DT Fly line for a slower action rod.

On 6 Dec, 05:01, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Mike wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Have you ever bought a fly rod that was rated incorrectly
by the manufacturer ?

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

More total nonsense.

--
Ken Fortenberry

AFTM rating states that the first thirty feet of a #6 line must weigh
160 grains +/- 8 grains tolerance.

What is the rating of a #6 rod?

MC

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 20:10:13 -0800 (PST), Mike
wrote:
On 6 Dec, 04:49, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:


If I may be so bold....I believe what Mike is simply saying is that there
isn't any *standard* for rating a rod, while there is a standard for rating a
line.

I believe he said the following: "There is no "rating" as such for
blanks, or rods either for that matter."

To which I replied: "Total nonsense."

--
Ken Fortenberry

OK. The AFTM rating for a #6 weight line states that the first thirty
feet of line ( excluding the level tip if present) must weigh 160
grains +/- 8grains.

Could you tell me how you would "rate" a #6 weight rod?

MC

I think the point has been made, let's move on...

/daytripper

Mike wrote:

Could you tell me how you would rate a #6 weight rod?

To be fair, there are objective ratings and subjective ratings. People
rate movies and TV shows and fly rods, but not in the relatively
objective way that fly lines are rated. The difference is semantic.

Fortenberry is trying to pull your string. Don't fall for it.

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

On 6 Dec, 05:34, rw wrote:
Mike wrote:

Could you tell me how you would rate a #6 weight rod?

To be fair, there are objective ratings and subjective ratings. People
rate movies and TV shows and fly rods, but not in the relatively
objective way that fly lines are rated. The difference is semantic.

Fortenberry is trying to pull your string. Don't fall for it.

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

I don´t think so, he just refuses to grasp the matter. He can no
longer "pull my string" as you put it.

Also, I am not making the point for him, but for people who might be
interested.

In this case the difference is not semantic. The AFTM rating is an
absolutely concrete objective physical definition for any given line.

There is no AFTM definition for any given rod, there never has been,
and there never will be.

The rating of any fly rod is entirely subjective, and it has nothing
at all to do with the AFTM standards.

TL
MC

Mike wrote:


The rating of any fly rod is entirely subjective, and it has nothing
at all to do with the AFTM standards.

Correct. You and Fortenberry mean different things by "rating." That's
why the difference is semantic and not worth arguing about.

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

Mike wrote:
On 6 Dec, 05:01, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Mike wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Have you ever bought a fly rod that was rated incorrectly
by the manufacturer ?
The point is, that nobody has ever bought one which was "correctly"
rated, because there is no correct rating.
More total nonsense.

So you keep saying.

The AFTM rating for a #6 weight line states that the first thirty feet
of line, ( excluding the level tip if present) must weigh 160 grains
+/- 8 grains tolerance

Could you tell me how you would rate a #6 weight rod?

Me ? I'd just look at what the manufacturer wrote on it.
If it said 6wt, I'd rate it a 6wt.

There is no conspiracy afoot to fool the consumer and
one doesn't need a slide rule or a set of shooting heads
to determine which fly line to put on a fly rod. In the
vast majority of cases the manufacturer has correctly
determined the properly matching fly line, 100% of the
time in my experience.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Mike wrote:
snip
The rating of any fly rod is entirely subjective, and it has nothing
at all to do with the AFTM standards.

You keep repeating the same total nonsense. You may not like
the way manufacturers rate their fly rods but rate them they
do and they rate them to correspond with specific fly lines
which are standardized. And they rate them correctly damn near
every time so far as I can tell.

--
Ken Fortenberry

daytripper typed:
snip
I think the point has been made, let's move on...

Move on? MOVE ON!? Not while there's an opportunity to argue and fuss over
details that need have no argument - not on your life, buster!
--
TL,
Tim
-------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

"Mike" wrote in message
...

...The rating of any fly rod is entirely subjective, and it has nothing
at all to do with the AFTM standards.

Hm......

Given: 1. There are objective AFTM standards for fly line designations,
based on weight. 2. Any rod will perform differently with any one AFTM
line weight designation than with any other. 3. Expectations and
satisfaction are highly variable between individuals.

On the face of it, no.1 appears to suggest an objective element in fly rod
designations. On the other hand, no. 3 seems to leave the door wide open
for complete subjectivity. No. 2 looks like it could swing either way.

The crux of the issue lies in the fact that variable as expectations are,
they nevertheless tend to cluster; you'll have a hard time finding anyone
who insists that his 1 weight rod performs best with a 12 weight
line......or vice versa. But then, whether a particular 6 weight rod works
best in a given specific situation with a 5, 6, or 7 weight line is remains
highly debatable.

In short, there are certainly objective criteria in fly rod designations but
they shade into subjective judgments on the fine points. In other words, as
usual, you are both wrong. The debate, in this instance (and as is typical
here), hinges not on differences of opinion, resulting from different caches
of fact and interpretation, but rather on the fact that you are both
assholes to whom the truth of the matter (to whatever extent it may be
discoverable) is a monumental irrelevancy.

Carry on.

Wolfgang

"Mike" wrote in message
...

What is the rating of a #6 rod?

#6.

Wolfgang