Shorter rods for heavy streamer fishing

[Mangrove Cuckoo]

That 8'10" Sector in 11 wt is the nicest big tarpon rod that I have ever fished! It is definitely overkill for pike though.

But... it doesn't count as a short rod in my mind. When casting, it doesn't feel much different than the usual 9' rod, at least to my hands.

When you cast those 8'4" rods, then the difference is obvious.

[FishNoGeek]

I know, that there were shorter - 7´11´´- rods on the market. I think they had to meet some bass tournament fishing regulations?
I know those from Ross. They came in #6,#8 and #10.
I have the #8. Its very good for casting, I used it also for wading around some Hawai islands and for pike/boat.
But this rod never became really familiar with me, not to much feeling and a lenght, that is a bit under my prefered 8´2´´ to 8´6´´ with the carbons.

I've still got a few of those 7'11" Ross Worldwide "FlyStik" rods, and you're right: they made them for bass tournaments which, at one time (or in some places), had an 8ft limit on rods. I've never been interested in the bass scene, so I don't know if/when that rule went into effect or if it's still a thing.

I have spent a fair bit of time throwing those rods in all three weights. I found them to be fairly picky about which lines performed well, and for my fishing purposes, they lack versatility and feel. I fished the 6wt more than the 8wt or 10wt, but that's partly because it's rare that I tangle with fish (or throw flies) beastly enough to justify the 8wt or 10wt. The 6wt is VERY stiff, and it's plenty of rod even for large carp and bass up to 10lbs.

I think the 8wt would be useful for, say, 10lb+ peacocks. The 10wt would be able to handle most tarpon, and it helps that you give away less leverage to the fish with the shorter rods. If ever I went back to chase tuna or mahi-mahi in Baja, that 10wt might be good.

But none of those rods are much fun to cast. They'll get the job done, but I wouldn't reach for them first, and I wouldn't ever give them to novice casters.

[FishNoGeek]

I've been playing with the 8'6" 6wt and 8'6" 8wt models from the Winston Air 2 MAX lineup for the past few months - review pending. I've been moderately surprised by how different they feel from their 9ft cousins and VERY surprised by how different they are from each other. The 686-4 has become one of my favorite 6wts ever; it's extremely light in the hand, crisp, responsive, and accommodates a shockingly wide range of lines. It's fast, but not offensively so; it wouldn't be the first rod that I hand to a newbie, but it wouldn't be out of the question. I wouldn't use it to throw dry flies at trout, but I'd absolutely grab it to throw big streamers and saltwater flies.

Comparing it to the 9ft version, I'd say that the 686 is feels lighter and crisper while the 690 feels a little smoother; nothing wrong with either. I've thrown 14 different lines on the 686 now, ranging from long bellies to short heads to intermediates and sinking tips. I like some of those better than others on that rod, but I can't say that any of them were outright rejects - and that was surprising to me. It even handled a wildly overweight mystery sinktip that I ended up having to fish for multiple days thanks to a string of poor packing decisions that I'd rather not discuss.

The 886 is a radically different beast. It's far less versatile, and I struggled to make friends with it. The rod designer finally set me straight: it's really made primarily for extremely heavy sink tips, meaning that it's effectively the modern version of the old Winston "Jungle" rods. I put one of those on it, and it's great. I compared it to the 9wt version and, like the 6wt, found it to be a touch smoother (and more versatile) but not demonstrably better - and in the jungle, I'd rather be fighting heavy fish with a shorter rod.

Back to Reinhard's original question: my impression from actively trying to semi-scientifically compare sub-9ft rods to 9ft rods is that....alas, it really depends on the rod. I consistently found the 9ft rods to be "smoother" but the shorter rods to be lighter and crisper. They all do the job casting-wise, and the differences are fairly nuanced. When fighting genuinely heavy fish on heavy leader - thinking here about big peacocks, bowfin in heavy cover, dorado, tuna, tarpon....maybe toman with Paul, someday - then I do think the shorter rods give you some advantage over the longer rods. Longer rods do a better job of protecting light leaders, but you're handing leverage to the fish; if you're running heavy leaders, run shorter rods.

[sms]

Vision at least used to make 8’4” CF rods for pike fishing (Big Daddy and Big Mama).

[SevenWeight]

...
I know, that there were shorter - 7´11´´- rods on the market. I think they had to meet some bass tournament fishing regulations?
....

Reinhard, the 7' 11'' rods here in the US were graphite rods from Sage. I think it was their effort at expanding their market to the bass fishing consumers which represents a huge market compared to more traditional fly fishing. These rods were first offered in about 2008. They were produced in three models: the "Bluegill" (the lightest), the "Smallmouth" and the "Largemouth" (the heaviest model). All were 7' 11" and came with a custom line built specifically for the rods. The first generation had a parabolic action that many would call "slow."

The lines provided with the Bass rods were what many Sexyloopers would call brick-on-a-string lines, with short heads. I purchased and used the original "Smallmouth" model and the line that came with it was about the same weight as a 10-weight line by AFTMA standards. In addition to the line that came with the rod, I sometimes used it with a 7-weight "Bass Bug Taper" line from one of the prominent line manufacturers. That line was probably an 8-weight by the AFTMA standard.

A year or two after the original "Bass" models were released, Sage came out with the "Bass II" rods which were not as "slow"/parabolic as the original models. I cast the Bass II in a tackle shop parking lot and decided to stick with the original model, which I used pretty much exclusively for casting larger poppers from a kayak in moving water. I had no need for longer casts in the fishing I was doing at the time. The rod would flex all the way down into the cork when playing smallmouth bass, and between the flex and shorter length, it was very handy for playing and landing fish while sitting or standing in a kayak in moving water. There was a premium on landing fish quickly and not exhausting the fish before releasing, and the shorter, more flexible rod was an advantage for this over a 9' faster action rod. Sage offered the blanks for sale in addition to the completed rods.

I no longer have the Sage Bass rod and my casting style, objectives and skill have evolved greatly in the years since so I couldn't say much more about it as a casting tool.

[Mangrove Cuckoo]

I think I may have cast one of the 886 Winston rods at the last show I attended?

I know it was from a manufacturer that I was not very familiar with, but is held in high regard by others... and Winston is in that category for me.

I remember being shocked by how the rod felt and cast. It was the stiffest low section with the fastest/ lightest tip on a rod that I had ever cast... and it was definitely a 8' and change length. The booth had set it up with some usual floating line which seemed very mismatched.

I had not chosen the rod on purpose. The booth was busy and the rod was the easiest to grab, so that is how I ended up with it at the pond.

I was done casting it shortly after, and when I returned it I asked one of the booth stooges what the deal was with the blank. He started in with the usual sales speak and it was obvious he had no insight into the particulars of that version.

So I thanked him and left.

It was probably the most unusual fly rod that I have ever cast, and not in a good way, at least for me.

I think these sub 9' rods have their positives and negatives, just like all the other options. For me, in heavy sizes (like 10 and up) I find casting them easier, as far as effort goes. And I also like them for fighting large fish. Whether they cast very large flies better is not something I can say one way or the other. I thought I cast larger flies, but my flies seldom exceed 5 or 6 inches. Pike and Musky anglers have taken the "large" fly thing to another level.

I think everyone will agree that these shorter rods are not an advantage for distance though?

I have a few sub 9' rods that are in the lighter weights (for saltwater fishing) and I use a 6 and an 8 quite often. But, I do not always find them particularly better for casting - I use them because they are much more practical for fishing from a canoe, which is something I do more than anything else. They feel light, crisp, and accurate but they require a bit more concentration - which sometimes outweighs the other three characteristics.

And while I can still normally cast farther than the other guy in the bow of the canoe, with these shorter rods I actually have to try!

[Torsten]

Hi,

shorter rods for streamer fishing seem to be a very small market niche - I checked the Sage homepage and they offer no rod 8ft or less for line classes >=7. I tried once a shorter rod for ICSF fly accuracy, wasn't that great because the likelihood of hitting yourself with the (sinking) line/fly was much higher - wouldn't like it with clousers etc. For float tubing I prefer rather a 10' rod.

Greetings,
Torsten

[sms]

Scott Sector is available in 8’4” for line recommendations of 6, 8, 10, 13 and 14.

[Mangrove Cuckoo]

I had an interesting (to me anyway) play this evening in the field behind my house.

I took out three different versions of 8wt Scott flyrods and cast the same 8wt SA Redifish line one each, switching the line back and forth a few times.

The three versions were:
the 8'4" Sector
the 8'8" Heliply
and the 9' (recently discontinued) Tidal.

Not surprisingly, I guess, if I had to give two away, I would keep the Sector. It is, of course, much more recent build and is the top of their current line for saltwater. Modern design and material is evident. It also fits under the gunwales of a canoe which is actually quite important when mangrove creeks are commonly traveled, and the ease of casting poppers short distances with accuracy is also a main criteria for me. It casts like a dream.

However, if I was just interested in a rod for the pure joy of casting, I would have to rate the Tidal as my favorite. I really thought the Tidal was possibly an attempt at capturing the flavor of the Heliply with more modern graphite. And I still do. The fact that this model was a true "mid-pricer" (I think MSRP was about $450 ?) is another wow factor. The fact that I might find a used one on-line at an even more reduced price is something I keep chasing out of my mind. I can't help but wonder what a 6wt would cast like!

A missing Scott model was a Wave, which replaced the Tidal. The design of that rod is a big departure. It is fast, light and, much like a HT, a laser-like producer of tight loops. Not that any of that is bad, its just not my style.

That leaves the Heliply. It still is, in my mind, a magical rod. But, when comparing it to more modern builds things show up. The swing weight is higher and the components are showing their age, due to both time, use, and outdated materials. What really stands out is how well that model damped! No matter how hard you bang it, the rod bounces once and vibrations cease. Very impressive for the time when these rods were made.

I have no affiliation with Scott and have never met Jim Bartski (apparently I'm not even sure how to spell his name) but I have a feeling if we were to cast side by side, we would have very similar styles. He has managed to design a number of rods that just fit me very well.

Do I think anyone else should buy a Scott rod? Nope - at least not without trying one first. I think that goes for any and every rod label out there (Sorry Paul).

Cast every rod you can get your hands on. Join a club, and if they don't have a casting "get together", start one. And ask to cast or swap rods / lines with everyone that shows up. Be a pain in the ass at the fly shop - cast every rod in there. Go to any and every show you can.

The "fit" of a fly rod is more personal than for shoes... and I'll bet you never buy shoes without trying 'em on first! And if the one that fits you best just happens to be an obsolete "bargain" model just be proud, smile, and challenge the snobs to a casting comp!

[FishNoGeek]

That sounds like a fun evening, but it didn't include my two favorite recent Scott models: the Radian and Meridian. If I were allowed to keep only two rods in my entire stash, it'd be my 691-4 Radian and 790-4 Meridian. I really like the Centric and Sector (would love to have that 8'10" 10wt 4pc), and I'll probably never sell my HP 888-3, and I liked the Tidal as well. I've only thrown one Wave, and it was....fine. I haven't thrown the Session yet, but I'm sure it's solid.

It's rare that I find a rod that I just can't throw or genuinely don't like, and I don't really have any particular brand loyalties or dislikes (except for Orvis - and even there I'm willing to grant that most of the H3s and H4s are great). Our current fishing (salt and fresh) + casting quiver is a quirky mix of Sage, Loomis, Winston, Scott, Burkheimer, T&T, Edge, and Mauser, spiced up with a HT and a few custom glass rods. But it's rarer still that I find rods that I love with a wide variety of lines, and for both fishing and pure casting practice. Both the Radian and Meridian punch those tickets for me.