What is Traditional Angling?

[no-one in particular]

My view of wooden rods is that they have been around for hundreds of years, the seeking of the perfect rod, accumulated knowledge and craftmanship that went into them had been going on a lot longer than modern materials. I think this culminated in split cane and once you get to the top range of split cane, you have the best of all those years of research, craftmanship etc., they cannot be rubbish. Would it have got better? who knows because it was cut short by the advent of glass fiber etc. but I doubt there was anywhere much further to go. They are in fact, still perfect tools for the purpose of catching and landing fish, still nice to use. I think this heavy thing is made too much of like they weigh a ton and you need a weight lifter's arms to use them. they are not heavy, not the good ones; just heavier than a modern rod but it is fractionable. They are not as durable as modern material certainly, those rods seem to have an indefinite usability and wooden ones can break easier and can warp; but that is all, I think maybe too much of the wooden rod's ability to play fish though. In my opinion it is slightly better, I like the softer feel of these rods but that does not mean they are miles better than any modern rod. In looks they look better to me but that is not important however; it is nice to admire something that is a bit more pleasing to eye when your fishing.
The bonus for me is that I can still pick some up for very little money in auctions and house clearance places, I wouldn't pay full whack for many of them, but while they can still be cheap and good investments is another draw for me.

 

[John Aston]

Each to their own but their longevity and heritage doesn't make them any better in my book. They may have been developed over the ages to be as good as they can be , the workmanship can be a thing of beauty but they will always be constrained by the simple fact of being made out of wood . I've owned and used them but they are heavy - which is bearable in a rod you don't hold all day , but unbearable in fly rod - their action is incredibly slow and you have to look after them .

I am totally unsentimental about tackle , it is a means to an end for me . That said , I have some favourites - such as my lovely little Shimano Zodias lure rod , my Hardy Sovereign #3/4 weight and my incredibly light and lissom Hardy Acolyte Ultra. But if something betters comes along , they will be looking for a new home .

 

[no-one in particular]

Each to their own but their longevity and heritage doesn't make them any better in my book. They may have been developed over the ages to be as good as they can be , the workmanship can be a thing of beauty but they will always be constrained by the simple fact of being made out of wood . I've owned and used them but they are heavy - which is bearable in a rod you don't hold all day , but unbearable in fly rod - their action is incredibly slow and you have to look after them .

I am totally unsentimental about tackle , it is a means to an end for me . That said , I have some favourites - such as my lovely little Shimano Zodias lure rod , my Hardy Sovereign #3/4 weight and my incredibly light and lissom Hardy Acolyte Ultra. But if something betters comes along , they will be looking for a new home .

I don't know much about fly rods but I did have a split cane one that I inherited from my great aunt once. I wouldn't imagine it would suit modern fly fishing on reservoirs but it was fine for some gently fly fishing as far as I could tell. I used it a bit until I lost the top section, it was a floppy thing but it worked. I also have what they call a "Wallop Brook" rod. I am not sure if it is supposed to be a fly rod but it looks a bit like one, only 6ft 9in and very light; lovely construction and delicate.. I have never used it but it is supposed to be much sort after and fetches what is probably silly money. I can see its merits for what it must have been designed for, small brook fishing, in fact I think there is a Wallop Brook, I am not saying they are better just that they are still good rods in their own right and cheap too if you know where to look.
I have all sorts of rods some bad, some good, some I just like, I think what I am trying to say is I don't differentiate them based on their age or on what they were made of, they all fall into one of those categories more or less and they get used accordingly.

 

[Keith M]

When you fly fish you get more enjoyment from catching fish on man made flies and bugs and being able to mimick them and cast them well enough to fool the fish into taking them; even though there are much easier ways to catch them.
So what’s the difference to someone who enjoys using well made split cane rods?

Yes there are rods today that weigh very little and with superb actions but there are also split cane rods that can be a pleasure to use for some.
I still very occasionally get my B.James & Son Split cane rod out for a few hours when I’m feeling a bit nostalgic; which isn’t very often; and it can certainly handle large fish although 99% of the time it spends its life on the wall of my fishing den.

These better built split cane rods are certainly not rubbish, even though they are not as light or have the same actions as today’s modern carbon fibre rods. Some of these old split cane rods can still catch large fish and can still give their users a lot of pleasure when they are using them.

Don’t forget to some anglers they still give a lot of enjoyment in spite of there being much more advanced rods on the market today. ‘Smelling the roses along the way’ comes to mind.

Keith

 

[peterjg]

Markg, I apologise in advance. After having seen photos of your rods and floats it is apparent that your opinion in matters piscatorial are worthless! Wooden rods compared to most modern rods are not in the same league. However; if you enjoy using them then why not - but please don't try to convince us of the superiority of old crap tackle. I can't help suspecting though that you already know this are just a wind-up merchant!

 

[seth49]

I must admit I like using the split cane I possess , I’ve one I use an Edgar Sealey Rover which for close range fishing with a pin and porcupine quill float, is very effective, I do seem to hook more roach as well, and lose very few in play, it just makes a change to use, just another method really, and I find it enjoyable.

I’ve had carp to five pounds on this set up and it handled them fine, looking back to my younger days it’s far superior to the tank Ariel rod I started with, and the early fibre glass rods were rubbish as well, at least the ones I could afford were, so on a nice summers day I’m quite happy to have a day like this, the one thing I really like about coarse fishing is the multitude of methods you can use, it’s all part of the fun.

 

[John Aston]

Mark G - I actually owned a Wallop Brook for a time, having inherited it from a friend. It was sweet little thing , and nice for fly fishing small streams. I had plenty of fish on it and it was even pretty light for a wood rod . But I sold it , as the action , like all cane rods , is very s...l...o... w and my casting style means I fish better with fast action rods. It was an Austin Healey Sprite to the Hardy Sovereign's Lotus Elise- charming , pretty and slow.

 

[seth49]

Probably one from the tackle shop at Nether wallop on the river test, believe it was the first mail order tackle shop to start selling.

Chap called Dermot Wilson from memory.

 

[no-one in particular]

Markg, I apologise in advance. After having seen photos of your rods and floats it is apparent that your opinion in matters piscatorial are worthless! Wooden rods compared to most modern rods are not in the same league. However; if you enjoy using them then why not - but please don't try to convince us of the superiority of old crap tackle. I can't help suspecting though that you already know this are just a wind-up merchant!

I am not trying to convince anyone or wind anyone up, in fact I never do, all my rods and floats catch fish even if they don't catch anglers! If you read my post again you will understand that I didn't say they were superior, I was trying to point out that each rod has it merits regardless of where it came from, how old it is or what it is made from. I wouldn't disregard the whole genre of carbon rods for example because I had one that was crap, and some of them are like all rod designs or; I didn't like them for example. They can be crap like any range especially when you get down to the cheapest and it was the same for the old cane rods. They are still excellent rods, just because they have been superseded doesn't make them not.
I understand your a bit of a purist wild fish angler, see my next post, would you disregard that rod as crap just because it was old and made of wood? Wouldn't you like to fish with it or try it out?

 

[no-one in particular]

Mark G - I actually owned a Wallop Brook for a time, having inherited it from a friend. It was sweet little thing , and nice for fly fishing small streams. I had plenty of fish on it and it was even pretty light for a wood rod . But I sold it , as the action , like all cane rods , is very s...l...o... w and my casting style means I fish better with fast action rods. It was an Austin Healey Sprite to the Hardy Sovereign's Lotus Elise- charming , pretty and slow.

It is very light, I cannot see I would have a problem holding it all day, I have not used it but if I was fishing a brook I think I would love to use this rod. I can understand it didn't suit your particular style, personally I think I would like the slowness or at least it doesn't bother me in other cane rods, in fact I like it but that is just the difference in anglers. They are not all crap, which is all I am trying to point out. I in effect got this one for nothing, a pile of wood in an auction and this was in there, I think I paid £67 for the pile and have made that back with plenty but still got this.

 

[no-one in particular]

I am just remembering this is a bit like the old commercial argument, I think they are crap, I fished one that was crap and all I hear is they are crap so they must all be crap. Its just not true and it is the same for wooden rods; I just get a bit dismayed by it sometimes.

 

[steve2]

A year or so ago I said I was in the market to buy a cane rod. I now have six, two of which I am rebuilding for use. These will be matched with either a 60-year-old Trudex or Rapidex for close in float fishing for Tench.

Both these rods only weigh 2ozs more then my similar carbon rods. Are they/will they be better than the carbons,no, but will catch just as many fish and will be a pleasure to use. I am expecting a few strange looks from the clubs tackle tarts.

 

[peterjg]

Markg, as I said before if people like using wooden rods then why not. There are probably now many many anglers that have never owned or used a wooden or hollow glass rod and are wondering if they should buy one - don't waste your money. Wooden rods in the shorter lengths were ok for fly and leger but do not compare to a reasonable modern carbon rod. Just because something is old doesn't necessarily make it good. Some of the old cars that I have owned are now called "classics" , I laugh - they were rubbish 50 years ago when I was still driving them!

 

[no-one in particular]

A year or so ago I said I was in the market to buy a cane rod. I now have six, two of which I am rebuilding for use. These will be matched with either a 60-year-old Trudex or Rapidex for close in float fishing for Tench.

Both these rods only weigh 2ozs more then my similar carbon rods. Are they/will they be better than the carbons,no, but will catch just as many fish and will be a pleasure to use. I am expecting a few strange looks from the clubs tackle tarts.

I have never weighed any rods and I am not that good at weights anyway, I don't deny they are heavier but they are still not heavy as such, Its not like I am trying to hold a brick in my hand and that's how some would have it, I have a Marco 12ft test rod that feels heavy but it would suit some styles of fishing, I am not much of a trotter anyway, even on rivers I often adopt a laying on style with a float and tench fishing in a lake a slightly heavier rod than normal does not bother me. It is the other attributes of a rod that are more important to me. If I think it will cast, hook and play a fish how I want and if it feels nice and even if it looks nice up to a point as I am going to be looking at it all day.

 

[Philip]

Monkey Climbers, HNV, sun loungers, brace shots, fiber glass rods, canvas, luminous Green fuji rod rings, jumpers with elbow patches, ..

…Ah the 80s, I yearn for traditional angling again… ?

 

[Keith M]

This subject of using old cane rods reminds me of when I was serving as a naval photographer back in the early 70s, and we had a host of modern cameras at our disposal; but once a year we held a photo competition where all of the competitors had to use an old basic Kodak Brownie box camera to take their photo, it certainly sorted the men out from the boys when we all had to use a basic camera without being able to adjust the depth of field or be able focus on a particular point in the shot, or be able to use a zoom or use any filters which were attached to our lenses. and we were still able to take some good shots even without all of the more modern facilities on the more advanced cameras. The challenge was quite enjoyable although we all still preferred to use the more up to date cameras for the rest of the year.

Using my split cane rod ‘once in a blue moon’ gives me a similar feeling of pleasure and feeling of accomplishment and reminds me of my very first Barbel and first double figure Carp that I caught on this exact same rod back in 1975.

But then I put the rod back on its wall mount for another year or so until I get the urge to have another go with it.

Keith

 

[sam vimes]

I do wish people would put some figures on whatever "light" might mean to them. I've never encountered any cane rod that could come close to what I might consider being a light rod.

By modern standards, I expect a genuinely light 13' rod to be no more than 170g. The very lightest are less than 150g and the lightest I've heard of is 120g. There are still very expensive modern rods that are in excess of 200g. Whilst that might have been considered a wand in the early days of carbon, or even by those that have never used anything lighter, I now consider that to be quite porcine. It's not unusable, it's still a good rod, but it's not light. I still use heavier rods. Being a bit porky doesn't necessarily mean they are bad. However, the stuff around 200g and more don't get used when I'm trotting. I actually have a 17' rod that's just less than 200g.

I don't doubt that a cane rod can be a good rod. They can certainly look quite nice. However, by any notions of lightness that I have, I very much doubt that any cane rod could genuinely be considered light. If such a beast exists, I've never encountered it, though I'll happily concede that my experience of cane rods is far from extensive. One thing that has struck me over the years is that cane rods were/are generally shorter than their modern carbon counterparts. Cane rods of 11' marked up as a "trotter" is something I've never seen in carbon. I can only assume that at least part of the reason for that will have been down to weight.

 

[no-one in particular]

You are right, here are some weights I managed using old fashion balance kitchen scales, I have nothing else, it is a bit rough and I had to improvise a bit and there has to be a margin of error of at least 5gr I would say but it will give an idea on some of the rods I have been mentioning. I don't think it tells anyone much as rods of equal purpose and length etc. are not available to me to give direct comparisons but it does give some idea..
Sunridge 12ft carbon float/match-184gr, Revamped greenheart float rod 11ft-222gr, Marco 12ft Test split cane-383gr, Wallop Brook cane 6ft9in-108gr, Diawa carbon fly rod 9ft 5-7 weight-112gr.

 

[David Rogers 3]

Isn't balance more important than weight? I use both cane and glass rods that would be considered heavy compared to carbon equivalents, yet they don't feel heavy in the hand because the point of balance (with a suitable reel fitted) is a couple of inches above the handle.

 

[sam vimes]

You are right, here are some weights I managed using old fashion balance kitchen scales, I have nothing else, it is a bit rough and I had to improvise a bit and there has to be a margin of error of at least 5gr I would say but it will give an idea on some of the rods I have been mentioning. I don't think it tells anyone much as rods of equal purpose and length etc. are not available to me to give direct comparisons but it does give some idea..
Sunridge 12ft carbon float/match-184gr, Revamped greenheart float rod 11ft-222gr, Marco 12ft Test split cane-383gr, Wallop Brook cane 6ft9in-108gr, Diawa carbon fly rod 9ft 5-7 weight-112gr.

Well, I can't give you weights of fly rods as I don't own any. I'm also stumped for 12' float rods as it's not a length I buy. I have no idea what kind of rod your Macro 12' Test might be but if it's an Avon/barbel rod I dare say I might have something to compare. However, I have three 11'(+6" in one case) float rods. I'm assuming that your 11'er isn't intended for particularly heavy work. If so, the following shouldn't be outrageous comparisons. An 11' Acolyte Ultra comes in at 127g. A Browning Sphere 11'6" is 131g. A Daiwa Matchwinner-S Stick Float shortened from 13' to 11' is 167g. The full 13' rod is not especially light at 198g. Realistically, your 11' rod is close to 100g heavier than a light 11' rod and 55g heavier than a relatively heavy (modified) early 90s rod. That's over 3 ounces and close to 2 ounces respectively.

I suspect that none of the rods you've weighed is anywhere close to being light in comparison to the lighter end of the modern rod spectrum.