View Full Version : I wonder?

27-01-2007, 16:38
Years ago it seem the world was a different place. Carp rods of 2.25lb were multi-range and 2.75lb were long range. So I wonder if anyone thinks that a proportion of mouth damage to carp could be the result of heavier test curves being used at shorter ranges. As I said years ago with lighter test curves being used there was imo a lot more forgivness when playing fish due to the cushioning effect of the rods. As I say just a thought that is all, not a witch hunt as I do use thirteen foot 3lb test curve rods when fishing at extreme distances but most of my fishing being margin based I use 11foot 1.75lb Armalites.

27-01-2007, 17:21
A good point and food for thought, certainly. Most of my fishing is close range, even margin fishing... I have a favourite set of 1.75's through action, which are great for this.

One of the issues I find with the use of 'stiffer' rods is that with using method or PVA bag set-ups, you need that little extra to punch the added weight out!

Another issue, which is far more serious is the amount of people coming into the sport and starting straight on carp!! Learn your craft first, on the whole range of fish available... It'll teach them so much about 'playing' fish! They may also appreciate that anything under 20lb still deserves some respect!

27-01-2007, 18:51
Test curve bears no relationship to action of a rod, which is more likely to be a cause in what you describe. So its a bit broad-brush to state that higher test curves are a problem.

I had a good session in france in the summer, during which I took my (new) torrix 3.25lb rods. As it turned out, I ended up in a swim which meant that all of my fishing was at a range of less than 10 yards, up against some snags. I banked 11 fish out of 12 runs in the week, best 44lb 15oz. I never felt as if the 3.25's were over-gunned. And none of the fish had any mouth damage...

Action is everything. So whilst I can see that some tip-actioned 3lb+ rods might cause some concern at close ranges, that doesnt apply to all of them. And I bet there are some 2.5 to 2.75 rods that are a bit of a worry at close range...

27-01-2007, 21:01
i dont know mate, look at malborough pool likes of maddocks an len middleton were fishing there back in the
day qaulity anglers an those fish had sum bad mouth damage then?

28-01-2007, 01:07
no body wants to loose fish i guess people fishing with broom sticks would play fish accordingly i subscribe to the lower test curves myself
experimental rigs probable cause ive seen some horrendous rigs bear in mind that anyone with a modicom of rig knowledge will pin them in the bottom lip where risk of damage is minimal. the exception of cause is floater fishing where hooking is more hit and miss i see more damage on waters where surface baits are taken readily.

28-01-2007, 07:41
Fantastic points, good observation about the rod action and also a valid point about floater fishing but again I have observed anglers? floater fishing in the margins with 3.5lb test curve rods! Anyway as we are seemingly having a great thread does anyone have a view on barbed against barbless hooks. Just a thought again! KTCA

28-01-2007, 09:19
It's not the stiffness of the rod that causes the damage to the fish, it is the harshness in which the rods are used.
The harder anglers lean into a fish, the harder it will pull back. Granted there are times when you have to lock up and not give any line, ie when the fish is heading for snags, but the majority of the time, there is no need to pile on the pressure, which in turn causes the damage.
I have landed big fish that I have played with almost no bend in the rod (on 2.75tc ballistas), that hardly knew they were hooked, I pretty much led them to the bank like a dog on a lead, and as such, there was no mouth damage (and this is using braid).
I am also equally happy using these rods for long range tenching and breaming, happy in the knowledge I wont pull out of their soft mouths, because I dont crank them in as hard as I can.
You could use a snooker cue to land fish and still have no mouth damage if they were played correctly, using your arm to absorb any lunges.

28-01-2007, 11:38
I agree with Mike, i think its all down to the way you play them. I would expect to find Carp with bad mouths on day ticket waters or club waters that allow juniors or un experienced anglers to fish it. If you skull drag any fish in its going to damage it. You could play a Carp on a broom handle but if you played the fish on back wind it wouldnt be anymore damaged than if you had played on a 1.25 tc rod.

I also use 2.75tc rods that I find are just as forgiving under the rod tip than they are at 80 yards.
I think its a very valid point tho. A stiffer rod in un experienced hands would be more likely to pull the hook out which in turn would cause mouth damage, especially when playing a fish at close quarters.

As for barbed and non barbed, I am in the barbed camp. If I was still float fishing for small siver species then I would use barbless as the playing of a fish is less protracted and their mouths are much more delicate. The barbs on modern hooks are much smaller and will not move about so much when playing an angry Carp. As long as you take care when unhooking and dont rip the hook out then mouth damage can be kept to a minimum.

29-01-2007, 00:06
a lot of years ago an experiment was conducted by the legendary kev baines using a variety of rods lines and reels and believe this or not at the hook the best pressure that could be applied was ,1 AND 1/2 POUNDS , and the rod that applied the most pressure was a sportex 11" 1.25lb this was conducted over a number of distances to simulate real fishing conditions any one who knows, knew kev around this time will attest to how much he rated this rod (kevs a rod builder par excellance) he also claimed massive casting distances for this rod (measured) i cant remember the distances tho