Hooligan

The Little John and Baby fit into my arsenal much where the DT series does, with the exception of the fact that they are really excellent on ledges and rock on highland reservoirs . They are superb in hard cover as well . I tend to go to one of those baits more when I have an established pattern and I am not really searching as much because of their tremendous resistance . in regard to targeting fish in the middle of the water column while cranking, it can work, but bass are very often focused on other items of prey when they are suspended. Cranks do represent baitfish, but the entire reasoning of banging a crankbaits on structure and cover is that they elicit strikes in doing so. Saying that you don't see baitfish moving on bottom is ridiculous. Shad move on the bottom of lakes and river systems all day long. more often they are located oriented on the bottom of structure than they are related to any other point in the water column. not only that, but they are rooting around and in and out of vegetation and rock picking off aquatic insects and other forage. It is completely natural to see something like that. Not to mention a huge number of cranks represent craws, bluegill and sunfish, and other prey items that are bottom oriented. Cringe all you want, but if you aren't rooting bottom on a crankbait you're missing fish. you'll catch a fwe in the middle of the water column, but not nearly as many as if you pull in to a piece of structure and fish it properly by banging that crankbait around. There are a variety of reasons for this, depth control of cranks targeting suspended fish is only the start. unless it is just above them, they aren't going to run to eat it. If the bait is below them, black bass will almost never feed down. In all honesty, fishing a crankbait in open water to suspended fish is not good advice under most circumstances. it is not a tactic that I, or any pro I know or fish with, would employ under normal circumstances. there are other baits that do that job far better than cranking.

Little Johns are a great bait, no doubt they remain one of my favorites . They don't always fit into the flat side classification when you think of other flats like the Bandit or Rapala because the take a little longer to get to depth and really working I really like the DT Flat and the The Jackall baits as well . Both at are well controlled and have very reliable action, both have been very productive for me .

The difference between the DT series and the DD series are pretty huge . I have a tremendous amount of confidence in both, and fish both under many circumstances . To start with, the nice thing about the DTseries is the availability of the range . From the 4 to the 20, you know where your bait is, period . The DTis also a balsa based bait with high flotation . When you're fishing in hard cover or large rock where a bait nay be prone to hanging a bit more, the baits can back out of a snag more efficiently than many of their competitors. The Rapala bait is also relatively tight in comparison to many other shad body cranks . The Norman cranks are reliable across the board as well . They have excellent colors and are quite durable when you find yourself fishing in heavy grass or large rock . They're a much wider wobble with more roll than the DT series baits, also with a lower pitch rattle . Both feature VMC hooks and both have excellent hookups . I tend to favor the Rapala more as a search bait than the Norman, more because I can rely on it to be more erratic and mobile when I am moving it at slower or faster speeds . It is a more variable bait than the Norman . When I have a specific pattern than fish are located at a specific depth and on a larger profile bait, I tend to favor the Norman baits . The third series of bait that I throw extensively as both a search and targeted pattern is the Fat free Shad . They float well, have very good dive angle and remain at depth for reliable amounts of a cast . They also have a variety of depths with one of few that is in a sub one ounce 18-19 foot dive range . The FFS has very good hooks, are very durable, and have very consistent behavior at depth . They also perform well in cover, which is probably the singular drawback to the fragility of the Rapala . I could expand a bit more, but I fear I've already bored most out of their skulls...

To indicate that the G is not of the same build quality as the E is completely incorrect . The g is possibly higher quality than the E overall . You must, however, keep in mind that they are different reels entirely . The newer machines and equipment at the Malaysian location are calibrated to tighter tolerance and are said to be more accurate than the Japanese . What the primary difference is, is not quality of the reel, but the build of the reel itself . The G is a very good reel, missing nothing in terms of functionality and operation . There is no problem with the reel in any situation that I have encountered thus far . While the E is a touch smoother because of the additional bearings, it doesn't change the quality of the reel . What I have noticed is the same as many state, the G is more consistent and far less temperamental . It seems to be more accurate in setting from one reel to the next . I have nearly a dozen of both, as well as Ch200G and I have the inclination that the quality of the Curado G is a touch better than that of its counterparts . Remember, quality of build and materials does not equal the number of bearings in a reel, which is what so many people equate quality to .

No, it wasn't. Browning has never been a reel manufacturer, regardless of what you may have been told. BPS reels are manufactured at two facilities, the same two facilities that manufacture the vast majority of OEM manufactured reels in the world. One facility is in Korea, one is in China. BPS holds the manufacturing rights to all of their reels, providing design, engineering, and tooling, just as companies like Pure Fishing, and Lews. Few reel companies other than Ardent, Daiwa, Shimano, and Okuma make their own reels in their own factories.

My wife and I have an understanding and agreement. When I start making less than I spend on it, in total, it curbs. If I don't at least break even on an annual basis, it's been a bad year.

There are a lot better rods for the money out there. One of which being the Abu Garcia Veritas, another being the *** ***, another being the Daiwa Ballistic, yet another being the Falcon BuCoo. The TFO is, in my opinion, one of the poorest designed, heaviest, most over rated rod in any modern catalog. The graphites and resins are outdated, and the guides are bunk. The tactical series was supposed to address the weight issue, however it has not. They remain heavy, and are still not high on my list of sub $150 range. If you're spending $150 on a rod, the Carrot Stix Wild Black is a far better purchase.

I'll add my thoughts at a point when I have the time to sit and compose them. Thus far I'm very impressed with the rods. One thing that I will say: Do not underestimate the power in the blanks. They're definitely more powerful than they initially feel. I'll try to get back in here today and be a little more concise and expand on what Goose has said.

Calling Denali better than Loomis is a stretch. On what basis are they better? They use lower quality resins. They use, generally, lower quality guide sets, They use, generally, lower quality graphite sourcing. Every Denali that I've handled is also heavy, in most cases 3 ounces heavier than rods in the same price point. In one rod. That's a HUGE difference in weight for a rod that supposed to be in the upper end of a line. They're definitely far less crisp than a comparatively priced Loomis or Shimano, and they lack the overall fit, finish, and feel. In general they feel poorly built and finished, and lack in the sensitivity that I look for when I'm spending in excess of $200 on a rod.

Under no circumstance should you remove that O-ring. That's what acts as the keeper to prevent reels from loosening drag under counter-rotation.

Most likely, the keeper on the inside of the knob is missing or worn to the point that it will no longer hold. Another option is that there is an additional washer or two on the underside of the bearing on the shaft, or there's too great of space between the bearing and the seat on the actual spool. It's not uncommon that this happens over time with the Pflueger. I've seen it numerous times on reels that are a year or two old.

Bummer! I completely forgot about this this year. I'd intended to throw in again and didn't realize it until just now! FD, put everyones name in a hat, draw one, and send their info to me. Someone gets lucky and gets a Hooligan sized gift!

As usual, I'm a day late and a dollar short. I guess I should have read the release the day it was issued. It's no less interesting, though. Thanks for pointing that out, too, Glenn. I so often forget to check the news and articles.

I got an update at work today that Plano molding was sold to a teacher's pension plan organization. It said that it was a Canadian organization, and a big one at that. Something like $100+ in assests and liquid funds. I thought it was odd that the sale of an outdoor company like Plano went to a company that is a pension organization. I guess it speaks volumes about the economic status of the fishing industry. Even in downturn and slow economy, people are going to purchase fishing equipment...

TO further this, I fish several series of tournaments down South, every year. I have for the past ten or more. In the winter, there are some extremely well known guys that we fish with, some elite pros, some flw tour guys, a couple classic winners... They're all big guns; I mean that in the most respectful way I possibly can say it. They're good. It's always really gratifying to walk up to a weigh-in and see that your name is still atop the list and you've not yet weighed on day 2. It's also really gratifying to see that you did as well as, or better than, a guy that's won a classic. It boils down to their being a regular guy, just like you and me. The difference is that their chosen career has taken them on that path. I chose to have a secure career for one reason- fear. I feared what would happen if I didn't perform like I thought I could. I feared that I couldn't perform under the pressure. I feared that I couldn't keep up, and do what I needed to do. I've since learned that isn't the case. Winning those tournaments and fishing against those guys in those situations is what has taught me to not fear it. We're all only human and can do only that which we can. Only Zona is superhuman, and he's just weird.

Some further information on the subject, too.

Brittleness is how easily the rod will break. Most high end rods are brittle, as brittleness and sensitivity tend to be indirectly proportional. That's where a lifetime warranty comes into play! I respectfully disagree. Brittleness does not come into play in fishing rods, unless you're talking about poor quality builds. There has been much written on the subject, some has been answered by Gary Loomis himself. What it boils down to is this- as modulus of graphite gets higher, less and less material is used. This translates to wall thickness of the blank being less and less. 99% of the breakage in rods is something that we, the anglers, have done to injure the blank. Now, here's where it gets sticky, and why I tend to disagree with the statement in general: Brittle graphite generally comes from sub-par construction of the rod and from using poor quality resins to begin with. While it is true that sensitivity is increased by using less material in the rod (it's more about weight than anything else, another topic, however) In nearly every rod break I've ever seen in high end rods, there has been damage to the blank that was NOT resultant of pressure being applied in the direction the rod fibers are meant to flex, plain and simple. THat said, what's actually being compared to as brittleness is the crush strength of the graphite. That's a property that rods have in absolute minimum. They're not meant to absorb that sort of damage. I say damage beause that's what it is.

Deepest I've fished is a modified Lucky Craft 3.5XTR. The new SK crank will hit 35 on 10#, the problem is going to be throwing it. It's big. Real big. My favorite crank for 20-25 is the little John dd. it casts very well, it'll drag 25 with no problem, and it comes through everything. It's one of the cranks I've ever fished in big chunk rock.

Sandbagging? I think you're confused. Sandbagging is someone that underperforms intentionally. In the case of the pro that phones in his registration to fish a tournament that he would possibly not otherwise fish, I see it on capitalizing on opportunity. I see it no different than me fishing open tournaments on lakes that I fish on a tour or circuit. If it means I have the shot at making a few extra bucks and I'm confident that there's an established pattern I could do well on, well, I'd be foolish not too. Insinuating that because he's fishing the tour he's automatically better than others is somewhat ridiculous. I have been, and will be again, beaten in many an open tournament by someone that fishes a local lake or fishes only the occasional tournament. I fish with a handful of guys that are every bit as good as anyone on any tour, and they have no desire to fish tournaments. Some of them would give any, single angler on any tour a run for their money. Just because the tour pro is fishing it doesn't mean he's going to win it. I've beat many higher level pros fishing lower level tournaments. It's still fishing, and there's still chance and luck. The only difference is the entry fees. If the rules allow it, I see no reason for anyone to whine about it.

There are so many things, and so many reasons I fish that it's hard to put to words exactly. It's about learning, first and foremost. If I am on the water and I learn nothing, I've wasted my time. If I continue to learn nothing, I'm doing something wrong and should quit altogether. It's about competition and having the competitive edge; be that in knowledge of a particular body of water, the feel for a specific pattern, or my use of electronics. Competition is a tremendous drive. I enjoy the simple aspect of finding fish, establishing g a pattern, and in the knowledge it takes to do so. I like fishing with good gear, it's a pleasure to use good equipment. I enjoy the variety of things you see on the water, from the humor of some knucklehead at the ramp that can't launch his rig, to the ducks that bob softly on each wave. The scent of the water on the wind. The damp mornin air, the ice that forms on the deck at this time of year. Watching droplets of ice form on my bait cast reels as the line guide fills with ice, the patterns it forms. The subtle take of a fish in 40 degree water. The resounding thump of a fish that hits a jig at the rise of a hump. The feel of my jig dragging from rock to sand and back to rock. The observations of simply paying attention to my sonar. Seeing the way fish relate to different structures and cover based on the air temps, pressures, and season. It all goes back to learning, I guess. That's just a start, I could go on and on and not barely scratch the surface.

While this is generally true, the truer statement would be to say that Speed, or Taper of the rod effects sensitivity only conditionally. Apparent stiffness in a rod blank can come from a couple things, two of which are the most common: taper and resin. When two rods are made of the same materials using different taper, one will not be as sensitive as the other, generally, because the relay time of the graphite has been somewhat reduced by the modification of the taper. The scrim is generally not as compact in a slower taper...blah blah, blah. That's pretty extreme circumstances to describe it, though. In this situation, though, I disagree on the Veritas being a power heavy. They're not any more powerful than other rods in the same class, they are, however, faster and as such "stiffer". The blanks are generally listed as fast or extra fast and in most cases they would rate as XF and XXF when compared to the likes of most other manufacturers. There's a perceived difference in power because of this, however that's just it. It's perceived. I would not, for instance, throw a 3/4 ounce jig on a Medium Veritas because it just won't handle it. It will overload the rod, plain and simple. There are times that a 5/8 ounce bait feels like it is too much, as such casting distance and accuracy both suffer. Th MH is the same way. Exceed the rods limitations, and you're going to notice it immediately. In terms of the quality of the Veritas, they're a very good rod @ the $100 price point. Certainly more reliable than the CarbonLite and Quantum rods in the category. I would venture that they're more sensitive than the St Croix as well, likely up to the Premier and possibly the Rage. They're exponentially lighter than many rods in classes well above them, and they're built with decent components. For me, the single drawback is the trigger. When I palm reels the trigger is just a tad uncomfortable.

Send me their number. I'll gladly pay full retail for Curado D series reels that are NIB.

Round file. Extended form.

Of those two, I'll throw rocks. Don't like either rod mentioned. Both are heavy and just don't balance well. IMO the Veritas is a better feeling rod than both the rods in question.

Very true in perspective. It goes to further alliterate what it was that I was getting at. Longer isn't always better, and shorter isn't always either. There are advantages to both. The original post here that it was directed at has been edited, so it was a general statement.