11ft. Rod For Carp

[Gary Bills]

In September, I saw Snape battle an 18lb common in a jungle warfare swim while using a MK IV Barder - the quality of the rod being such that it coped perfectly well, despite a close-range hammering, and it sprang back afterwards as perfectly straight as it was before - I think the age of the cane, and the quality of the build, are both important factors.
Someone pointed out, once, the rods being used by Yates at Redmire in the 70s were "just" 25 years old...now would we expect a 50 year old rod to cope just as well? I don't think so. I don't have shares in Barder! I don't use Barder rods and, in fact, in more prosperous times I'll toy with the idea of buying that Agutter rod - the MK VII Flying Fox - I think it has a fast tip, and power in the butt - 11ft 9 oz and, by design, totally a modern carp rod, no matter the material...

[Beresford]

Dave, sorry I still don't follow your train of thought. Under pressure my cane MkIVs don't get to be anything like a C. If they got close to it they would probably break. They bend through their length, as did the 11' cane carp rod I had. Just because that rod was a foot longer didn't mean the ferrule was under undue pressure, far from it, the whole rod bent through its entire length. It was powerful enough to turn a big fast carp from a sunken tree. In fact as a fishing rod I thought it was too powerful to be enjoyable to use. Equally I don't understand the notion of the fulcrum of the action. None of my rods have a pivotal point to their action, they all bend throughout their entire length, that's what's necessary to spread the load. If one part of a the taper is under undue stress then there must surely be a fault with the design of the rod. When using a MkIV carp to play a fish, under extreme pressure the cane can be felt to be slightly bending under the handle. I use the increased strength in the butt section to tire the fish – that technique isn't the preserve of the shorter rod. Yates is on video explaining that is how he used such a light rod as the MkIV Avon to subdue the Bishop. I'll agree a Salmon spinning rod may have tired the fish faster, but not because it might be a shorter rod but because the taper is probably rather more resistant to bending stresses in the first place.

Why ever would a shorter rod tire a fish faster than a longer one? Other factors have far more of a bearing on this than length alone.

One of the rod builders who posts here has written that he considers spinning rods most unsuitable for carp fishing as the tip sections tend to get over strained. I can't comment on that either way having not used a spinning rod enough but it is an alternative view. Equally another view expressed is that with a shorter rod you end up playing the fish on the reel more than you do with a longer rod, as you have that much less reach.

Reading slightly between your lines what I agree is that a J. S. Sharpe 9' 3" salmon spinning rod should tire a carp faster than a MkIV Avon. This is probably the case but this is due to their tapers not a function of their length.

[Dave Burr]

The idea that shorter rods are better for controlling and beating fish is easily proved by wading on a barbel river and catching with a 12' rod then a 7 or 8' spinning rod. Obviously the rods both need to be of sufficient strength to do the job but you would quickly find the short rod does it better. I don't have the knowledge of physics to prove it but it just works. You don't see sea boat anglers using 12' rods - unless they want the casting ability.

I have to say that I don't use 7' rods for barbel but neither do I use 12'. 11' is my maximum as it gives me the casting ability that I need when bank fishing. I have though, used an 8' rod for close quarter carp and wobbling for pike. It's not cane but it works a treat.

I mention pivotal points as most of my cane rods had them. For example, under extreme pressure, the Chapman 550 bends right through but has nowhere to go when it gets to the butt. I had one distort just above the bottom ferrule a few inches up from the butt! MkIVs, LRH and many others will bend through the handle. This is not ideal as everything is close to breaking point but now and then a fish will be going hell for leather toward a snag and its poo or bust time.

New cane built to a progressive test curve will be fine for carp - at a price. I have used a few longer and stepped up rods and they are generally pretty awful being too heavy and unwieldy. Cane has it's limits and I used it for pleasure but it still brought me pain with my dodgy shoulders.

Anybody can find a rod suitable for big carp providing the water is not too snaggy, they are experienced in playing good fish on cane and providing they can shrug off the ruining of a rod with good grace. It may not happen but equally, it may.

[Ljm183]

Gary Bills Nothing wrong with using a 50 year old Cane rod for Carp.

And you don't have to pay Barder prices to get one.

This 50 year old + Chapman 500 handled this Common of 21lb 12oz with ease and the rod is still as straight as the day it came out of the Chapman workshop.



Taken on a single piece of corn, size 16 hook to 3.2lb bottom. Had to keep it out of large Lilly pads both to the left and right.

[Beresford]

The idea that shorter rods are better for controlling and beating fish is easily proved by wading on a barbel river and catching with a 12' rod then a 7 or 8' spinning rod. Obviously the rods both need to be of sufficient strength to do the job but you would quickly find the short rod does it better. I don't have the knowledge of physics to prove it but it just works. You don't see sea boat anglers using 12' rods - unless they want the casting ability.

I have to say that I don't use 7' rods for barbel but neither do I use 12'. 11' is my maximum as it gives me the casting ability that I need when bank fishing. I have though, used an 8' rod for close quarter carp and wobbling for pike. It's not cane but it works a treat.

I mention pivotal points as most of my cane rods had them. For example, under extreme pressure, the Chapman 550 bends right through but has nowhere to go when it gets to the butt. I had one distort just above the bottom ferrule a few inches up from the butt! MkIVs, LRH and many others will bend through the handle. This is not ideal as everything is close to breaking point but now and then a fish will be going hell for leather toward a snag and its poo or bust time.

New cane built to a progressive test curve will be fine for carp - at a price. I have used a few longer and stepped up rods and they are generally pretty awful being too heavy and unwieldy. Cane has it's limits and I used it for pleasure but it still brought me pain with my dodgy shoulders.

Anybody can find a rod suitable for big carp providing the water is not too snaggy, they are experienced in playing good fish on cane and providing they can shrug off the ruining of a rod with good grace. It may not happen but equally, it may.

Dave,

I think you and I have had very different angling experiences. Mine all suggest that a longer rod is better in every situation other than in fishing overgrown bank sides or streams and small rivers, where there may not be enough room to use a longer rod. I've never fished for barbel but why are most barbel rods design to be 11' or more, in all materials, if a shorter rod is universally so much better? (I know the Crouch barbel stalker is a 10' rod and an exception perhaps?)

In every single angling situation I've found myself in a longer rod has far more control over a fish than a shorter one. When fly fishing from a boat you'd be at a massive disadvantage using a shorter rod in; casting, fishing the flies and controlling the fish to stop it diving under the boat. You have that much more reach and thus leverage from a wider range of angles. Most fly fishers will opt for a 10' rod afloat as the best allrounder but some will go down to 9' for fishing small flies. It's much easier to fish a very long leader (24' +) with a 10' rod and it's often necessary to use a long leader to present the flies correctly. A traditional loch style rod is 11' because this extra foot gives so much more control and allows the angler to fish a longer line under full control, including dibbling the top dropper over the surface – a deadly technique. A short rod simply can't do this. With a short rod you'd end up with all sorts of problems with droppers, a 10'+ rod enables them to be spaced at nearly 5' apart. Dapping needs a very long rod to work. When fishing on the rudder you need a long rod to keep your flies well clear of your boat partners as the flies won't always run true to the angle of drift.

Carp fishing - the longer rod enables a faster strike, especially at a distance as it's far more efficient when picking up line. You have more control over the line and fish and with greater length you can apply strain further away from the bank. The longer rod will enable you to often apply pressure from directly above the fish. The difference between a 9' and an 11' rod is very marked in this respect and it makes a huge difference in stopping carp from getting it's head down.

Trotting – a long rod gives more control over mending the line.

I think you've described a possible design flaw of the Chapman 500/550 series. I've yet to use a rod, be it cane, glass or carbon that has a pivot/fulcrum – all bend smoothly through their taper. I can see why that can occur but it's has no relation to the rod length only the design of the taper.

Enjoy your fishing!

@ljm, that is some fish and significant angling skill – wow!

[Aitch]

6 or 7 years ago I was bought a pair of 9' Dwarf rod (c*rb*n) carp rods in 2.75lb test curve, the reasoning behind them, was to keep them in the car for crafty post work dabbles...

Since owning them, my 12' ers were sold on and now ALL my carp rods, ( my retired MkIV excepted) cane and the black stuff are no longer than 9'3"... I can cast the 60-70 yards max that I need to on my waters and both cane and c*rb*n have no trouble landing big fish... the only area where a short rod falls down in my opinion is line pick up at distance...

Playing fish is entirely down to the individual and each person will handle each rod (and fish) differently... the only thing that I can take from this discussion is that different folks use different rods in different manners and there are no hard and fast rules that can be applied... some like long some like short... but I don't think that any one rod will do what everyone wants of it... its all going to be down to personal taste

[Dave Burr]

[quote=Beresford post

Last point first. A joint on a rod is a potential flat spot. A flat spot implies two sides that have a more acute bend than the rest which in turn equates to a potential weakness. Carbon rods have ferrules made of the same material as the rod and therefore, when correctly designed, have no flat spots. A rod without flat spots delivers the power evenly without undue stress making it virtually indestructible during the fight. All cane rods have flat spots, they are inevitable.

I was not including fly rods in my replies as we are talking about fishing for big carp on cane but I will add that a fly rod is one of the worst tools for hauling a heavy fish up through the depths as it has no backbone, unless it is designed for heavy reservoir work of course.

Likewise the casting and line pick up argument aren't relevant as we are talking about fishing for big carp on cane where nobody is going to fish over 70 yards. I have fished at 50-60 yards with a 9'3" rod with alacrity and have cast accurately and set the hook efficiently without issue. A longer rod will, to a degree, give you more control over a running fish but I have had carp kite in a wide arc with a 12' 3lb test carbon rod so there is little to choose between that and a 9 footer.

With regards to getting pressure over a fish. Try this, take your longest rod with say a 1'5 lb test curve and a through action. Attach it to something heavy and pull it down to the test curve. Now do the same with a 9' rod of similar TC but with a faster blank. You will end up with a long rod pointing straight down from about 4-5' beyond the handle and the shorter rod will likely be doing about the same therefore exerting the same direct, overhead pressure. Of course the faster tapered blank will have more in reserve over the through actioned rod. It's not the length that gives you control but the blank design. Do the same with a 7' sea boat rod and the tip will barely move and still be 6' from you.

I have a couple of 10' Carbon carp rods that I love using, I only go to my 12' when I want a long chuck as the length helps to increase casting length. Bearing in mind there are few fish in out waters that cannot be beaten on a 1.5 to 2lb test curve rod the increased TC's are all about size and distance of cast - not in the fight.

There is a lot of personal choice and many modern carpers just want longer, stiffer rods with bigger rings so they can cast to the far bank and get no enjoyment from the fight. I hope they are happy. Physics does not have personal choice. That more people don't use short rods? Like I said, too many follow the adverts not the sense.

[/quote]

[Duckett]

My experience is very different from Dave Burr's and I have little knowledge of physics. However, my experience tells me that I agree with him on shorter rods.

I have no experience of carp over 15lb, however, I have a lot of experience of lure fishing for Wrasse and Bass over North Wales and south coast of England reefs and heavy weed. Controlling a hard fighting Bass along a reef (or a groyne), or winkling a big Wrasse out of a reef, are all much easier and better controlled with a shorter rod. A shorter lure rod, be it cane, glass or another material, also gives you better control over the movement of the lure. I own over half a dozen lure rods, for a variety of purposes but only 1 is over 8 feet and that is a custom made one for banging big lures out on a large beach in the face of fierce wind.

[Beresford]

Dave,

Thanks for explaining the short rod / fast taper principle I now understand that.

I have written that at times I think the MkIV carp could do with just a bit more power lower down. I tested one of mine last summer, it was built in the 1990's. As it enters 90 degrees the pull was exactly 1.5lbs but when I really made sure it was at a 90 degree bend the pull was dead on 2lbs. I tested it as I wasn't convinced it was even 1.5lbs.

We like to fish in different ways though so our requirements are very different. You've stated several times that you want a very powerful rod with plenty of reserve in the butt section so that you can use the rod to haul fish off the bottom with it. I don't, that isn't part of my fishing. My primary requirement is for a rod that I can use to exert pressure from different angles, in my hands a longer rod is more capable of doing that than shorter rod (in my hands), no matter if I'm fishing for trout or carp. For me I've found this can often get weeded fish moving again. I fish light baits (or small flies) and will fish on the surface if doing so gives me a good chance of catching. If I'm not surface fishing for carp I'm using light baits, that I can usually see fished right in the margins.

The other part of fishing is casting and the MkIV in cane is the best rod I've used for casting very light baits, short distances, when surface fishing. I've had and sold the J. S Sharpe, Hardy LRH (No2) and a powerful 11' cane carp rod. I do agree that a 2lb test curve is enough for carping but these rods I've mentioned are more than that and none were as good as the MkIV Carp for casting light baits. All had oodles of power lower down though. I also sold a powerful fly rod because it was too stiff lower down and kept causing hook pulls (especially when nymphing) – a lot of folks reported the same problem with the model. It was a fabulous rod for casting a full fly line or picking up a line and sticking it straight out again, without wasting effort false casting. Overall though it wasn't much good.

Generally the MkIV carp does for most of my fishing and I'm satisfied that a 10' rod gives me the best allrounder. I expect I will buy another 11' cane carp rod at some stage but just not one as powerful as that which I had before. That leads us back to the original post.

[Dave Burr]

Dave,

Thanks for explaining the short rod / fast taper principle I now understand that.

I have written that at times I think the MkIV carp could do with just a bit more power lower down. I tested one of mine last summer, it was built in the 1990's. As it enters 90 degrees the pull was exactly 1.5lbs but when I really made sure it was at a 90 degree bend the pull was dead on 2lbs. I tested it as I wasn't convinced it was even 1.5lbs.

We like to fish in different ways though so our requirements are very different. You've stated several times that you want a very powerful rod with plenty of reserve in the butt section so that you can use the rod to haul fish off the bottom with it. I don't, that isn't part of my fishing. My primary requirement is for a rod that I can use to exert pressure from different angles, in my hands a longer rod is more capable of doing that than shorter rod (in my hands), no matter if I'm fishing for trout or carp. For me I've found this can often get weeded fish moving again. I fish light baits (or small flies) and will fish on the surface if doing so gives me a good chance of catching. If I'm not surface fishing for carp I'm using light baits, that I can usually see fished right in the margins.

The other part of fishing is casting and the MkIV in cane is the best rod I've used for casting very light baits, short distances, when surface fishing. I've had and sold the J. S Sharpe, Hardy LRH (No2) and a powerful 11' cane carp rod. I do agree that a 2lb test curve is enough for carping but these rods I've mentioned are more than that and none were as good as the MkIV Carp for casting light baits. All had oodles of power lower down though. I also sold a powerful fly rod because it was too stiff lower down and kept causing hook pulls (especially when nymphing) – a lot of folks reported the same problem with the model. It was a fabulous rod for casting a full fly line or picking up a line and sticking it straight out again, without wasting effort false casting. Overall though it wasn't much good.

Generally the MkIV carp does for most of my fishing and I'm satisfied that a 10' rod gives me the best allrounder. I expect I will buy another 11' cane carp rod at some stage but just not one as powerful as that which I had before. That leads us back to the original post.

Beresford

I don't necessarily 'want' a powerful rod for heaving fish, I have stated that certain rod designs are better at doing it than others. I do like to have a rod with reserve of power should it be needed. I once fished with two 11 or 12' carbon rods, one was designed by Matt Hayes as a 'specimen rod suitable for barbel', the other was a Daiwa fast taper rod ( one of my earliest graphite come carbon rods). Both had a 1'5 TC and both were fishing a small carp pool at about 20-30 yards distance.

I had a carp on the 'Specialist rod and it was a carp of about 8lbs that took me well over five minutes to land. I had it beaten after two minutes but could not lift it to the surface for netting. As I returned the fish it's twin took my other bait, they really were peas in a pod similar. On the faster tapered rod I had it in the net in 2 or 3 minutes with no fuss.

The MH rod was returned the next day for a refund.

I have spent a lot of time discussing rod design, tapers and length with some professional rod designers and builders, I know what I want and seek to find the rods that fit the bill. My favourite carp rods are Harrison's 2.5 TC 12 (I wish they were 11) foot long and have the best playing action you could dream of. My barbel rods are also made by Harrison's and also have the right 'feel'.

I know (from your pictures) where and how you fish and yes, were I to fish there I'd be more than happy to use a MkIV. I'm sure your rod is perfect for casting floaters too - but MkIV's have a habit of feeling and acting quite differently from one rod to another. However, were your lake to have a high number of big 20's and 30's I would still feel it only fair on my nerves and the fish's well being to use something a little heavier.

Maybe I just lack subtlety