I have never owned or used an expensive rod. I checked out an NRX rod in Cabelas, and it was nice, light and balanced, but I can't really say it was "better" than my $50 Lew's rod.

 

I have used rods that cost up to $100, but never used a high end rod like a G Loomis. That's the only brand I know that is "high end", so bear with me.

 

What are the advantages of a high end rod?

 

When I compare a $50 reel to a $200 reel, the differences are more obvious to me, but that's not the same with rods.

I don't know why people buy Loomis rods either.  I like to imagine there is some sort of overlap between Loomis buyers and Harley Davidson buyers.  Like the exact same age and location demographic buys both.  Might throw trek biclyes in there too but that's not what you asked.  The appeal of Loomis will forever remain a mystery to me.

 

I like expensive rods like Megabass, Evergreen, Designo, ect because they are cool and not because they are expensive.  They just look cool and have actions and lengths that I prefer for my style of fishing.  I buy mine from used or new from Japan or both and save quite a bit of money doing this although they still run hundreds of dollars a piece.  I get no warranty but IMO rod breakages are user error and shouldn't be subject to warranty replacement anyways.  

I certainly don't mean to call G Loomis out, I just am unaware of any other high end brands out there.

you have to fish with a high end rod to know. I upgraded my 2 main setups to Loomis IMX Pro rods and the difference is like night and day from what I had before. 

 

- they are lighter

- better balanced

-way more sensitive

-more powerful

-cast way better (a lot farther)

-get much better hooksets. 

-more durable 

-way better warranty if something were to go wrong

 

its got nothing to do with 'more expensive so must be about ego and not advantages' etc'

 

there are many tangible benefits that aren't always obvious until you start casting and fishing with them. Sure you can tell they are light and well balanced in the store but it really starts to come together when you put a reel on them and start to fish. 

 

That being said, I'd give my pecker away to fish with the next level up (the new GLX rods) 

59 minutes ago, Bazoo said:

I have never owned or used an expensive rod.

That's OK. You don't need to. You may want to, and that's fine, but aside from a few specific circumstances where maximum sensitivity might play a role, it won't make a difference, IMO. Locating bass is always the biggest issue followed by bait choice and presentation. The gear you choose to use is way down the line in importance. And yes, I've fished plenty with top-of-the-line Loomis.

How can you judge a rod by simply holding it at the store?

 

Like others said, you dont need a expensive rod to fish, but if you tried one out for a day you'd get it. I've fished my fair share of rods from $20 ugly stiks to $700+ World Shaulas and Poison Ultimas. 

 

 Not sure if you golf, but think of it as switching from a random set of cheap 80s era clubs with persimmon woods and tiny chunk irons to a custom fitted set of modern clubs. I can get a round in with either, but I hit better farther with more control all with ease with the latter, not only is it more effective its more enjoyable. A dialed in setup matched to your application with a quality rod(not necessarily NRX price, but a well designed taper with a quality blank) your setup basically becomes an extension of your body, kind of hard to explain but it gets to a point where you dont even really think about your rod when fishing it because its so seamless and smooth to operate in all aspects of fishing (casting, retrieve/sensitivity, hookset/fighting the fish).

 

I'd add that given the choice I'd get a spendy rod with a mid tier reel than the opposite every time, which is what I do.

I don’t ever want to fish a really nice rod, because I’m afraid I might like it.

 

Most all my rods are under $200. I spend premium on reels, but rods I bang up too much to shell out $1000 for a rod that I’m gonna snap in half with my fat foot.

Interesting replies.

For a long time, I didn't believe that a high end rod would make that much of a difference.  I used quality tackle and caught more than my fair share of bass and other species.  But, I like to experience things by myself so I bought a NRX 852 spinning rod.  It wasn't the lightest rod that I had, but it had a combination of components that made it special.  When I dragged that tube on the bottom, I would feel it come up on a rock, reach the top and then, cascade down to the bottom.  I would feel it brush weeds.  At first it was too much and I questionned myself on the use of that much retroaction.  Then I began to feel fish.  Not the bites, but the absence of feeling when a fish takes the lure and doesn't move or moves towards you.  And I can tell you that a lot of bass do that because my rate of success went up.

 

And I don't think you should buy only expensive rods.  I've got a 49$ frog rod that I would not give up for anything.  For that, sensitivity is not the most important feature.

39 minutes ago, Kasrkin said:

don’t ever want to fish a really nice rod, because I’m afraid I might like it.

 

Most all my rods are under $200.

Don't sweat it. Most of my rods cost from $150-$200. I don't feel like I'm in the 7th circle of Hades when I pick back up my gear after a day of fishing on my friend's boat with his NRX+s. If all I owned were ugly stiks, then yeah, I probably would but not with a mix of Daiwa, 13, ARK, Powell, and St. Croix in the above-mentioned price range. For the way I usually fish, I'd rather not stress out while fishing by treating a rod like a newborn, which would be what I'd do. I know me.

I appreciate all the responses.

 

31 minutes ago, Reel said:

For a long time, I didn't believe that a high end rod would make that much of a difference.  I used quality tackle and caught more than my fair share of bass and other species.  But, I like to experience things by myself so I bought a NRX 852 spinning rod.  It wasn't the lightest rod that I had, but it had a combination of components that made it special.  When I dragged that tube on the bottom, I would feel it come up on a rock, reach the top and then, cascade down to the bottom.  I would feel it brush weeds.  At first it was too much and I questionned myself on the use of that much retroaction.  Then I began to feel fish.  Not the bites, but the absence of feeling when a fish takes the lure and doesn't move or moves towards you.  And I can tell you that a lot of bass do that because my rate of success went up.

 

And I don't think you should buy only expensive rods.  I've got a 49$ frog rod that I would not give up for anything.  For that, sensitivity is not the most important feature.

So, let me ask this, since I primarily use mono, would an NRX give me a similar experience? For me it would be baitcasting, and it would be a fluke and texas rig rod.

 

In other words, would the use of mono negate the increase in sensitivity?

It's all personal satisfaction. People buy, spend money on stuff they like. Also i don't worry about how other people spend their money like on g loomis just because i don't care for it. That's just weird.

Like with anything, there are diminishing returns. Tons of great rods at the 100 or 150 dollar price point that will fish well and even meet technique specific requirements well. But step into that 200-400 range and you can really dial in "dedicated" setups, squeeze out some extra sensitivity with the component quality, and balance a specific reel better. Above that it's just more of the same, savings grams on weight, better balance, better sensitvity, but at that point you're really squeezing out drops for HUNDREDS extra. For most people that's just not worth it. 

 

I stick to the 150-250 range personally. 

3 minutes ago, MassYak85 said:

Like with anything, there are diminishing returns. Tons of great rods at the 100 or 150 dollar price point that will fish well and even meet technique specific requirements well. But step into that 200-400 range and you can really dial in "dedicated" setups, squeeze out some extra sensitivity with the component quality, and balance a specific reel better. Above that it's just more of the same, savings grams on weight, better balance, better sensitvity, but at that point you're really squeezing out drops for HUNDREDS extra. For most people that's just not worth it. 

 

I stick to the 150-250 range personally. 

This makes a lot of sense, thanks.

Lighter weight and increased sensitivity for starters.

 

Hold a P5 Megabass rod and you will instantly be amazed at the quality/beauty/weight/sensitivity/action.

 

It makes an NRX+ look like a used Corolla.

I took the Mudhole class so I could learn to build my own rods. There are deals to be had on the auction websites and I just shop around until I find what I want. I have built rods with high end blanks and Torzite guides. They are extremely light and much more sensitive than my store-bought rods. Of course my labor is free, but they usually come in under $200. That being said, my PG teener came on a Berkley Lightning Rod that was $35 at the time, so YMMV !

16 minutes ago, Bazoo said:

I appreciate all the responses.

 

So, let me ask this, since I primarily use mono, would an NRX give me a similar experience? For me it would be baitcasting, and it would be a fluke texas rig rod.

 

In other words, would the use of mono negate the increase in sensitivity?

If you compare an NRX to another rod using mono on both , yes, it will be more sensitive.  I feel spinnning rods in the NRX series are more sensitive than casting rods.  By fluke Texas rigged, you mean with a sinker on the bottom.  Yes, for bottom contact a NRX is very sensitive.  I would not use one for fluke fishing without a sinker.  You will get the most from a NRX with braid or braid to leader.

 

Yes beauty is in the eye of the beholder.   A Toyota will get you there and back.  A Jaguar might not !!!

2 minutes ago, Reel said:

If you compare an NRX to another rod using mono on both , yes, it will be more sensitive.  I feel spinnning rods in the NRX series are more sensitive than casting rods.  By fluke Texas rigged, you mean with a sinker on the bottom.  Yes, for bottom contact a NRX is very sensitive.  I would not use one for fluke fishing without a sinker.  You will get the most from a NRX with braid or braid to leader.

 

Yes beauty is in the eye of the beholder.   A Toyota will get you there and back.  A Jaguar might not !!!

I meant a fluke and texas rigged. Weightless fluke.

18 minutes ago, Bazoo said:

I appreciate all the responses.

 

So, let me ask this, since I primarily use mono, would an NRX give me a similar experience? For me it would be baitcasting, and it would be a fluke texas rig rod.

 

In other words, would the use of mono negate the increase in sensitivity?

Braid increases the sensitivity & mono decreases sensitivity by speeding up or slowing down your sense of feel. If you can not feel the difference in sensitivity between an NRX+ and A $50 Lews it makes sense to stick with the cheaper rod. But if you can appreciate the difference a more expensive rod or blank delivers then spend what you can afford on the better rod. For me quality tackle just makes the whole experience of fishing more enjoyable especially with bottom contact baits.  

1 hour ago, Hogs_n_Logs said:

How can you judge a rod by simply holding it at the store?

 

Better than buying one online that you can't even look at in person.

I would never tell anyone how to spend their money. Without even knowing you I don’t think you need a $600-700 rod. Or a $400 reel. There are plenty of quality and far less expensive rods available to step up your game. I think once you start trying to get dedicated rods for certain techniques you will start to see the difference. Power, action, lure weight and line size all have an importance in the rod you select. 
A place like BPS or Cabela’s has a wide range and variety of house branded rods and I would not overlooking them. 
Buy what feels right to you. Matches the technique you are using it for. Don’t feel compelled to own a high end rod. Especially just to own it. Too many other things that have to come first. Kids, wife, the house and car. 

Not really sure about high end rods being lighter better balanced. I have a number of rods not categorized as high end that are quite light and balanced moreso than high end of similar length power action. A number of nrx rods are not all that well balanced.

St Croix extreme aren't lighter than the victory line of rods for one example. Okuma x series not lighter than the older helios series but costs much more. 

Being more Powerful as well doesn't really relate to being higher cost maybe the opposite.

There’s a lot of different ways to look at it, but at the end of the day, it comes down to what you have the best feel with. Higher end rods are lighter, usually more sensitive and usually better built. 
 

I personally carry a mix of higher end stuff, mid range stuff, and stuff that many here would call garbage, but it works for me. I can tangle my $44 BPS flipping rods in the brush the same as I can a $300 Loomis, but $44 is a whole lot less painful to break the tip off of.

Dwight typed out my response while I was doing something else it seems like.

 

I like nice things.  Somtimes they perform better, sometimes they are just nicer.  A 'higher end' rod should be lighter and more responsive.  It might be more sensitive too.  Then again, there are a lot of rods that are in the 'not as expensive' bracket that are so sensitive and light that you might not be able to tell the difference.  

Having owned rods ranging from $50-700 there is a point of diminishing returns. Higher price usually gets you a better blank and guides which leads to better performance. At the top end you are getting minuscule improvements for exponentially higher price.