Team9nine

Honestly, that looks much more like a pumpkinseed to me, and not a redear (shellcracker).

Ambassadeur 6000 - $35 from eBay 1 year in the books and working fine

Sounds like a plan. Maybe "concerns" would have been a better word. Fluoro is what it is. I have it on nearly every bait caster I own, use it all season long without respooling and have even gone 2 seasons in some cases. I never use any line conditioner either - no problems here. But as you pointed out, others have a long list of "faults" they've had with the line. Only way to know is to try it. Well worth the money to me, but everyone is different. Good luck this season!

There are no fluoro faults, there are only angler faults If you don't feel comfortable with it, then you probably shouldn't use it.

Just to throw this into the mix, a new study out of Florida determined you only need 2 successful broods per acre in order to maintain the existing population.

No, No, and N/A

Always been called offset to me, and by most manufacturers from what I can tell. Yes, a non-inline point and shank is also referred to as offset, but I think more commonly it is called "kirbed" or "reversed." I just know if you want to buy a bunch of hooks like what you pictured online, you'll find all you need if you search by "offset worm hook."

Nice chubs! Must be spring spawning run time -T9

And therein lies part of the problem of teasing out an answer under real world applications. Since we don't fish with broomsticks, the rod will certainly accept a portion of the shock, and hence reduce overall elongation of the line. This is where the TT test fails to go (and it probably wasn't meant to go there). However, it also seems a bit naive to assume the rod will absorb 100% of the shock, and that some portion will ultimately be absorbed by the elasticity of the nylon. Similar to my above comment, the answer is probably variable and dependent upon length of cast. In short scenarios such as you mention, drag and slope would hardly come into play, and it would all be rod flex and line elongation. However, on a 90' cast into 18' of water with a worm or jig, those variables Tom mentions should have a much more important role in the equation. It all makes for fascinating discussion in my book Thanks @fissure_man @WRB !

No qualms here with that explanation, but would you then agree that one of the reasons for nylons high impact strength is it's high degree of elasticity (elongation/stretch) which acts as a shock absorber?

I think we're back to a semantics/definition hurdle Dead weight lifting with typical rods is certainly to the low end in most cases as Tom suggests, but elongation of line occurs at very low forces. Easy to test and prove to yourself, but this elongation is part of the elastic phase where the line returns to normal. If Tom is referring to "stretch" as exceeding the yield point of the line, moving into the plastic deformation phase of elongation, then he is likely correct, at least with most nylons that tend to be highly elastic. Testing has shown fluorocarbons to reach yield points with rather low levels of force. So I think we're discussing around a difference in definitions. The other point I'd mention is hook setting is often more of a shock force for lack of a better term, and again, testing has shown that at least at pitching distances, you can generate double the amount of force that a rod might struggle to deadweight. @Catt has posted about testing stretch on the water with hook sets at distance and while it was minimal (<24") it still existed. -T9

Don't have an exact list of specific baits, but I can tell you a variety of soft plastics are at the top. I've had them hold onto trick worms and the like for 45 seconds or more. Others like tubes and shakeyheads can easily go half a minute. All these are not scented outside of whatever the manufacturer may have put in. After that, jigs are probably next longest. Can often get 10 or 20 seconds out of one, and sometimes they'll spit/drop it and then grab it right back again. Hard plastic baits are a little harder to judge. I've bent down hooks on cranks and removed them from topwaters. Seems like you've got a few seconds but it's tougher to judge, especially cranks which can be hard to tell a hit in he first place. Frogs and toads will go for a bit if the fish has room to run, otherwise line tension either gets them to drop it or pulls it out of their mouth. Soft plastics in general are that way it seems. If a fish can run with the bait they seem to hold it longer than if they're tight in cover and you drop it on their head with no place for them to go. I've never been a fan. When I fished tourneys I always preferred a jig because I could fish it faster and feel cover better. I only carried 1 bag of worms as a desperation measure.

Haven't weighed split rings, but small Owner Hyperwires might be worth a shot. On hooks, seems like Katsuge's are the lightest and Gammi round bend regular wire are next. On the other point, size jar won't matter, but water temp might. Just testing a bait in a tank isn't the whole story though. Throwing the bait with line attached, especially mono or braid, will make a difference because the bait will have to overcome drag and surface tension. Very slow fallers will end up suspending in many cases. One last thought - if nothing else works and you're using a 3 hook bait, don't be afraid to remove one treble, typically the front or middle one to lose the weight. Hookup ratio stays better than you might think. -T9

Nice write-up. Pad Crashers are one of just a few frog brands that make it into my box. Nice baits that pretty much do what they're supposed to. -T9

Hmmm.... I've fished shakyhead, cranks and topwaters with a 14" or longer tag line just to prove to myself the bass don't care. I haven't thrown a traditional Texas-rigged worm in nearly a decade, or a Carolina rig in nearly 2 decades. I honestly can't remember the last spinnerbait fish I caught. I've spent days not setting the hook on fish just because I wanted to see how long they'd hold certain baits. I only have a single bait caster at the moment spooled with mono, and only 1 spooled with braid (frog rod). Everything else is straight fluorocarbon. I haven't used any type of scent or spray in nearly 30 years.

Yeah, I've done near 10' lengths off my garage door tracks with weights and a static ruler as well as 15' lengths along the floor with a force gauge and a taped in place measuring device. Have also done 24 hour creep tests at 50% line rating. Used micrometer to measure all diameters to 4 decimals, plotted all points (stress vs strain) on a graph and compared multiple samples adjusting for diameter (tensile strength). All fun stuff. You get some nice graphs, but you can't pick out yield points from the curves. Nylons tend to always stay in the elastic region (based on measuring permanent deformation after elongation testing and creep measurements) while fluorocarbon goes all over the map depending upon specific sample. It actually takes very little force in some cases to generate permanent deformation. Some low stretch copolys do better than fluoros, and you end up with a mix of results. The real question to me seems more around our ability as anglers to actually be able to detect small differences in line elongation. Can you really tell the difference between a line with 16% "stretch" and a line with 13.5% "stretch" at a given force, or does knowing the data from your tests beforehand bias your perception otherwise? I'm personally not sold on "stretch" as a key metric for sensitivity unless taken to the extremes like comparing braids and super lines (2-6%) to monofilaments (20-35%+). ...and I too totally appreciate the tests like what FryDog did. I love the quest for data and answers, even if the ultimate outcome is somewhat limited or subjective. It's why I've spent so much time doing the same thing myself

Trust me when I say I have done this exact test numerous times on numerous line samples (and types) over the years, especially comparing fluorocarbons to nylon/copolys. All my observations suggest the best you can do is make some nice generalizations (based on hints and trends in the data). I've tried getting the detail needed to differentiate slopes and determine yield points, and you simply can't with the precision necessary to be able to make any absolute statements. I'm now convinced that if there truly is a difference in elongation/Youngs modulus,yield curves, etc, you are only going to see it with an Instron machine or similar high tech piece of equipment as @WRB Tom had mentioned using. I believe the differences are such that unfortunately, a nice home-brewed experiment simply can't determine the answer too some of these questions. -T9

Pics look like one spot and one smallie to me...didn't know spots were even in Big Walnut. -T9

Quote: "Lucky is the guy where the fish are on the structure the first time he hits it." -Buck Perry

If you're going to stick with braid on both setups, I'd personally run a leader on the MF setup, otherwise you'll have a heck of a time with walking baits like Spooks, Gunfish and Pop-Rs tangling in the braid. On the MH setup, I'd go straight braid for Ploppers, buzzers, toads and other "cast and reel" type baits. No need for a leader in those instances.

I'm going to split the difference and say you're both right (you and FM) I've marked and tested more than my fair share of line types, and in many cases, literally ounces of pressure is all that is required to start seeing line stretch. That said, having to overcome line bowing underwater is also a very real thing and could certainly make someone think their line is stretching a lot when in reality, it isn't. Berkley's former engineer (Paul Johnson) has written extensively on the subject of line properties. Well worth tracking down some of his stuff for those wanting to know the real scoop on line mechanics. Line diameter plays a big role in real world applications as does line distance when it comes to the amount of force that actually gets applied in any given scenario.

If you look at the schedules over the years, you'll see a period of time where the two sides played nice together, and many of the biggest names in the sport at the time fished both. However, the "feud" escalated, and at least one schedule conflict or more has pretty much killed the idea of the "2 Tour" pro these days. Been many years since it last happened, but Ish and Steve Kennedy were both big fans of doing them all along with a handful of others. Any more, I don't think the two sides even try to avoid the schedule conflicts.

Look at Wheeler - back then the Costas were called the Everstarts, but he completely bypassed that level and went straight to the FLW Tour after just 1 year of BFLs. It happens.

It's certainly a mixed bag, and both sides have valid points in the discussion. In the case of the largest bass on the planet (LMB), that was a window of time (late 70s through early 90s) that opened up due largely to genetics and the introduction of Florida strain bass into Cali (and arguably TX and TN to a lesser degree). Also, technology (and media) in a variety of forms has increased the pressure tremendously on both the fish and the best fisheries in the country. On the the plus side though, catch and release has almost become dogma among bass anglers, so more fish are being released to continue growing. Largely gone are the days of huge stringer shots. Additionally, and not being political, climate change is definitely extending the growing season in several parts of the country, and cool water species in particular (spots, smallies) seem to be benefitting. There are other factors that could be mentioned like the Clean Water Act in the 70s, invasive species (think Lake Erie and smallies/walleye as an example), genetic engineering, and social media, among others. It all makes for an interesting study.

There are a few things at play, I believe. One is that BASS has typically had more tour level tourneys per year than FLW. Another is that their sponsors tend to place a higher value on them fishing BASS. As such, sponsor contracts tend to be more lucrative for pros on the BASS side. Then there is the no co-angler part which most really like. Finally, the Classic is still "The Classic," and everyone of them growing up probably had dreams of winning it one day. It's a strong pull that even some of those guys on FLW that haven't crossed over have mentioned as being something they'd like to do one day. It's not quite 'anyone' as they do have a long list of priority entry status you'd have to go through to have a chance at the tour, but it's certainly more easily attained than with BASS, and not totally out of the realm of possibility. The Opens are about the only way to get into the Elites, but one could argue almost anyone could get into an Open division and with a good year (and a little luck), get an Elite invite. The big draw for many FLW guys to fish the Opens is to get the Classic berth by winning one event, not to actually make the jump to another circuit.