George Anderson's 5 wt shoot-out 2016

[Sylvaneous]

Stuck here until the roads get plowed. Stumbled upon this new shoot-out.

I've been involved in what I would call "modern' fly fishing since the early 90's when Orvis was a staid company and the performance contest was between Sage and Loomis.
Given the past several years of shootout ratings, opinions of those who's are not bought out of them and a bit of my own field work, Sage is really a lagging company. So many companies are charging $800 for a rod, which is a preposterous price that makes the luxury of cane seem affordable. (Especially so when that hot stick of today won't get you %50 in 4 years but the un-broken cane rod may go UP in price!) One would expect rods over $600 to be very good, but rather Sages and Winstons in the 'shoot-out' look like relative dogs. While George remarks the he was surprised that some of the rods finished as low as they did once all their factors were weighed, 9 ft. 5 wt trout rods of high price shouldn't do so poorly.

But back to Sage: When I was looking for an 8 wt for river smallmouth, I cast the low-level Sage Fli and what a dog! George Anderson rated 2 sages low in their comparisons. Numbers only imply the whole quality of the rod, like 0-60 and braking distance and skid pad define a sports car. But a $850 rod like the MOD being such a dog as they described it and the Pulse or Bolt or whatever being so heavy and hard-tipped is inexcusable. And George noted that Sage rods seemed to break more frequently and take longer to be fixed/replaced whatever. There are problems with Sage and Winston when so many other companies produce trout rods for western river tastes that are so often better rods. When so many outsiders come into your market and into your niche and beat you so soundly at it, there comes a time for introspection and less laurel-resting.

Syl

 

[BrookieChaser]

Yep, Sage is the devil. I bet terrorists fish them. Hell, Isis is probably on a guide program.

 

[allan_s]

Key term: Progressive Taper

A nice progressive taper is hard to beat and Sage has not produced one recently, meant for trout anyway.

 

[DavidFin]

Sage is in a "comfortable" stage. The One is a dog at this point when compared to the Radian and Zenith. I also think it's crappy that they sell directly from the site, I'm sure that doesn't help the shops that introduced their product to the people buying it now.

As for Winston, I think they're great but an acquired taste. Sent a rod back to them recently and got it back within 2 weeks, which is amazing compared to Sage (2 months on average). I fish hard and send a lot back. Orvis is a great brand to send stuff back to, too.


The whole $800 rod thing needs to be approached with 2 mind sets: firstly, how often are you using it? I bought a Radian full price that I use just about weekly. However, when I needed an 8wt for random stuff I bought an Orvis Clearwater. Secondly, you're getting a lifetime warranty with it. What's $800 over 30 years? However, make sure you're getting your $800 rod from a company that will likely be around in years to come.

As for the Shootouts, who knows how the companies support them and what influence that has. Anderson says straight up that Thomas and Thomas were asleep at the switch when sending them rods. And I've heard it insinuated that Loomis may butter their rolls.


I think most of us are better off buying high end stuff used, which comes with its problems, but more often than not offers the best value.

 

[Sylvaneous]

BrookieChaser wrote:
Yep, Sage is the devil. I bet terrorists fish them. Hell, Isis is probably on a guide program.

Yes! Exactly! And just as bad, Dick Cheney is a partial owner of Winston.

 

[pcray1231]

FWIW, the OP sounds like he has a dog in the fight. i.e. he wants Sage to do well. Becoming a fanboy of companies is a bad thing. It will ruin that company.

If you choose the best rod, regardless of brand, the goal of rod companies becomes to make the best rod.

If you choose a brand, regardless of how good it is, the goal of rod companies becomes branding and marketing.

We as consumers determine the focus of rod companies. If you don't like what one company does, give your money to a different company.

 

[Sylvaneous]

DavidFin wrote:
Sage is in a "comfortable" stage. The One is a dog at this point when compared to the Radian and Zenith. I also think it's crappy that they sell directly from the site, I'm sure that doesn't help the shops that introduced their product to the people buying it now.

And I think SIMMS does the same thing.

As for Winston, I think they're great but an acquired taste. Sent a rod back to them recently and got it back within 2 weeks, which is amazing compared to Sage (2 months on average). I fish hard and send a lot back. Orvis is a great brand to send stuff back to, too.


The whole $800 rod thing needs to be approached with 2 mind sets: firstly, how often are you using it? I bought a Radian full price that I use just about weekly. However, when I needed an 8wt for random stuff I bought an Orvis Clearwater. Secondly, you're getting a lifetime warranty with it. What's $800 over 30 years? However, make sure you're getting your $800 rod from a company that will likely be around in years to come.

Well, if one only buys 2 5-wts in their fishing lifetime, that seems to work. I've been fly fishing for 30 years, only 15 of that making what might be called a middle-class wage. I now have 4 5-wts, the last bought on a pro deal in 2011. I fish every one of them, except the Powell. I'm afraid to break it. But I'd fish them all. I'm very glad I got good to great fly rods before $600 became an "affordable" fly rod.
Well, idiots are buying $1200 300 win mags to go on elk hunts they'll never take. I wish charitable giving was as popular as superfluous toys.

As for the Shootouts, who knows how the companies support them and what influence that has. Anderson says straight up that Thomas and Thomas were asleep at the switch when sending them rods. And I've heard it insinuated that Loomis may butter their rolls.

I wouldn't insinuate anything about George Anderson's credibility. He doesn't endorse anyone. I would avoid making the assumption that one rod company holds him enthrall.

.

 

[kbobb]

Gotta take these with a grain of salt or 2 - I believe they try to be objective but they benefit from sale of the rods they test. Really need to cast them for yourself under the conditions you fish - I generally don't fish in parking lots (...but... if there is a big trout in a nearby ditch you never know).

The prices are outrageous for a toy - unless you use these to make a living in which case you'll probably get a deal.

I do like to make my own rods and obviously support companies that sell blanks to rodmakers - like Winston, sage and St. Croix. I don't buy Scott or Hardy for this reason. Orvis does sell some blanks but they will not warrantee them so I won't buy Orvis.

 

[pcray1231]

I also take them to be objective, at least to the degree possible when judging such subjective thigns. Not just the rods but their shootouts for all products.

That said, I never just take their winner and pretend it's best for ME.

They usually take a whole bunch of different tests measuring different things. Then they take all the results and average them together to come up with a winner.

Well, many of those tests I don't give a flying f about. Others I find vitally important. Because my fishing may be very different than theirs. The usefulness is that they don't just give you a winner, they give results for each test. You can throw out the overall rating and only look at the attributes you care most about, and weight them how you want. Your winner may be different than theirs. And that's ok.

 

[Sylvaneous]

kbobb wrote:
Gotta take these with a grain of salt or 2 - I believe they try to be objective but they benefit from sale of the rods they test. Really need to cast them for yourself under the conditions you fish - I generally don't fish in parking lots
s.

And it also should fit your casting stroke. I can cast better than most people but my natural 'unconscious' casting stroke is more open than if I'm actually paying attention or want more distance. I'm not testing my rod to see how well it throws 75 feet. I'm most interested on how a rod would match my cast and work at 50 or 60 feet, or 30. THat's why I bought an SLT instead of an XP. 13 years ago. I could throw the SLT as far as the XP anyway and double-hauling 80 ft casts isn't commonly what I do.

BUT that all being said, those great old rod companies that came up with so much of this stuff and grew with the sport, namely Sage and Winston, to get so soundly trounced by Scott, Loomis and Orvis... If there was a board meeting, the product development people would have a lot to answer for. The Marketing folks should be screaming "How am I supposed to sell this S#!T?" But if you are IN marketing, you know you job IS to sell s#!t.

That South Korean factory must really have its stuff together. At least it is a liberal democracy, not CHINA fer crissake!
And I love Korean Barbeque! Garlic, Ginger, pork, fire....Just as God intended.
Nummy!

Syl

 

[Andreas]

I have to agree that the shootouts are mostly just for entertainment. I played with quite a few rods before I selected a 5 wt last spring. I went to several fly shops to do this and trust me, it was worth the gas and time. I played with Loomis, Sage, Winston, Fenwick, Orvis, and Hardy rods. I settled on an 8.5 ft Orvis Recon, which very well could be the wrong rod for you. But, for me it is magical.

 

[PennKev]

If you look at the scoring, almost all the rods received high scores in every category. Many get at least 8 of 10 in each category. On a scale of 1 to 10, 8 seems pretty good. If you take a deeper dive you will see that there are a lot of rods that received well over 80% of the possible points. Looking further and comparing the performance only scoring to the overall scores you can see that missed points are often due to non-performance aspects. Cost, warranty, aesthetics etc.

In the end there are only a very few rods out of the testing that at worst can be considered mediocre. It is these "bad" rods that stand out as a result. The value of the shootout can be summed up as the following:

"Pretty much any rod is a good rod, except these two or three, even then they aren't that bad."

I'd like to see a more critical scoring system were run of the mill "good" rods get median scores while rods that stand out as markedly good or bad get scored accordingly. However, the reality is that there are a lot of good rods out there and each year it seems the less expensive, or "off-brand" rods close the gap between high end and budget. With that in mind the scoring represents the current state of fly rods. It's not very interesting, but is accurate.

 

[Acristickid]

Took a quick peek at his website- doesn't look like he carries sage or Winston , maybe by choice. Also, the rods he found that worked well we're not cheap at all.

I have not really followed new equipment as I have enough for a lifetime, however; cast a Helios 3-4 years ago and felt like an awesome rod.

 

[DavidFin]

One thing I think we're neglecting in this thread is how a fly line can breathe life into a rod, too. I had a Sage Fli (905) that was ok, got the job done, whatever. I came into a job that allowed me to invest in more equipment and phased out the rod. Then I had a reel lined with a Rio Perception line, put it on the Fli for the hell of it, and it fished much much better.

If you're willing to put in the time and effort, any modern graphite rod will be great.

As I said earlier, I think $800 rods come down to how often they'll be used.


ALSO, I didn't use any definitive language to suggest that Anderson gets money under the table, but I think it would be ridiculous to overlook the idea of favoritism, regardless of how such a bias occurs.

 

[BrookieChaser]

I didn't even see a link to a review in the op.

I just read an anti-Sage rant from a name that always posts anti-Sage rants when a new fly rod comes out. So I took it all with a shaker of salt.

 

[allan_s]

BrookieChaser wrote:
I didn't even see a link to a review in the op.

I just read an anti-Sage rant from a name that always posts anti-Sage rants when a new fly rod comes out. So I took it all with a shaker of salt.

5wt Shootout

I always like reading these but they should be taken with a shaker of salt. I get to cast many of these rods and while I don't agree with everything they say, they do a pretty good job.

Their scores are too close and they give even bad performing rods good scores. If a rod has no feel in close, it should be a at max a 8/20. For example the Hardy Wraith is horrible at 25 feet and they describe it well but it somehow scores a 18.5/20.

How can a rod that has 0 feel and you can't get to load properly at 25ft score that high?

The descriptions are more accurate than the scores.

 

[afishinado]

Agreed that rod selection / satisfaction is very subjective and really up to an individual angler.

Reading the summary of a rod may give one a sense as to how the rod may perform a given task, but not much more can be gleaned from the ratings.

Like many most things, there are no shortcuts and due diligence is the order of the day; especially if one is laying down their hard-earned cash for a rod they plan to keep for years of fishing.

 

[krayfish2]

Which shaker did you use?

 

[BrookieChaser]

It was the large shaker, Kray. I like salt. The saw bones told me to cut back though.

Fly rods and bows are like a guy's choice in women, attractiveness is ultimately individual.

 

[gulfgreyhound]

A poor craftsman blames his tools. GG