bought a fly rod that was rated incorrectly
by the manufacturer ?

I've bought rods that didn't perform best (IMO) with the suggested line
rating, if that's what you mean.

I once owned a fairly decent 9wt Sage XP.

Labeled 7.

Hated that rod.

- JR