Gunter Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 After some online research, I' ve now targetted the Shimano Catana 702/Sierra 2500 combo as an apparently good compromise between price and performance. My only remaining doubt really concerns the length of the rod. Having been raised on surfcasting and European carp fishing, in both of which 13-14ft rods are the norm, a 7ft one still looks to me like an overgrown toothpick. I'm therefore ogling the Catana 802 bream rod, which has the same 2-4kg line rating. I will be land-based entirely (no boat, no mates), fishing rivers and estuaries, with flathead being the main target. The extra foot length seems to me valuable for extra casting range with light lures/plastics, but I can also see that most people are content with 6ft6 or 7ft so maybe there's a good reason for not going longer. Is it that most of you fish from boats? Or is it that an 8ft rod gets too tiring for the wrists? Or is the action so different that I'll have greater trouble winching flatties off the bottom? Any advice much appreciated before I make a beginner's error... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spooooled Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 After some online research, I' ve now targetted the Shimano Catana 702/Sierra 2500 combo as an apparently good compromise between price and performance. My only remaining doubt really concerns the length of the rod. Having been raised on surfcasting and European carp fishing, in both of which 13-14ft rods are the norm, a 7ft one still looks to me like an overgrown toothpick. I'm therefore ogling the Catana 802 bream rod, which has the same 2-4kg line rating. I will be land-based entirely (no boat, no mates), fishing rivers and estuaries, with flathead being the main target. The extra foot length seems to me valuable for extra casting range with light lures/plastics, but I can also see that most people are content with 6ft6 or 7ft so maybe there's a good reason for not going longer. Is it that most of you fish from boats? Or is it that an 8ft rod gets too tiring for the wrists? Or is the action so different that I'll have greater trouble winching flatties off the bottom? Any advice much appreciated before I make a beginner's error... my opinion is the smaller the rod there more finesse youll have to fish, i personally get my better accuracy with 6ft6 to 7ft then with 8ft rods but thats just my opinion and depends where ur gunna be targeting ur species Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunter Posted February 25, 2012 Author Share Posted February 25, 2012 my opinion is the smaller the rod there more finesse youll have to fish, i personally get my better accuracy with 6ft6 to 7ft then with 8ft rods but thats just my opinion and depends where ur gunna be targeting ur species I'm not really worried about accuracy though as in my experience that comes with getting used to the rod. More concerned with distance, action, wrist strain... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abecedarian Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 If you're bait fishing an 8' rod is fine. If you're throwing soft plastics then a 7'-7'6" rod is ideal. If you're using hard bodies then a 6'6"-7' rod is ideal. Basically, the length is to do with how you retrieve the lure more so than how far you cast. A 7'6"rod gives that little extra length for soft plastics to pick up the slack in the line when you get a hit while the 6'6" rod enables you to put a better action on hard bodied lures with the 7' rod in the middle more or less. Going an 8' rod for plastics and hardbodies will reduce the effectiveness of the action you can impart on the lure which is why people go for shorter rods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunter Posted February 26, 2012 Author Share Posted February 26, 2012 If you're bait fishing an 8' rod is fine. If you're throwing soft plastics then a 7'-7'6" rod is ideal. If you're using hard bodies then a 6'6"-7' rod is ideal. Basically, the length is to do with how you retrieve the lure more so than how far you cast. A 7'6"rod gives that little extra length for soft plastics to pick up the slack in the line when you get a hit while the 6'6" rod enables you to put a better action on hard bodied lures with the 7' rod in the middle more or less. Going an 8' rod for plastics and hardbodies will reduce the effectiveness of the action you can impart on the lure which is why people go for shorter rods. Thanks, that makes sense to me and something I hadn't thought of. It is called "angling" for a reason, after all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean221 Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Thanks, that makes sense to me and something I hadn't thought of. It is called "angling" for a reason, after all! I havnt been fishing with soft plastics for very long, but atm i have a 7 ft rod with a size 2000 reel. its spooled with 1lb fireline and 4 lb fluro leader. When i baught my first sp rod, it was 7 foot carbon fibre rod and was very stiff. with it being vvery stiff it had a much better feel than the rod i have now, and it also allows me to control the action of the sp lure much better then a softer top. i had a look at the catana in BLAH BLAH BLAH outdoors store and it seemed pritty good and stiff for my liking. I agree with the others in that an 8 ft would give you distance but loose some point in action control of the rod. But imo your fishing land based, and i am too, and allot of the times i want to try and cast as far as i can out into the shoreline, or wherever and then retreive. i guess if i was in a boat casting towards the shore, accuracy would have to be kept in mind. With the reel, team it up with some light line, mabe 4 pound braid and 6lb flurocarbon. Youd be ready to go, and hooked into sp fishing in no time! goodluck with it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mii11x Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 How much are you looking at spending mate??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunter Posted March 12, 2012 Author Share Posted March 12, 2012 How much are you looking at spending mate??? Thanks all for your advice, I've gone ahead and bought the Catana/Sienna combo for $99 which seemed a good deal. For the main line, I've gone for 8lb Fireline Exceed (the bright orange one, very thin) which might be a little on the heavy side by some standards but we'll see how it goes (I'm mainly interested in flatties). Will be backed up with same b/s mono, with the rest of the spool serving as leader material (unless someone can convince me of the advantage of fluoro which seems a little stiff to me and I heard doesn't make good knots). Given the colour of the line, I'll probably use a good rod's length of leader to avoid spooking the fish. Looking forward to trying it out in earnest when I get the time, Narrabeen lagoon being my first target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bombora Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Probably a bit late and just my opinion too, but that 8ft rod would have been fine. Actually for the fishing you described, I think it would have been a better choice. Been advocating them for years and there is really no manipulation of a lure you can't do on a longer rod. The undoubted longer casts can also be a huge advantage. Your heritage of longer light rods would have been a nice advantage. Oz is about the only place light luring land based fishos use very short rods (not counting fishing tight river banks covered in bushes and trees). A 7'6" is a good length too. By the way flouro has a good advantage when flattie spinning; it handles their teeth better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunter Posted March 28, 2012 Author Share Posted March 28, 2012 Probably a bit late and just my opinion too, but that 8ft rod would have been fine. Actually for the fishing you described, I think it would have been a better choice. Been advocating them for years and there is really no manipulation of a lure you can't do on a longer rod. The undoubted longer casts can also be a huge advantage. Your heritage of longer light rods would have been a nice advantage. Oz is about the only place light luring land based fishos use very short rods (not counting fishing tight river banks covered in bushes and trees). A 7'6" is a good length too. By the way flouro has a good advantage when flattie spinning; it handles their teeth better. A bit late but still appreciated - might well at some point by a longer light rod just for the fun of it (and for carp fishing). Is fluoro really that much better at handling flatties' teeth than mono? I thought the trick was to keep their heads under water to stop the violent head shakes: just swim them into the landing net. All theory of course, as I've yet to land a flattie ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jew Stalker Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 A bit late but still appreciated - might well at some point by a longer light rod just for the fun of it (and for carp fishing). Is fluoro really that much better at handling flatties' teeth than mono? I thought the trick was to keep their heads under water to stop the violent head shakes: just swim them into the landing net. All theory of course, as I've yet to land a flattie ;-) F/C is much harder than mono, it doesn't break on rocks or on sharp toothies as easily as mono. I am so convinced of its advantage that I use it all through my ranges of rods from bream fishing with a 4lb F/C leader or fishing for jews with a 20-50lb F/C leader, or kings with a 50-150lb leader (they are not leader shy, I have had a convo or two with Bushy and most of the time he will use up to a 200lb leader). As you get heavier the knots can seem to be difficult but the main one I use is a Uni knot to tie my leaders to my terminal gear and it seems to hold well constantly. Mind you anything above 100lb leader and the crimp comes out. Mono is softer and more pliable yes and will do the job well 9 times out of 10 but when it comes to reef and sharp teeth you just can't look past Fluorocarbon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abecedarian Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 I use FC for the same reasons as stated above. But there is a real advantage using mono over FC when fishing surface lures as it tends to float. So, mono for poppers and surface lures, FC for everything else is my general rule of thumb... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunter Posted April 1, 2012 Author Share Posted April 1, 2012 (edited) Thanks for all the advice, will simply try both and see how I go... Have a week in Durras North coming up where there are plenty of flatties to get chewing on my leaders. Edited April 1, 2012 by Gunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now