What’s your views on Bolo rods

[chrissh]

Have bolo rods improved since they first come out?

I had one of the first Italian one some years ago and had problems with the line sticking to the rod when it was wet because there was not enough rigs on the rod and they were too far apart.

I like the look of the Daiwa Connoisseur Match Bolo Rods 6m but with a price tag of £165 + it seems a lot to pay if they still have the line sticking problem

 

[peter crabtree]

I’ve been using 17’ acolyte, not strictly a bolo rod but brilliant all the same.

 

[sam vimes]

I love a long rod and have repeatedly looked at proper Bolo rods over the years. No doubt my misgivings about lack of rings, telescopic rods and the fact I don't fish typical Bolo venues have played their part, but I'm yet to actually buy a true Bolo rod. I have more than a couple of long rods that I'll use in different circumstances. However, if I were fishing a typical Bolo venue, or a less typical shallow pacey river, I'll invariably use my 17' Acolyte. I've had one since the day the local tackle shop got them in. The most easily managed 17' rod I've ever encountered. In the unlikely event of me fishing a river venue that's too deep for a 17' rod, I'll break out my dust gathering pole.

 

[trotter2]

All the bolo rods I have seen and looked at feel terrable. But cant say I have seen or tred them all, so you never know there maybe a good one out there.Just I havent seen it.
Like others I use a 17 ft acolyte if I want a longer rod, brilliant long rods.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Having used both a 6m and 7m Bolo' rod I eventually opted for a "conventional" 20' 4 piece rod that I think is far better suited to deep water fishing.

The lack of interspaced rings on a bolo' rod I find difficult especially when the rod and line are wet, whereas a well-ringed longer conventional rod is far superior.

Just my experience, I'm sure others might argue differently . . . .

 

[The Runner]

Having used both a 6m and 7m Bolo' rod I eventually opted for a "conventional" 20' 4 piece rod that I think is far better suited to deep water fishing.

The lack of interspaced rings on a bolo' rod I find difficult especially when the rod and line are wet, whereas a well-ringed longer conventional rod is far superior.

Just my experience, I'm sure others might argue differently . . . .

I certainly wouldn't argue; bought a 6m bolo when they first appeared on the scene and quickly replaced it with a 20ft conventional rod (Milo from memory) Later used a Daiwa 18-20 and both massively better than the bolo which was a horrible thing to fish with.

 

[Keith M]

I certainly wouldn't argue; bought a 6m bolo when they first appeared on the scene and quickly replaced it with a 20ft conventional rod (Milo from memory) Later used a Daiwa 18-20 and both massively better than the bolo which was a horrible thing to fish with.

My thoughts exactly.

I much prefer using conventional longer rods to using a Bolo rod for the same reasons as everyone else on this thread (line sticking to the blank when damp because of the lack of rings and their poor action).

I still very occasionally use an old 'Shakespeare Annex Excel 16/20ft Match Rod' when I’m float fishing in deep swims and even though it may be getting a bit dated and could be a tad lighter; it is still a lot better to use than any of the Bolo rods that I’ve tried using.

Keith

 

[rob48]

Never seen a traditional tele Bolo rod that I fancied. Most of my Bolo fishing's done on the lower Severn and I use the 15'6" Browning spliced-tip or a long Cadence rod. They do the job fine and are a delight to use.