| KEVIN PERKINS | |
Never mind smelling the flowers, don’t forget to take time out to see the satirical side of fishing life and grab a laugh along the way as well. So here’s a regular column from Kevin Perkins to remind us that life is for laughing at, or taking the p*** out of, whenever we can. |
| BIGGER, HARDER, FASTER, LONGER? In these days of adverts having to be ‘honest, decent and truthful’ are tackle manufacturers taking us all for a ride? With particular regard to rods, how often do we see terms like ‘capable of distances in excess of 150 yards’ bandied about, and how often are anglers taken in by that when it comes to choosing a rod? If tackle companies make statements about alleged performance, where are the hard statistics to back them up? Show me the independent, verified results of what this rod actually achieves, and even better if it is compared in back to back tests with the opposition.
I know I have harped on in the past about some of the pointless tackle reviews that are inflicted upon us by the angling press, but surely it is possible to measure the casting performance of rod and publish the results. I am fully aware that the ‘under controlled conditions’ distances may not be achievable in real life, but it will graphically illustrate if one rod is capable of out-casting another. And before anyone remarks that we shouldn’t be obsessed with distance, I am more than happy to admit that the fish could well be under our feet rather than the far bank. But, just take a look at some of the adverts and the ‘vanishing point’ names these rods are being adorned with – they certainly do not promote their use for margin fishing! Let’s draw a parallel with something close to all men’s’ hearts. We seem to demand those glossy car brochures and adverts will produce reams of minutia about the performance and handling of our next dream purchase. Direct comparisons with the (always inferior!) competitors’ models will be splashed everywhere. Imagine the chances of selling a car whose top speed is listed as ‘more than sufficient’ and the all-important 0 – 60 time is ‘quick enough for you’. Why don’t we follow the example of our beachcasting brethren and have distance competitions that will produce recognised UK records for the 1 – 3 oz weights. This would soon show up the tools for the job if distance is what you are really after. Or are the rod makers afraid that their products may not be quite as capable as they would like us to believe? I remember reading in the mists of time of one angling stalwart who held the ?oz casting record of just over the hundred-yard mark. This was back in the fibreglass days; surely modern technology has allowed us to make huge advances on that mark. Hasn’t it? How about a nice big charity event where the rod makers get the anglers who endorse these lead launching weapons to compete against each other. We can then sponsor our heroes for every yard they reach beyond, say, the (apparently) easily achieved one hundred and twenty five mark. My guess is that we wouldn’t have raised much by the end of the day… In fact, given that the only cast to use safely at most coarse venues is the overhead ‘thump’, why are any of us bothering at all? Are we being lead up a blind alley into buying rods that can cast distances the vast majority of us will never reach? Will all these long-range weapons we are currently being seduced into using be rendered obsolete when we are all using baitboats and drifter floats as our preferred method of tackle and bait distribution, because we can’t cast far enough! Watching a chap fishing on my local carp lake brought on the above rant. The (obligatory) baitboat was plying the route to the ‘fishing grounds’ back and forth with a regularity that would make Seafrance and Stena green with envy. Fishing tight up against the only island on the lake, at a distance that required binoculars to check the pinpoint positioning. Now, of course, the angler was using a rod, but not for casting, even though the target was just about within the 150-yard range. Had a rod been used to put a bait that far, what are the chances of the angler getting his bait anywhere near the same spot on consecutive casts? Never mind the lateral variation, the probability of being able to reach exactly the same distance are minimal, to say the least. And if you are having to use binoculars to see where your bait is going in, how are you supposed to squint through them, whilst ‘feathering’ the lead to the exact distance required? (Anyway, if you are fishing at 150 yards, everybody knows that you are actually able to cast a bit further than that, in order to bring the bait to rest in the right position). Some sort of flip down telescopic lens arrangement attached to your hat, perhaps, marked off with angles and distances, as per submarine periscopes? So what is the point of distance rods, and more pertinent, why promote them so heavily to do something we neither want, nor use? |
