Sage vs Scott for Largemouths? - Fly Fishing Forum
Warmwater flyfishing Bass, pike and even muskies in your backyard

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-19-2008, 07:35 AM
soloflyfisher soloflyfisher is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Ontario
Posts: 92
Sage vs Scott for Largemouths?

I end up doing a lot of largemouth bass fishing here in Massachusetts and am considering getting a fly rod specifically for that purpose. Right now I use an old--very fast--Sage 9 ft 8 wt designed for steelhead. The new Scott warmwater (in 10 wt) and the Sage Largemouth (330 gr), with their heavy lines for big flies and their short lengths, both seem ideal for the kind of fishing I do from a very narrow solo canoe (landing a fish with a 9 footer in a narrow canoe can be an adventure).

My questions: Has anyone tried the Scott and/or Sage? If so, what were the pros and cons of each and what would you recommend? Since most of my fishing that isn't trout fishing is bass and pike fishing, versatility isn't a huge concern for me, but would anyone recommend my considering a short, 10 or 11 wt saltwater rod as an alternative on the assumption that such a rod might be no less useful for bass and pike but more useful in other situations (such as striper fishing from a boat)?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #2  
Old 05-19-2008, 07:41 AM
Eddie Eddie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Portland, ME.
Posts: 1,586
I have cast the Sage Bass rod, and I don't see why you couldn't use it to catch just about any fish.
__________________
One cast can change your day...maybe your life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #3  
Old 05-19-2008, 04:26 PM
soloflyfisher soloflyfisher is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Ontario
Posts: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie
I have cast the Sage Bass rod, and I don't see why you couldn't use it to catch just about any fish.

What did you think? Do you like it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #4  
Old 05-25-2008, 08:48 AM
teflon_jones's Avatar
teflon_jones teflon_jones is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Colorado Front Range
Posts: 1,310
Send a message via AIM to teflon_jones Send a message via Yahoo to teflon_jones
Either rod should do an excellent job. A 10 wt for largemouth though? That's a striper rod! Anything more than a 7 wt is too much for largemouth if you ask me. The fish aren't that big and it isn't much fun fighting 12" fish on even an 8 wt if you ask me.
__________________
My passion for catching fish is eclipsed only by the fish's passion not to be caught.
Scott
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #5  
Old 05-27-2008, 08:31 PM
soloflyfisher soloflyfisher is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Ontario
Posts: 92
I was worried about the size of the rod/line too, but I guess the rig is matched more to the size of the flies than the size of the fish. I went ahead and ordered one today. I'll let you know what I think after I use it this weekend.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #6  
Old 05-31-2008, 12:00 PM
soloflyfisher soloflyfisher is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Ontario
Posts: 92
I got the Sage Largemouth this week and used it for the first time yesterday. At first, I didn't think I would like it. It just had a very different feel from my other rods (my favorite casting action is my Sage XP 5 wt). After half an hour though, I was throwing size 2 swimming frogs further than I had ever thrown them before--and with minimal false casting. As an experiment, I shifted over to my old bass rod--a Sage RPL+ nine foot 8 weight--and tried to cast another size 2 swimming frog. After three casts, I gave up--the Sage Largemouth was so noticeably better at handling these flies that the RPL+ -- which has served me faithfully for bass for nearly a decade -- seemed almost unbearable.

Besides the ease with which the Largemouth handles big bass bugs, I like the rod's shorter length. I fish from a small, solo canoe and the eight foot rod is a lot handier than a nine foot.

The bass weren't biting, but I did hook one frisky 14 incher (he shook the hook on his third jump). I was concerned that the Sage Largemouth (with its 330 grain line--equivalent to an 11 wt) would be too much rod for these fish. While the tip didn't feel quite as sensitive as the tip of my other fly rods, I still felt the fight in the fish well. The shorter rod also is more convenient for manipulating bass out of weeds.

One other thing to mention--when my wife saw the rod, she laughed and said they really did design that for bass fishermen, didn't they? She was referring to the gold and red color scheme. It's kind of an ugly rod compared to my other Sages--but the more I fished with it, the more I liked it. It fits in well with the lazy atmosphere of a muddy bass pond and, as my wife said, the color scheme matches most beer cans pretty well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #7  
Old 05-31-2008, 04:16 PM
JR SPEY JR SPEY is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Just about anywhere
Posts: 624
Quote:
Originally Posted by teflon_jones
Either rod should do an excellent job. A 10 wt for largemouth though? That's a striper rod! Anything more than a 7 wt is too much for largemouth if you ask me. The fish aren't that big and it isn't much fun fighting 12" fish on even an 8 wt if you ask me.
I guess if all you ever catch is 12" bass I'd agree. However, that's not the case with many of us. I use very large and heavy flies (Dahlberg divers with a rabbit strip for example) that simply will not cast with any 7 weight. Though my main rods are 8 and 9 weight, I have no problem using a 10 when I need it. I also spend a lot of time in the slop and often use a single piece of 20# mono for a leader. A heavier rod gets fish up and out of that kind of a nightmare way better than something lighter. Getting a 20"+ bass out of logjams and heavy emergent weeds cannot be done effectively with a 7.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #8  
Old 06-01-2008, 11:18 AM
teflon_jones's Avatar
teflon_jones teflon_jones is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Colorado Front Range
Posts: 1,310
Send a message via AIM to teflon_jones Send a message via Yahoo to teflon_jones
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR SPEY
I guess if all you ever catch is 12" bass I'd agree. However, that's not the case with many of us. I use very large and heavy flies (Dahlberg divers with a rabbit strip for example) that simply will not cast with any 7 weight. Though my main rods are 8 and 9 weight, I have no problem using a 10 when I need it. I also spend a lot of time in the slop and often use a single piece of 20# mono for a leader. A heavier rod gets fish up and out of that kind of a nightmare way better than something lighter. Getting a 20"+ bass out of logjams and heavy emergent weeds cannot be done effectively with a 7.
Well, last year I broke my streak after 4 years straight with a 5+ lb largemouth (and I didn't miss by much, 4 lbs 14 oz). I also cast very large flies and I don't have any trouble at all with my 5/6. I absolutely disagree that no 7 wt will cast a big Dahlberg or any other big fly. I actually regularly cast 4" flies on my 4 weight trout rod (I go after big trout) without much trouble, including in windy conditions. I have a 6-7" jointed marabou/bucktail/rabbit strip fly that I cast on my 4 wt and I can hit 50' pretty easily, and the rod is even a full flex! I agree that a big rod helps cast bigger flies easier, especially in a wind, but there's no need for a 10 wt to cast them. If you're having trouble on your 8 wt, then I'd simply recommend getting more practice!
__________________
My passion for catching fish is eclipsed only by the fish's passion not to be caught.
Scott
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #9  
Old 06-02-2008, 12:00 PM
Dble Haul's Avatar
Dble Haul Dble Haul is offline
Fly chucker
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 3,674
Guys, it's okay to disagree on this subject. I tend to go on the heavier side with bass gear and usually use an 8 weight for larger flies and to steer bass away from heavy cover. Sure large flies can be cast with lower rod weights, but over the course of a day's fishing that can take its toll on the arm of many anglers, regardless of how much practice they've had.
__________________
Mark
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #10  
Old 06-02-2008, 02:50 PM
JR SPEY JR SPEY is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Just about anywhere
Posts: 624
And there are guys, including one who used to frequent this board, who tell us that they fish for bonefish on Andros Island with a six weight rod and a twenty foot leader and manage to do so even in the wind. Well, maybe you can do it, but I choose not to. Seriously undergunning yourself is why rotator cuffs get blown out and tennis elbow becomes a problem. There's a difference between being able to physically do it and it being practical. In open water situations I'll use a 7 for largemouths and even a 5 weight for smallies. However, the flies are reasonably sized and the water fairly open. It is fun to do in that situation. It is not fun to do, at least for me, when using large Dahlbergs, especially those with a rabbit strip tail and lots of cover. I've been fly fishing for forty years, and though I'm sure there are better casters on this board, I haven't had a guide tell me I need more casting practice in over a decade. To each his own, I guess.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #11  
Old 06-02-2008, 06:53 PM
highway61's Avatar
highway61 highway61 is offline
Registered user
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 220
Send a message via AIM to highway61
Well, just to even the sides I agree with Scott. I have a 7wt GLX Loomis and have no problem casting heavier flies. It doesn't take a lot of false casting either to launch it. I also like that the loomis is 9'. Although I have not cast the sage bass rod, I wonder if it can cast a fly as far as a 9' rod. Not that every situation requires a long distant cast, but there are situations where I am glad I have the extra distance.

Steve
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #12  
Old 06-02-2008, 07:29 PM
millerbrown millerbrown is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Millers River
Posts: 113
Maybe I'm being too simple minded here but a good 8wt will handle ANY largemouth situation from very large flies in clear lakes to the weedy backwaters that I've fished. A 5-6wt will handle ALL smallmouth situations. Using a lightweight rod (5wt or so) with big flies is dangerous and too much work.

Millerbrown
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #13  
Old 06-02-2008, 08:45 PM
Quentin's Avatar
Quentin Quentin is offline
_
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Berkshire County, MA
Posts: 1,520
I once snapped the tip off my 9' 7wt just above the 3rd guide from the top (lost the tip-top and the next guide down). I continued to use the rod out of necessity and discovered that it casted remarkable well, except for the line occasionally wrapping around the stub above the top-most guide. I actually considered buying a new 7wt and putting a tip-top on the broken rod so I could use it as a shorter rod.

Q
__________________
The farther you can cast, the easier it is for a fish to take you into your backing. I seldom see my backing . . .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #14  
Old 06-02-2008, 09:25 PM
JR SPEY JR SPEY is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Just about anywhere
Posts: 624
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerbrown
Maybe I'm being too simple minded here but a good 8wt will handle ANY largemouth situation from very large flies in clear lakes to the weedy backwaters that I've fished. A 5-6wt will handle ALL smallmouth situations. Using a lightweight rod (5wt or so) with big flies is dangerous and too much work.

Millerbrown
Surprisingly enough, I almost agree with you on the largemouths. I do 90% of mine with an 8 weight, but there are times when having more rod means doing less work, so I don't agree that it'll handle ANY situation. I fish for smallies in Chequamegon Bay in Lake Superior. I love doing so with a 5 weight although my guide isn't happy when I do. However, when the wind cranks up, moving up to a seven is almost a necessity. There is very little lee on that gigantic bay.

These types of discussions are fairly common on fly fishing forums. I'm reminded of the book on trout fishing by Leonard Wright called Flyfishing Heresies. In it he takes on the argument of some that a 6' rod for trout fishing is all anyone ever needs. Then when fishing weighted nymphs he watches these guys having to hold the rod over their head for most of the drift in order to keep as much flyline off the water as possible to minimize drag. Leonard was right when he said that the tradeoffs aren't worth it. He used a 10' rod for the same situation and found it far more comfortable to do even though the rod was heavier. I also had this debate with someone on FAOL several years ago. He claimed that he fished in the heavy weeds with 2/0 deerhair poppers with a 5 weight for largemouths and that no one needed anything more than that. That's about the time that I finally realized one can say whatever he wants with the anonymity of the computer. I don't know, maybe he really did do that, but then someone could claim to use 12" long Cam Sigler tubes flies and a 4 weight for sailfish, too. I think part of it lies with the fact that some people just don't care to throw heavier rods or in some cases may never have even invested in one. I was trying to think of a appropriate analogy in all my bass fishing, but the best involves northern pike. I fish Alaska every year for giant pike. There's one guy that I've fished with several times who's actually a pretty good caster. However, he insists on using an 8 weight to throw the magnum Dahlberg divers we use as well as the 7-8" long (or even longer) bunny flies. He does get it out there to perhaps 35' but man does he work at it. I can outcast him with my 10 weight by fifteen feet with one false cast instead of his usual 4 or 5.

Again, don't get me wrong. You're entitled to fish any way you like and at least there's no argument here about the rod being too light to be fair to the fish. I just find casting fairly leisurely with one false cast maximum to be more effective and more enjoyable than working harder than that with two rod weights less.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Fly Fishing Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Little largemouths were hungry today Quentin Warmwater flyfishing 1 04-20-2005 10:20 PM
Wanted Scott, Orvis or Sage hkmfly For Sale by Owner 5 04-19-2005 05:49 PM
new sage+scott Eddie Gear Talk - Fly Stuff Spoken Here 1 10-04-2001 03:20 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:42 AM.



Copyright Flyfishingforum.com (All Rights Reserved)