Fastest method for catching numbers of fish?........

tigger

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 12, 2009
Messages
8,782
Reaction score
954
There seems to be a number of people on FM who do a fair bit of pole fishing, and also a number who use a rod and reel so this should be interesting.....
I often hear pole anglers saying the pole will always outfish the rod and reel saying it's quicker to get a bait out and bring the fish back etc etc. I get that if it's a whip and your just swinging the fish directly to hand, but even then i'm not convinced.
I'm quite positive that I can wind any fish in faster on a rod and reel than a pole angler can ship a pole back, and i'm also sure I can re bait my hook and cast out faster than someone can do with a pole.

So, pole or rod and reel, which is the faster method ?
 

nottskev

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 3, 2016
Messages
2,862
Reaction score
194
There seems to be a number of people on FM who do a fair bit of pole fishing, and also a number who use a rod and reel so this should be interesting.....
I often hear pole anglers saying the pole will always outfish the rod and reel saying it's quicker to get a bait out and bring the fish back etc etc. I get that if it's a whip and your just swinging the fish directly to hand, but even then i'm not convinced.
I'm quite positive that I can wind any fish in faster on a rod and reel than a pole angler can ship a pole back, and i'm also sure I can re bait my hook and cast out faster than someone can do with a pole.

So, pole or rod and reel, which is the faster method ?
It's a good question, but I'm not sure there's an answer because of all the variables. To name just one: there's no fish to wind in quickly, unless you get the bite, via the right presentation in the right place, quickly. And I can think of situations where you're better on the rod - such as your favourite long trotting - and situations where you're better on the pole. Catching numbers of fish doesn't often come down to just getting them in quickly, although it might sometimes, and there's no doubting that the pole is the first choice method for match anglers when fish can be caught within pole distance, for a combination of unbeatable presentation, control and speed. And even, come to think of it, pin-point feeding via pots and cups.

It's not my cup of tea, and I don't say it'a better kind of fishing , but watch the likes of Andy May or Jamie Hughes (there are lots of videos on youtube) setting about catching huge numbers of carp or F1's on the pole. The speed and time-and-motion efficiency of their pole fishing is amazing, even when the fish are a decent size, and if people could out-fish them on rod and line they wouldn't have the status they do. Similarly, when I lived in Manchester and fished the canals, the bloodworm anglers from up your way had incredible speed, accuracy and finesse, and nobody would have dreamt of trying to compete with them, on that bait, without a pole.
 

Jeff Woodhouse

Moaning Marlow Meldrew
Joined
Jan 2, 2002
Messages
24,572
Reaction score
10
Location
Subtropical Buckinghamshire
Horses for courses. A whip is the fastest of all without doubt for fish up to around 6ozs, maybe 8, but I've had carp of 2½lbs on the whip and they can be a little b*gger to get in. A pole is great because you can plant the float within a couple of square inches in the same place every time so guaranteeing that you are fishing directly over the feed and especially if you're using a pole cup to feed with. Rod and line fishing only comes into it's own when a) trotting, or b) when the fish are feeding in a wider area, or c) they are bigger fish than 8ozs.

I used to fish a lake in the mid 90s where I started with a short whip of 3 metres, mine was a 6 metres one with the last three sections take-apart - I still have it! Gradually I lengthened it as more fish were caught and bites dried up until I reached the 6 metres. If I didn't take the 11m pole I had, I would go to the float and cast a little further out. It was a very deep lake dropping to over 12 feet and so it was soon time to start with the feeder.

In another swim on the same lake the drop-ff was around the 9-10metre mark and so it was the pole all the way. It was the only method that would ensure I was fishing at or near the bottom of the slope with the line running down it.
 

stillwater blue

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
461
Reaction score
0
Considering the top Italian match anglers can catch bleak at the rate of 6 a minute using a whip I'd suggest the quickest way to catch numbers of fish is with a whip.
 

tigger

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 12, 2009
Messages
8,782
Reaction score
954
It's a good question, but I'm not sure there's an answer because of all the variables. To name just one: there's no fish to wind in quickly, unless you get the bite, via the right presentation in the right place, quickly. And I can think of situations where you're better on the rod - such as your favourite long trotting - and situations where you're better on the pole. Catching numbers of fish doesn't often come down to just getting them in quickly, although it might sometimes, and there's no doubting that the pole is the first choice method for match anglers when fish can be caught within pole distance, for a combination of unbeatable presentation, control and speed. And even, come to think of it, pin-point feeding via pots and cups.

It's not my cup of tea, and I don't say it'a better kind of fishing , but watch the likes of Andy May or Jamie Hughes (there are lots of videos on youtube) setting about catching huge numbers of carp or F1's on the pole. The speed and time-and-motion efficiency of their pole fishing is amazing, even when the fish are a decent size, and if people could out-fish them on rod and line they wouldn't have the status they do. Similarly, when I lived in Manchester and fished the canals, the bloodworm anglers from up your way had incredible speed, accuracy and finesse, and nobody would have dreamt of trying to compete with them, on that bait, without a pole.



As you say Kev, too many variables to give one method the overall title of "fastest method of catching fish".
I only put this thread up to see peoples opinions :).
Sometimes a rod and reel will be the quicker method and others maybe a pole, the situation dictates that.
As stillwater blue says for whipping out small fish straight infront of you a whip has gotta be the quickest method, unless of course you have a long enough rod :).
 

s63

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 31, 2014
Messages
5,589
Reaction score
700
Location
Kent
Considering the top Italian match anglers can catch bleak at the rate of 6 a minute using a whip I'd suggest the quickest way to catch numbers of fish is with a whip.
At his best Ray Mumford was even quicker than that!
 

Mark Wintle

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2002
Messages
4,018
Reaction score
98
Location
Azide the Stour
On small fish the whip is unbeatable. I'm slow nowadays but have had four fish in a timed 11 seconds and we once had a method that could produce 16 a minute. 10 a minute at times is achievable and my best hour in a proper match was 476 rudd, another match I had 950 rudd in the first 2 hours 55 minutes before the shoal disappeared; I'd already had enough to win easily. These catches were mostly on glass whips but carbon ones were better. I witnessed Ray Mumford get 920 roach in a 5 hours match. Hadrian Whittle's catches of bleak are in another league, his best I believe was 2100 in 5 hours.

In the right hands a pole can catch very fast with better fish.
 

tigger

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 12, 2009
Messages
8,782
Reaction score
954
I haven't a clue! I'll stick to a rod and reel and still be slow!

Me n'all :).

Although i'm confident I can catch small prolific fish feeding as shown in the video just as fast with my rod and reel, infact I have done, just didnt need to operate the reel ;).
 

daniel121

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2016
Messages
960
Reaction score
0
It really is a case of conditions vs personal skill level. I could not out fish my son on the pole in any conditions, I don't consider myself a poor pole fisherman but when the fish turn up he just motors and it does not look like he's moving, ya know?

I remember watching the old boys in the 50s and 60s catching on what know looks ridiculous tackle but the cream used to rise to the top 60lb of trent roach is no easy task. That was rod and reel caught.

I personally think the whip takes some beating but that said the method feeder is an equivalent if commie carp are the target, Would you say?
 

Richox12

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
407
Reaction score
13
Fishing a Pole and fishing a whip are totally different.

So, with all other things being equal in your swim, I always work on the basis that any fish within pole range = pole work and anything beyond = rod & reel. It's not always that way but is a general guide.

When 'Short lining' you'd be amazed at how quick you can be - both shipping out and shipping back in. Short lining for bleak is not uncommon.

The other thing most people forget is if you miss a bite on a long pole you don't have to bring the rig in. You miss the bite and stay there (lift it and drop it). With rod & reel (generally - again not always) you move the float too far to leave it so have to wind in and cast out again - so wasting time.

It really is always a case of 'Horses for courses'.
 

silvers

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2012
Messages
432
Reaction score
77
I think whip beats fixed line fishing with a rod & reel, simply because of dexterity.
Having said that Billy Makin was deadly in his day with a long rod (17ft I think) and centrepin reel on the canals. I've only read about this - I never drew near or watched Billy.
 

Mark Wintle

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2002
Messages
4,018
Reaction score
98
Location
Azide the Stour
Trying to catch fish really fast - over 300 an hour - on rod and reel might just be possible but the weight of what you're wielding - close on a pound - compared to a super-light whip - under 3oz - would be incredibly tiring and cumbersome over 5 hours. The evidence I witnessed where anglers did try to match the whip anglers was that the rod and reel anglers lost badly, struggling to get half the catch rate. In the early 80s when we still used glass fibre whips most anglers would tire badly by the last hour, it was that hard work, despite our youth. From what I know of Billy's speed fishing on tiny gudgeon, he didn't get the speed of the bleakers and rudd-bashers though 200+ an hour was possible for the first part of a match. Not sure he used a 17ft rod for speed fishing, more likely a 12ft rod.
 

whitty

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2017
Messages
5,034
Reaction score
625
Location
Luton Bedfordshire.
Mark Pollard caught all of his best weights from the grand union on squatt were on rod and line,as silvers would know these fish were mainly 1-3ozs,weights over 20lbs were caught more than once,
 

Mark Wintle

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 10, 2002
Messages
4,018
Reaction score
98
Location
Azide the Stour
Mark Pollard caught all of his best weights from the grand union on squatt were on rod and line,as silvers would know these fish were mainly 1-3ozs,weights over 20lbs were caught more than once,
Even at an ounce apiece that's only 300 or so fish in 5 hours, one a minute, not quick at all. I've had 300 skimmers in a match on the waggler for a similar sort of weight, bringing them in from 20 yards to fishing to hand by the last hour.
 

whitty

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2017
Messages
5,034
Reaction score
625
Location
Luton Bedfordshire.
Suppose so Mark,it's a long time since I match fished,all I know is that those weights were huge for the grand union.
 

silvers

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2012
Messages
432
Reaction score
77
There's still a place for waggler on the canals (and drains) - but with generally lower weights (of roach) presentation with the pole usually trumps speed
 

kenpm

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
130
Reaction score
0
Fishing to hand will always be the fastest if its with a short whip a long whip I have watched Italians fishing 12 meters to hand or a rod used like a whip short or long.
You reach your maximum speed then it gets slower as you have to use the reel to cast play or land fish.
When you could catch close in coloured water in Ireland 200lb of Roach was a good target to aim for at about 4 or 5 fish a minute depending on the stamp but it was very tiring even at close range and you hands got cut to pieces ....all about rhythm and maintaining the bites coming with correct feeding.
 

mikench

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
14,725
Reaction score
1,017
Location
leafy cheshire
Santa brought me an Amazon Echo so with the thread title in mind I thought I would put it to the test! I asked the following questions;

Q. What is the fastest method for catching numbers of fish?

Alexa. A trawler

Undeterred and with a modicum of Christmas spirit, literally and metaphorically , I repeated the ?.

Alexa; Electrocution!

Still undeterred and with a cunning plan in mind I asked where in Cheshire can I catch a 3lb roach? Alexa played Michael Buble singing "let it snow"

Q. Which rod is best à Drennen Acolyte Plus or a Browning Sphère ?

A. I'm having a little trouble understanding you right now please try later!

I reckon she'd been on the pop !! Er indoors only got as far as asking " Alexeï play some Christmas music" to hoots of derision! She's got Alexeï Sayle on the brain!!

I'll try again later or tomorrow ! Have a great day everybody!
 
Last edited:
Top