Desirability Then and Now

[Lanny]

Hi,
An opinion topic, just curious. Why do so many anglers today seem to enjoy fishing shorter rods and lighter lines, when (based on the number I see available in the vintage rod market) the 9', 6 or HDH weight seems to have been the most popular in bamboo's golden age?

[NewUtahCaneAngler]

In bamboo's golden age, an angler likely owned one rod that was used for streams, rivers, lakes, and ponds with flies, streamers, and worms. They likely trolled with the same rod.

Today, anglers have more discretionary income, thus can afford more than 1 rod and likely (but not always) use a different type of rod for fishing lakes.

I fish smaller streams and rivers, thus prefer rods between 5' and 7 1/2'

[jim royston]

I think that you are being influenced by the huge numbers of mass produced rods offered on Ebay. They do not reflect what the serious, well heeled flyfisherman used, going back over a century.

[para_adams]

For me, longer rods can do everything better except avoid trees and bushes on small streams, and I prefer the way they translate the feel of the cast so I'm personally not surprised that they were the rod of choice for the majority of fly fishers. And when you think back to the Great Depression when every penny's cost mattered and when many low end rods saved money by extending the reel seat past the end of the cane, longer rods used more cane and would have cost more to produce, so the higher production numbers weren't driven by manufacturing efficiencies. Times have changed, but I guess I'm somewhat nostalgic, or maybe just plain old, LOL. I'm just glad the 8-1/2' rods are relatively cheap today.

[Flykuni3]

Men were men in those days, they didn't mind a 5 lb. rod and 8 lb. reel, and a case of carpal tunnel like a 9-year-old running a textile loom in a dank fire trap of a Gilded Age factory outside of Akron, Ohio. You know, the Mormon folks walked the damn prairie with everything they owned in a heavy cart, powered by themselves, or their wives and daughters 'cause there were tough women in those days. In fact, they even named a fly after the girls.

I confess I yam a modern wimp, and fish rods 8' and under, and even then it's a challenge. Waaa.

[Seabowisha Salmo T]

Men were men in those days, they didn't mind a 5 lb. rod and 8 lb. reel, and a case of carpal tunnel like a 9-year-old running a textile loom in a dank fire trap of a Gilded Age factory outside of Akron, Ohio. You know, the Mormon folks walked the damn prairie with everything they owned in a heavy cart, powered by themselves, or their wives and daughters 'cause there were tough women in those days. In fact, they even named a fly after the girls.

I confess I yam a modern wimp, and fish rods 8' and under, and even then it's a challenge. Waaa.

hello, fly; i have rods from 6 1/2 feet to 16 feet. usually fish with a(n) f e thomas 8 foot rod. i really enjoy taking my ev garrison modified 9 feet 9 inches leonard knight 99 rod out for a day of exercise.
regards, jim w

[Flykuni3]

You ARE Popeye, with massive forearms.

[Booman2]

Lines have changed and load faster. Leader material is much improved, and some high-end fly grease can float an anvil. Hatchery browns and rainbows have mostly replaced native brookies, so we are fishing 'on top' more. This may be part of it. However, "shorter/faster" is working for snow skis, kayaks and other things.
Personally, a good 8 footer for a #5 works a line very well for me, then up to a 8'6" #6, and (for steelhead) a good old Winston or Howells 9 footer for a #9 can't be beat. Just my opinion.

[PT48]

My faltering, 72 year old body is crying out for lighter weighted rods which, in bamboo, means shorter rods.

[thegreek]

Years ago, almost all of my rods were 8 footers. Now, as a Medicare Man, I no longer own any 8' rods, and I enjoy the 7' to 7'9" rods much more.

[Brooks]

Longer rods for me. 7’9” is the shortest rod I own.
Longest is 12’. 8, 8’3”, 8’6”, 9’ are sweet spots for my trout fishing. 12’ for two-handed steelhead. The 7’9” is my tiny creek rod.

[Caneghost]

Wasn't around then, but now I think many simply find shorter rods more pleasant to fish. Many guys don't cast very far so short rods work perfectly. I fish larger rivers and if push comes to shove I fish an 8 footer more often. I fish a couple 8 1/2' rods when appropriate. Enjoy short rods too, though it can be more work to fish long with them - more casting strokes and more rapid strokes to elevate and cast 50' to 70' of line when fine and far off is required. Carpal tunnel (severe) and arthritis have put my 9 footers up for sale recently. I'd be fishing them if I could.

[carl otto]

There is no winning this discussion. Logic and mechanics favors a longer rod. One should fish as long a rod as possible. Past and present demonstrate the most favored rods are in an around the 9 foot length. I grew up using a 6 WT., 8 1/2 foot Heddon Pal and fished mainly brushy 10-20 foot width streams. Seldom did I wish I had a shorter rod and often enough when things opened up (a beaver pound of pool) I had the longer rod in hand to handle the condition. One adapts. Look at Joe Humphreys, what do you see him fishing on his little PA streams back in the rhododendron choked mountains, a 9 foot rod. You can cast further when you need to, more line control on the water with drys and nymphs, less line on the water close in. After over 50 years, I favor my longer bamboo rods. I know I own a Midge, but can't remember the last time I fished it, and I am a fan of the PHY Driggs and Perfectionist, so they get used too..

The weight issue is always thrown out. Most of the weight is in the reel and line in an outfit, not the rod (yea yea there is the micro size and lightweight reel crowd to contend with). Just look at a catalog of reels past and present and the variance in reel weights for similar sized/capacity reels, etc. (as much as a 100%). Also the amount of backing, if any, comes into play. A well balanced outfit is what one should strive to have in place. Two different reels on the same rod have proven to give very differing results in the casting performance of that rod. So the casting pleasure noted, could be resolved just with the correct weighted outfit.

It all comes down to, are you fishing? and are you having fun? If this can be enhanced by rod length, reel choice, practice, increased knowledge/education, that's your choice. No one is forcing one to change or improve.

Best,

Carl

[Woodlakejag]

The first bamboo rod I purchased was about 20 years ago, a 9 ft Montague at a flea market. I fished it a few times, caught some trout on it, and put it away. The experience was fun but not enjoyable enough to convert me to bamboo or open my eyes to why people used bamboo. Then 15 years later I had the opportunity to cast an 8 ft and 7’6” bamboo rods. Casting these rods completely changed my opinion and launched me down the rabbit hole of collecting.
In my opinion, the functionality of bamboo decreases by weight/length in comparison to graphite. You just cant do as much with a 9 ft bamboo rod as you can with a 9 ft graphite rod. But at 8 ft, you are closing that gap substantially.
So, prior to glass/graphite, a 9 ft bamboo rod made sense. Once the glass and graphite came along, they started dominating the 9 ft market and bamboo became more popular in shorter lengths.

[nativebrownie]

Hmmm... I adore the craft and beauty of a fine cane rod. So more beauty makes sense to me - so longer rods. Besides the look and feel, my Leonard 9' Catskills are perfect on the small eastern streams where I wander...

[Seabowisha Salmo T]

There is no winning this discussion. Logic and mechanics favors a longer rod. One should fish as long a rod as possible. Past and present demonstrate the most favored rods are in an around the 9 foot length. I grew up using a 6 WT., 8 1/2 foot Heddon Pal and fished mainly brushy 10-20 foot width streams. Seldom did I wish I had a shorter rod and often enough when things opened up (a beaver pound of pool) I had the longer rod in hand to handle the condition. One adapts. Look at Joe Humphreys, what do you see him fishing on his little PA streams back in the rhododendron choked mountains, a 9 foot rod. You can cast further when you need to, more line control on the water with drys and nymphs, less line on the water close in. After over 50 years, I favor my longer bamboo rods. I know I own a Midge, but can't remember the last time I fished it, and I am a fan of the PHY Driggs and Perfectionist, so they get used too..

The weight issue is always thrown out. Most of the weight is in the reel and line in an outfit, not the rod (yea yea there is the micro size and lightweight reel crowd to contend with). Just look at a catalog of reels past and present and the variance in reel weights for similar sized/capacity reels, etc. (as much as a 100%). Also the amount of backing, if any, comes into play. A well balanced outfit is what one should strive to have in place. Two different reels on the same rod have proven to give very differing results in the casting performance of that rod. So the casting pleasure noted, could be resolved just with the correct weighted outfit.

It all comes down to, are you fishing? and are you having fun? If this can be enhanced by rod length, reel choice, practice, increased knowledge/education, that's your choice. No one is forcing one to change or improve.

Best,

thanks, otto; and my rule is: a long rod will do anything a short rod can do. a short rod is, well, short.
regards, jim w

Carl

[wineslob]

"a long rod will do anything a short rod can do. a short rod is, well, short."



We ARE talking fly rods........................................right?

[PYochim]

I don't buy into the myth that small waters require short rods and larger waters require a longer rod. My shortest cane is an 8 footer.

[ARTHURK]

Hi,
An opinion topic, just curious. Why do so many anglers today seem to enjoy fishing shorter rods and lighter lines, when (based on the number I see available in the vintage rod market) the 9', 6 or HDH weight seems to have been the most popular in bamboo's golden age?

Hi Lanny,

There are actually two ways to answer your query... one pertaining to the title ie Desirability whereby we assume 9’ 6wt rods are most ‘in demand’ and another about ‘why we prefer vintage short & light rods’.

My take on this is that, as many have mentioned, when one should own a single rod, then the longer rod ‘did the job’ in most instances...this practical rule also applies to owning only one modern graphite rod... 9’ 6wt might just be the ticket ( except weight and power wise, the graphite is very different from bamboo). That said, being longer & practical doesn’t mean it has the best feel or performance for everyone ( to some its a little like using a cleaver to peel an Apple)... It’s just the most versatile.

Those of us who fortunately can afford collectible rods go for ‘feel’ and how each configuration fits our fishing. I have Long & Strong, Long & Light, short & fast, short & soft , with many different actions in between. They all suite different situations and even different days when I decide on a different ‘feel’.

But if we are talking about collecting, it is based on rarity and demand. I feel some are able to own and fish short & light rods as casting & fish-playing techniques and even line designs have improved since those Fairy and featherweight rods were made long ago. I used to fish 0 wt graphite rods and tiny flies before using cane and as such I didn’t feel Short & light cane rods were a handicap. The fact that they were rare, delicate in feel & exquisitely made just added to the enjoyment.

Cheers
Arthur

[Seabowisha Salmo T]

hello, arthur;
that is an excellent summary. however, can you imagine any set of tackle you could yank out of your roller anywhere as elegant and fitting to angle for trout, salmon, char, et c as a ten-and-a-half-foot leonard with full fighting butt and a giant and heavy hardy winch? the gillums, brandins might be best pulled from, perhaps, an alfa zagato.
cheers, stay safe, jim w