10-24-2008, 09:05 PM
Big and little are such relative terms, Flygoddess. I called 7 1/2' little only in relationship to the longer rods preferred today---and by me even then. First rod I ever built, right after the Fenwick, was just short of 9 feet, and folks thought I was crazy.
But compared to the midge rods that were all the rage when I bought the Fenwick, it was a giant. Some of those boys got really obsessive, with rods that were shorter than most rod tips.
Comes Lee Wulff (of course) who demonstrates that you don't need a rod at all to cast the whole 90 feet.
To me that whole thing was like the #1 weights of today. An affectation, more than a serious tool, for anglers who have far too much time and money on their hands.
Brook
[url "http://www.the-outdoor-sports-advisor.com"]http://www.the-outdoor-sports-advisor.com[/url]
[signature]
But compared to the midge rods that were all the rage when I bought the Fenwick, it was a giant. Some of those boys got really obsessive, with rods that were shorter than most rod tips.
Comes Lee Wulff (of course) who demonstrates that you don't need a rod at all to cast the whole 90 feet.
To me that whole thing was like the #1 weights of today. An affectation, more than a serious tool, for anglers who have far too much time and money on their hands.
Brook
[url "http://www.the-outdoor-sports-advisor.com"]http://www.the-outdoor-sports-advisor.com[/url]
[signature]