Tying spade end hooks and hooklengths,or the inability to.

[sam vimes]

The reality is we both don’t know and are guessing. I think your wrong and I recon if the small size were available with eyes then people would switch over to them as they have for larger hooks as its more convenient and easier to tie. As for the supply I think its not there because its more difficult to make a good eye in very tiny sizes.

In addition the eye on a hook smaller than say 20 would be so tiny I doubt it would make any discernable difference to results over a spade. We are talking fractions of a millimeter here.



You wrote in some detail in an earlier post how people are over worrying about the line being cut through by a spade end yet you then warn people about the potential to cut off on an eye closure.

I’d say the risk is there for both, make either of them badly and they will all cut you off. If anything I’d say the potential for a bad spade is even worse as there is more exposed thin edge to potentially cut you off. The reality is with good well made hooks its not an issue for either.



When you get to an 18 or below then I imagine people will be burying the entire hook into say a caster so eye, spade, knot and whatever else is not on view anyway.
I can’t comment on your knot / crinkly lines as that’s down to how you tie your knots. The knots I use the most are Palomar and Knotless and I have very little issue with either of them albeit its fair to say I am probably using thicker lines than you most of the time.

Ok so now I have a question….The thing that intrigues me here is that if Spades really do offer this better presentation then why don’t people use them for larger hooks and baits as well ? Surely if people are that hung up on the microscopic difference that an eye on a Size 22 would make over a spade then you would think they would be equally anal about using a spade in the bigger sizes too.

There appears to be this magic threshold of around hook size 16/14 when suddenly the spade lovers ditch their principles!

It's astounding just how much you know about stuff you don't use and usually claim to know nothing about. I'll file spade end hooks, alongside centrepins, under stuff Philip doesn't use but miraculously knows all about.

 

[Philip]

It's astounding just how much you know about stuff you don't use and usually claim to know nothing about. I'll file spade end hooks, alongside centrepins, under stuff Philip doesn't use but miraculously knows all about.

Rather rude & out of character I would say & I went to quite some trouble not to be.

I didn’t realize alternatives opinions were not allowed so I’ll bow out there.

PS …a quick rummage through my hook pocket…

 

[sam vimes]

Rather rude & out of character I would say & I went to quite some trouble not to be.

I didn’t realize alternatives opinions were not allowed so I’ll bow out there.

PS …a quick rummage through my hook pocket…

View attachment 7948

I do apologize, you've obviously paid for the full half hour argument and I'm not going to oblige. Feel free to hold whatever opinion that you like, but I really don't wish to end up embroiled in another one of your pointless to and fros.
On yet another subject we fundamentally disagree, so be it. Us arguing about it won't change a thing.

 

[nottskev]

Has anyone tried the hook in a loop method of fishing, ?
As for joining hooklengths to mainline ,the two popular methods seem to be 4 turn water knot, great presentation but a nuisance to replace due to having to plumb up again, the other being loop to loop, easier to replace, a friend I fish with uses large loops on both mainline and hook length he reckons he gets a better presentation as the baited hook falls through the water, I have never tried it,preferring to keep loops as small as possible .

The hook in a loop method? No. I've only seen it mentioned but never shown or explained. What's the idea and what's it good for?

I've always been a loop-to-looper, apart from things like barbelling, where I'm likely to connect mainline and hooklength with a swivel. But just lately, I tried joining things with a knot where: lines overlapped, make a loop, two lower ends through the loop and tighten. It's so minimal and neat, I naturally assumed it would fail under stress. First time of trying it, I caught 30+ lb of good roach and perch on rod and line with a .10 hooklength tied to a .15 reel line and it survived all day. I got the idea - which I gather is donkey's years old - from this video by former world champion and Wye angler Clive Branson. It's at 19.20 on the video. His float-making videos, if you like floats for big rivers, are a treat, and he makes them to order through Gold Medal floats.

YouTube

 

[silvers]

Line coming off on the point side is the convention way of tying. When I was tying for the the Trade that is the method I used. When tying for myself I always have the line coming off at the back of the spade (the other side to the hook point). When you set the hook on the strike it is not like doing a direct lift with a crane. The hook tilts at the point. The rough geometry is that the force applied through the line can be split into two force vectors. The main one, acting through the line in a direction from the point, via the spade end to the rod is the one that puts the pressure on the fish. The secondary force is along the line of the point and this is the penatrating one that sets the hook. With the line coming off the hook in front of the shank there is a theoretical possibility of the spade cutting the line. In practice, as Sam Vines has pointed out, this does not seem to happen. I like to have the line coming off from the back of the spade. It is a personal foible of mine that I have done for many a year. I have not experienced increased loss of fish by "bumping off" and in my time I have bagged a stack of silver fish. Pete

The diagram of the spade end knot in Kevin Ashurst’s “world class match fishing” shows the same as your preference. I lose so many fish and miss bites with it tied that way that I concluded the diagram was a mistake ... and I have also caught loads of silver fish.
If you pull a hook length with the line draped over your finger, tied the standard way the hook catches nearly every time. Done the other way it doesn’t.

 

[no-one in particular]

Pete, if your tying so the line is at the back of the spade hook, is the line then rubbing alongside the edge of the spade as it sticks out backwards from the hook? I can see it will come round the side and miss most of the spade however, surely there is a risk of abrasion at this point.
...............
I just cannot get my mind round this; to me it looks logical. I also wonder if fish lost are blamed on other things when in fact it has broken because of the spade, surely this has happened, I just cannot believe it has never happened and more than eyed hooks, which, always look like a smooth rounded piece of metal with the line coming off the end with less chance of abrasion. Surely its basic engineering and physic principles. If you don't want something to break, you make everything as smooth as possible in any engineering I know of. I don’t see my way of looking at this is illogical, unfounded or kowtowing to any myth, just what I see with my eyes. If anything is rubbed alongside a sharp edge it is more likely to break than if it is rubbed alongside a rounded edge. and given the way they are tied less contact/chance of abrasion just above the knot from one to the other. What do people do when they want to break the rope tying thier hands, they look for a sharp edge not a blunt one, I still dont get it with spade hooks, why would anyone want thier line near anything sharp-never will I think.

 

[bracket]

The diagram of the spade end knot in Kevin Ashurst’s “world class match fishing” shows the same as your preference. I lose so many fish and miss bites with it tied that way that I concluded the diagram was a mistake ... and I have also caught loads of silver fish.
If you pull a hook length with the line draped over your finger, tied the standard way the hook catches nearly every time. Done the other way it doesn’t.

Interesting. Thanks for that silvers.You have obviously had a problem with losing fish and found a solution that suits you. I applaud that. So far I have not had that problem, but should I do I now have the benefit of your experiences to consider. That is the beauty of this Forum, the general free exchange of experiences and ideas and the discussion that follows. It allows people to adopt those things that suit them, whilst accepting those that don't are still valid and have merit. That is the enigma of angling, the uncertainty. It is what makes it such a compelling, intriguing. and life long pastime. On a lighter note I can recommend that you don't argue with Big Kev. I only did it once, at a Notts Fed open match, way back, and came off a poor second best. Pete.

 

[bracket]

Pete, if your tying so the line is at the back of the spade hook, is the line then rubbing alongside the edge of the spade as it sticks out backwards from the hook? I can see it will come round the side and miss most of the spade however, surely there is a risk of abrasion at this point.
...............
I just cannot get my mind round this; to me it looks logical. I also wonder if fish lost are blamed on other things when in fact it has broken because of the spade, surely this has happened, I just cannot believe it has never happened and more than eyed hooks, which, always look like a smooth rounded piece of metal with the line coming off the end with less chance of abrasion. Surely its basic engineering and physic principles. If you don't want something to break, you make everything as smooth as possible in any engineering I know of. I don’t see my way of looking at this is illogical, unfounded or kowtowing to any myth, just what I see with my eyes. If anything is rubbed alongside a sharp edge it is more likely to break than if it is rubbed alongside a rounded edge. and given the way they are tied less contact/chance of abrasion just above the knot from one to the other. What do people do when they want to break the rope tying thier hands, they look for a sharp edge not a blunt one, I still dont get it with spade hooks, why would anyone want thier line near anything sharp-never will I think.

markg. I entirely agree with your interpretation of physics. If a soft material consistently rubs against a harder one, abrasion will occur, that's why lubricants are used, to minimise friction and dissipate heat, water being a good example. I personally doubt failure would happen during an average session. Most likely one would have discarded the hook for losing its point, before resulting abrasion failure. To be honest, while this is an interesting and informative thread, which I hope does not turn sour, my overall view is that we are nit picking with regards to hook length failure. In this respect I don't think it matters a monkeys which way the the line comes away from the spade end. We all do our own thing, which is what we always do eventually. Pete.

 

[markcw]

I think were the line has been cut by the spade end could be due to inbalanced tackle, people using to fine a line for the size of the hook, Larger the hook ,larger the spade end. An option to prevent line slipping around the shank is either a small drop of super glue, or a drop of nail varnish to hold things place, it's not a perfect solution ,but can help on the day.

 

[no-one in particular]

I will try and put it a bit more succinctly-Given if both eyed and spade are properly tied and top quality what happens when a fish is hooked. If the hook is lightly embedded i.e. not much flesh around the bend and the fish moves from side to side the hook is more likely to move than the line but not necessarily so. If the hook is deeper embedded the line is more likely to move from side to side. If the line is coming from the front end of the spade it is more likely to miss encountering the sharp edge of the spade but possible. If it is coming from the back it is more likely to encounter the spade. Depending on where the hook is embedded top, bottom, right or left and the angle of the fish’s head, up, down, side left or right will greatly increase or decrease the chance of the line encountering the spade but, always a chance I would say. Now, it might happen rarely but I can’t believe it never happens and especially with light lines and that just occasionally a fish is lost and the bigger the fish the more pressure is applied and the more likely this will break the line which is even worse.
Just don’t have this with an eyed hook, whatever the line hook balance, the angle of fish head or level of embedment the line will not encounter anything other than where it is tied; which are two rounded surfaces anyway! Nothing sharp or pointed anywhere near the line.
To me that is logical and although a small risk something I don’t want to risk and to be honest I just don’t understand why anyone else would want to.
....
No designer anywhere in the world unless they were very bad would, where breaking and/or losing something important, which it always is; would put a small pointed sharp object anywhere near anything that they did not want to break and lose; especially with something as weak as fishing line. It just wouldn’t happen except in angling of course, nuts.

 

[sam vimes]

I have never deliberately tied a spade end hook with the line coming off the back of the shank. I use spade end hooks that mostly have a spade that leans back slightly. I can see a potential problem there if the line comes off the back, though my experience of it is limited to the odd mistakenly tied hook. I can't say that I've had any problems on the odd time I've noticed such a mistake. However, if the hook used has a straight spade then I very much doubt it would make any difference whether the line comes off front or back. I avoid tying spades with line coming from the back. With a hook with a spade that leans back I'm more concerned that the hook ends up not sitting right.

 

[nottskev]

Reading this thread, has made me wonder what those angling nearly-men - Ivan Marks, Kevin Ashurst, Dave Harrell, Alan Scothorne et al - could have achieved if only they'd been smart enough to use the right kind of hook.

I suggest a Fixing What Isn't Broken thread, fearlessly tackling sacred cows and dead parrots. Driving Tips for Lewis Hamilton, Golf Lessons for Rory McIlroy, Racket Choice Advice for Roger Federer .......

 

[Mark Wintle]

All of those 'nearly men' advocated the line coming off the inside of the spade. I've found hook up rates decline if the line ever slips to the back of the shank. I'm sticking to the line being on the inside of the shank and tying my hooks carefully.

 

[nottskev]

All of those 'nearly men' advocated the line coming off the inside of the spade.

But not through the eye! My comment is about the "spades are inferior" branch of the thread, not the "which side of the spade" strand.

 

[Richox12]

I have only one experience of line being ‘cut’ (that was my conclusion when it happened) by the spade.

I was fishing for barbel (not big, 2lb – 6lb) on the Severn many, many years ago. You could catch 10 – 15 even 20 relatively easy. Using Super Spades tied with line coming off the FRONT (as I always have and still do, I worry about line coming off the back with the angle of spade making it touch line and also they never hang straight anyway) I lost 2 (maybe 3) one after the other around the net. The line was easily strong enough for the job having done it before. I suspected (I did not know) that the barbel were shaking their heads so vigorously (they were fighting fit and even after being landed still wanted to fight you !!) and maybe even rummaging in the gravel that the spade was damaging the line. So I changed to same sized Super Specialists tied with a ½ blood. Then using exactly the same set-up etc etc landed every fish thereafter with no problems at all. I concluded that if the barbel were shaking so much the line possibly slipped around the shank and to the spade & got damaged. So the eyed hook allowed the line to move around the ring eye and there was nothing sharp there to break the line.

I don't actually know, it had never happened before, but that change worked 100%.

 

[silvers]

Interesting. Thanks for that silvers.You have obviously had a problem with losing fish and found a solution that suits you. I applaud that. So far I have not had that problem, but should I do I now have the benefit of your experiences to consider. That is the beauty of this Forum, the general free exchange of experiences and ideas and the discussion that follows. It allows people to adopt those things that suit them, whilst accepting those that don't are still valid and have merit. That is the enigma of angling, the uncertainty. It is what makes it such a compelling, intriguing. and life long pastime. On a lighter note I can recommend that you don't argue with Big Kev. I only did it once, at a Notts Fed open match, way back, and came off a poor second best. Pete.

Hi Pete,

i'm just more surprised that an angler of your obvious experience in floatfishing hasn't noticed a difference - as it is so marked in my experience (i'd estimate a 10 - 20% difference in success). The fact that you haven't found the same is provoking me to deliberately experiment at some point in the future - to make sure that my findings are not just confirmation bias.
Anecdotally I'd say the effect is most marked with fish that grab and dart at bait - especially dace and chub. But that could be because a lot of my fishing is about catching those.

Your explanation of the physics forces does tally with better hooking with wide gape hooks (if i understood correctly).

thanks for provoking thoughts

I also wouldn't argue with Kev - who's record is far better than mine ... I just assumed it was a drawing error by whoever compiled the illustrations.

 

[silvers]

To me that is logical and although a small risk something I don’t want to risk and to be honest I just don’t understand why anyone else would want to.

from a matchman's perspective if I get 20% more bites with spade ends then it's well worth the risk of the very occasional loss. And it really is an infintessimally small risk in my experience

 

[no-one in particular]

I can understand that from a match man point of view, better presentation, especially in the very small hooks will get more bites. I am a pleasure angler though and one day I might just hook the biggest roach I am ever likely to catch and I just wouldn’t be happy no matter how slim the chance that the line might just snag on the spade and I lose it. It might have already abraded a bit before that with other fish but, I don’t have that fear with eyed hooks.
I am not trying to change anyone’s mind and sacred cows and sacred anglers are not my thing, the old adage of if something doesn’t look right it probably isn’t and I just couldn’t get used to what looks a bit “not right” to me with a spade end hook.

 

[108831]

Pete,i think if you hook barbel,chub of a decent size with the line off the back of the spade,cut offs are almost certainly inevitable,because physics dictates the line can roll around the spade,that said if i found i was hitting more bites from silversh that i was targetting,i would do the same,ive caught carp twenty pounds on roach gear and i dont think the line could take the swinging around during a long fight like that,so i will remain an off the front fan...

 

[108831]

I will try and put it a bit more succinctly-Given if both eyed and spade are properly tied and top quality what happens when a fish is hooked. If the hook is lightly embedded i.e. not much flesh around the bend and the fish moves from side to side the hook is more likely to move than the line but not necessarily so. If the hook is deeper embedded the line is more likely to move from side to side. If the line is coming from the front end of the spade it is more likely to miss encountering the sharp edge of the spade but possible. If it is coming from the back it is more likely to encounter the spade. Depending on where the hook is embedded top, bottom, right or left and the angle of the fish’s head, up, down, side left or right will greatly increase or decrease the chance of the line encountering the spade but, always a chance I would say. Now, it might happen rarely but I can’t believe it never happens and especially with light lines and that just occasionally a fish is lost and the bigger the fish the more pressure is applied and the more likely this will break the line which is even worse.
Just don’t have this with an eyed hook, whatever the line hook balance, the angle of fish head or level of embedment the line will not encounter anything other than where it is tied; which are two rounded surfaces anyway! Nothing sharp or pointed anywhere near the line.
To me that is logical and although a small risk something I don’t want to risk and to be honest I just don’t understand why anyone else would want to.
....
No designer anywhere in the world unless they were very bad would, where breaking and/or losing something important, which it always is; would put a small pointed sharp object anywhere near anything that they did not want to break and lose; especially with something as weak as fishing line. It just wouldn’t happen except in angling of course, nuts.

I know several anglers who used to exclusively trot for big barbel on the Ivel,a guy named Simon Ward(wardy),his mate Keith(who owns the house next to Mrs Walker,****s wife) and the now sadly passed Keith Speers,all three used spade ends and all had very big barbel and a fair few of them,the second had three 17's and an 18lber,the latter had several over 16lb and a 17,didnt see them lose many,odd one came off,which were probably foul hooked anyway,now these fish fought hard and long on float tackle,a well tyed hook is essential for all fishing surely....