Sage XP vs. Scott SuperPly S3 - rod action and feel? [Archive] - Fly Fishing Forum

: Sage XP vs. Scott SuperPly S3 - rod action and feel?

Keith Kaneko
02-27-2002, 08:47 PM
Hello Fellow FlyFishers!

I would like to hear your opinions of these rods. I am in the market for a 10' 8wt. rod for Steelheading and would like to learn about the action and feel of these rods. Which rod has more casting power? More strength in the butt - fish fighting power? Sensitivity in the tip? And lightness in the hand? Thank you in advance for your input.

02-28-2002, 01:25 PM
I tested both of the 5 wts on the American river a couple of weekends ago. While the Sage XP is an awesome rod, the SuprPly is ever bit its equal. I found the Scott to be a little lighter in the tip, giving a little more feel at close range 30-40'. But beyond that they are very similar. We were shooting both rods out to 85'+ with little on no trouble. At that distance it is hard to quibble between the two. Really depends upon your sense of feel. You should definetly take them both out side and try them to get a good comparison. If I were to switch from Sage (own 4) the Scott SuperPly would be my first choice.

02-28-2002, 08:42 PM
I own the XP in the 10 foot 8WT and the 9.5 foot six weight (the one with the saltwater stlye fighting ass, not the trout style uplocking reel seat). I can't say enough about them. I do think you need to be pretty experienced to make the XPs really pop, but even a moderate caster will cast well with them. The 8wt throws the heck out of the rio versitip type 6 head with one backcast, shooting head style, and has loved every line I've tried with it. The 9.5 foot six, which I got for California and Southern oregon steelies and then promptly moved to Washington :-) has become my favorite lake trout rod for big fish, and will be used beach casting on the sound this season if I can figure out where to go. I do own and love the scott products (saltwater 9 foot 8weight, 8'8" nine weight, 9.5 foot 10 weight, fugly 14 weight, and a 15 foot spey rod) but the 10 foot 8 xp is awesome. Ugly, but awesome.

Capt. Mel Simpson
03-01-2002, 09:42 PM
I am a real hardcore Sage rod owner, but I own a few and have cast about every Scott rod made going back to when they were made in San Francisco using Kennedy Fisher blanks. ( I also sometimes work for a very large fly shop here in Florida and they are a dealer for those two rod companies and many others) I even have a couple of the Scott glass rods, but anyway,...
I just get the feeling that almost every rod company is always a step or two behind Sage's technology in new rod design.
All the rods I use for saltwater are 9', but I have steelhead fished for almost 40 years and am from the Northwest so I always cast every longer rod I can get my hands on. My casting style is a short roll cast, loading the rod with a water haul, a short fast backcast and shooting line. Many of the rods now are such that you have to have the full belly of the line out before it is fully loaded and that takes too much time and too many false casts for me to be able to shoot a lot of line quickly. The XP can handle a short cast and a long cast and that's the difference for me.
If you want to really cast an interesting rod try the XP 11' 6wt. I would overload it with a 7wt line. It may just be my next steelhead rod.

03-02-2002, 03:37 AM
For what it's worth, one of the things I really love about the XP is how "lively" it feels when actually fishing it. This quality is difficult to quantify, but I've found that many of the great distance casting rods are so designed to fire long lines that they sacrifice what I call "fishability." In my experience, Sage is one of the few manufacturers that makes this fishing feeling a priority. From a marketing standpoint, it's a bit of a gamble, 'cause these qualities don't show up in the parking lot outside the fly shop, where most rods are tested and compared. My personal favorite for single-handed rods is the 796 XP for steelhead and the 490 XP for trout. Absolutely beautiful casting and fishing rods. If it's possible, I recommend spending some time with the rods you're deciding between in actual fishing situations, i.e., mending, making short and long presentations, etc. In those cases, I think the XP will really shine. I'm not sure how you can do this, as most shops probably won't loan rods to actually fish, but there is a real difference in how equal casting rods will fish. Anybody else experience this? Hope this opinion helps.


03-02-2002, 05:45 AM
GREAT POINTS! Of the angling venues I practice fishability is equally important as castability in some, a factor in all. I would say that the castability to fishability importance ratio (CFIR - there we just made it official!) is 50/50 in stream trout, 60/40 in river salmon and steelhead, 80/20 in PNW beach fishing and stillwater trout, and 90/10 in striper fishing and tropical SWFF, etc.

In stream fishing the casting almost seems insignificant compared to the mending, line control, and presentation requirement. But because casting is part accuracy and part distance, the accuracy is critical here.

In river fishing for big salmonids the good cast is a requirement but line handling is nearly as important. When working dries, skaters or pocket water complex line control is key. The way the rod commands the swing is felt with every cast, and the rod must handle a living silver torpedo when you succeed.

In SWFF the cast takes more of the stage and there is little more than an initial mend needed in the majority of in-current situations; and no mending in non-current situations. In fact anything but a floater can't accomodate more line handling than that, and a floater is rare in northern waters. Fishability of the line becomes a big factor here.

These are just personal opinions to make a point. In any case, rod fishability is a factor that plays an important role across the many angling venues. I'll be sure to borrow an XP so I can CFIR myself! :devil: