First, congratulations to Hardy, whose 9′ 5wt Zenith fly rod won the Yellowstone Angler 5wt Fly Rod Shootout (and by a handy margin).
In recent decades, Hardy was the manufacturer you turned to if you smoked a pipe and spoke like Rex Harrison, but it’s interesting to note that they – and the formerly tweed-friendly Orvis – both now offer cutting-edge fly rod technology (they’d suggest “industry-leading” technology), which is proof, I suppose, that you write off the old guys at your own peril (I’m not drawing parallels to the Underground, though you kids should stay the hell off my lawn).
Despite the win for an Underground advertiser, I’m compelled to offer a couple comments about the testing, which – despite the language – doesn’t appear to be a search for a truly “all-around” 5wt.
Only Speed Demons Need Apply
In fact, a quick glance at the criteria suggests a test that’s highly biased towards strong, fast-tapered rods – the kind of rods that are often more useful in daydreams than on small and medium-sized rivers.
For starters, the testing was conducted with an SA GPX line – the “half-line-weight-heavy” line that falls perilously close to 6wt territory, and represents (to me anyway) a sad admission that many modern fly rods are simply too stiff to function at “normal” distances with normal fly lines.
For other signs of what I’d consider a skew towards fast “power” tapers, look no farther than Yellowstone Anglers’ own evaluation criteria:
If you’re in the market for a good 5-weight rod, we are going to assume that you want one rod that will do it all – a rod that will cast in close with delicacy and accuracy with small drys and fine tippet, a rod that will launch larger drys like hoppers seventy feet into stiff breeze, and a rod that has enough backbone to throw a couple of nymphs, a wind resistant strike indicator and maybe a little split shot as well. It also must have the guts to chuck a streamer with a split shot clamped next to the eye, and put it on that cut bank 80 feet away.
Uhh, casting weighted streamers 80′? Throwing hoppers 70′ into a “stiff” breeze? Really??
It’s interesting to note that the only two “medium” tapered rods in the test (both by Orvis) finished no higher than the middle of the pack.
And that – to my eye – two of the four critera aren’t exactly the native habitat of the 5wt fly rod.
Finally, the use of the GPX line means the “5 Weight Shootout” is actually a “5.5 Weight Shootout.”
Merge those realities with repeated uses of marketing power words like “backbone,” “guts” and “launch” and I had to wonder why they didn’t simply test 6wts – which would actually handle 3/4 of the tasks far more comfortably than a 5wt.
In simple terms, Yellowstone Angler might have actually picked the best “All-Around 5wt” – but only if you were trying to sell overlined fly rods to people fishing big, windy western rivers.
That’s not the world faced by most fly fishermen – the vast majority of whom have never actually cast 80′, and probably never will.
Still, let’s not forget commerce is involved, and that reality always finishes a distant second to fantasy when you’re selling people things they probably don’t need.
Before The Emails Begin…
Before the nasty emails begin to pour in, let me be clear: the folks at the Yellowstone Angler state their criteria right up front, and I’m not alleging hidden agendas.
What I am saying is this: before you start buying your way down their shootout list (or any Top “XXX” list), consider the criteria, and see if they even remotely match your particular reality.
Being as I live in the mountains of Northern California, my “all-around” 5wt isn’t anything like Anderson’s.
Mine would cast wonderfully at small stream ranges, yet still throw a Green Drake (or October Caddis) on a medium-sized freestoner like the Upper Sacramento or McCloud. If pressed, I’d say it looks a lot like a medium-tapered 8.5′ 5wt that wouldn’t necessarily launch every 6″ or smaller small stream trout I hooked.
In all likelihood, it would barely lift a weighted streamer, much less cast it 80 feet.
It might even be bamboo or fiberglass, and could have been made upwards of half a century ago – an admission which suggests I don’t need to sell modern, high-modulus fly rods to fly fishermen.
In other words, consider the Yellowstone Angler 5wt Fly Rod Shootout a highly subjective test of strong, fast-tapered 5.5 wt rods in situations where you might normally fish a 6 wt, give Hardy their due for their apparent comeback (or simply welcome them back to the party), and let’s all move on with our lives.
See you testing anything but fly rods, Tom Chandler.




























Thanks, Tom, for a terrific “framing” of the assessment. The test provides some great information, but, in the end, you need to cast it before you buy it.
Well done.
Mike(Quote)
Very true, though even more so with “fast” rods than their slower counterparts.
Tom Chandler(Quote)
I noted some of the same details, and assumed like cars, they’re no longer making rods for Old Farts …
I’ve done streamers and splitshot, a pair of nymphs and an indicator, and slinging hoppers with great force at undercut banks, but most were 30-40 feet away. Only a damn fool or Steve Rajeff slings a streamer and split shot 80 feet consistently.
It’s all that “power marketing action word bullshit” – where the fellow has to sound like he’s squinting menacingly under his curly brim levering .44 shells into a wheelgun …
KB(Quote)
Tom, I think you are missing the point. You can still cast 80′ in a small stream. You just have to stand in the middle and send it up or downstream. Just kidding. You are correct in your assessment. The best-all-around 5wt for wide open and windy rivers in Montana is going to be a different best-all-around 5wt than what is preferred on your home waters. I also usually fish a 6wt.
Fred Telleen(Quote)
On my recent Montana trips to anything but small water, I found myself routinely fishing the 6wt (amusing 6wt post coming soon), and never once did I sigh and think “If only it was a bit more delicate.”
I’m reminded of a talk with a Lower Sacramento River guide, who rolled his eyes when his clients – advised to bring a strong rod to handle th big fish and strong currents – insisted on fishing their 3wt.
Sure, it may be a “standard” trout rod in some parts of the world, but…
Tom Chandler(Quote)
I really hate “shootouts”. They almost always suck and this one is no exception.
Faced with this much useless information (not from you but from the shootout), I would conclude I don’t need a new 5 wt after all; I need to save my money. But, If money were no object (and it is!) and I wanted a new 5wt I’d get the Scott S4 904 (yes a 4 wt.) or a some variation on the G2. My Point? Go cast some rods at your local fly shop and buy the one you like best regardless of the name.
As a side note: I’m stunned at the praise heaped onto the loomis NRX. Every NRX I’ve held is plagued with craftsmanship issues: Loose wraps, poorly aligned guides, and bubbles in the epoxy at every guide and they cast like a broomstick. 17 years in the making? they’ve been designing it since I was about 21. I wonder how old I was when they passed the point of diminishing returns. Sorry Loomis, I do like your surf rods a lot.
Thank you.
Logan(Quote)
Thanks for the clarification. I was pretty sure I just nailed that warmweather hat review…
Tom Chandler(Quote)
I rather liked the warm weather hat review. I would humbly submit the “leafy-flage” boony as a goofy, but effective, variation (Combined with a ghillie suit).
Logan(Quote)
Hear hear Tom. Couldn’t agree with you more. Keep up the good work!
Cheers,
Rudy
Rudy(Quote)
It is, indeed, amazing what rod manufacturers are doing to increase power and speed, and there’s clearly an audience for it. At the International Sportsmans Expo in Denver a few weeks back, I was amazed at the number of attendees who were more interested in trying to cast over the divider at the far end of the casting pond than they were about a rod’s accuracy or it’s feel. If I never see a master double-hauler stroking his own ego again, it’ll be too soon. Good stuff, Tom. Thanks.
Chris(Quote)
Glad to see the TU’ers not falling for George’s marketing BS. And BS is about what I think of his shootout. Quite funny that the previous “winner” was a rod that was not widely carried by most fly shops (but of course his does) and this years “winner” fits the same category. Amazing how that works isn’t it! C’mon 80′ with a 5 WT on a trout stream??? Gimme a break, I rarely have to go 80′ with an 8 WT on a steelhead river. What hubris!
modelingbob(Quote)
Being able to cast a long ways accurately is fun and has it’s applications (flats fishing, BIG water etc.). Most trout-y folks, once they get over the distance envy, make it a game to get as close to the trout as possible. For me, getting close is as indicative of skill as any casting acumen.
Logan(Quote)
Well L, since I do fish flats, saltwater, big water, and every place else you have to fish long, I am quite capable of casting an entire flyline any time I NEED to. In fact I spend more time fishing long in those environs than 5 WT land. But I can honestly say, in all my fishing with my 5 WT, I rarely have to fish 80′ casts. If that’s an important benchmark for a 5 WT evaluation, it’s seriously wrong. And that is one of the many reasons this shootout is BS.
modelingbob(Quote)
Uh, OK. Pretty sure I was agreeing with you. If you read my earlier comment you’ll see we feel the same way. Most rod shootouts are stupid.
Thanks
Logan(Quote)
I’ve never had to cast 80′ on a trout river. Hell, most of the rivers I fish are pretty far from 80′ wide. From the folks I’ve talked to and my own limited experience, almost no one needs to cast 80′ even flats fishing… more like 50′ and usually more like 40′.
Still… an ideal rod for the Upper Sac for me certainly would not be a 8.5 rod made of something other than graphite… but we probably fish different water and different styles, which gets me to thinking that the “ideal” rod has a lot more variables than even what part of the country you are fishing. Even in a smalls stream I like a 9 foot rod so I can dap dries ahead of me.
It is all so subjective… which is good… it gives us a lot to argue about, hopefully over a pint of nut brown ale.
Bjorn(Quote)
I would suspect that the rise of the beadhead nymph has as much to do with these faster and stiffer tapers as anything else. Trout fishermen are throwing shot and tungsten tipped nymphs – and all that extra weight feels “more in control” (I hesitate to say good) with a stiffer rod.
From casual eyeballing other’s boxes, and what shops are stocking, it would not surprise me to see 60-70% of the nymphs with beads.
KBarton10(Quote)
An online friend and bamboo freak from New York described his first guided drift boat trip in the west; the guide knotted on a double-bead head (and weighted) stonefly, added a sizable beadhead, three big split shot and a diaper-sized indicator.
Fishing his favorite bamboo rod, he said his first cast never even got the rig out of the water…
Tom Chandler(Quote)
You nailed it Tom. The criteria are pretty skued toward gonzo marketing BS rather than fishing use. It amazes me that the uniformly horrible ultra fast stuff continues to be popular. The do cast better for the unskilled than a rod with action and certainly can be made to toss impressive amounts of line in a fly shop parking lot by almost anybody with a pulse but they’re of little to no utility on trout waters.
Most of my medium to big water general trout rods are 6wts preferably with plenty of tip in case BWO or Tricos and 7x are on the menu……. The good news is as you’ve pointed out more than once Bamboo and Glass are making something of a comeback….there is hope for us yet
Marty(Quote)
I exchange some e-mail with George having read their article. Like you Tom I pointed at nonsense of comparing mid-flex Orvis rods with other fast action rods in the test. George replied that Orvis insisted to test mid-flex as the easier to cast rods for beginners. Pity, he didn’t stated that in the article.
The power of fast and slow action rods differs by default. Even though you focus on showing how versatile all the rods are, still, medium and slow action rods are meant to provide greatest performance at short and medium distances, while fast action rods (in fact these that top the final result board of your shoot out) are expected to provide best performance at medium and long distances. I’ve never cast or heard of a medium-action rod that would performed well on longest distances while there are some fast action rods that perform well through the whole range of distances.
Janusz Panicz(Quote)
Attempts at objective tests of such subjective technology are nuts, but I guess they generate interest, as proven by the interest shown here and elsewhere. Maybe if you keep flyfishermen thinking about tackle, by whatever means, they are more likely to keep buying the stuff. In that respect, perhaps the entire activity was designed to be provocative, rather than meaningful. Well . . . nah. Anyhow, the test protocol is designed, either purposefully or by default, to favor fast-action rods. Perhaps the best test, if it could be done, would be to give the various rods to testers, maybe even real people rather than guides, who then would be told to spend a few days fishing different streams – - some small pocket water with dries, a meadow stream with dries and nymphs, and a real brawler with weighted scuplins and stonefly nymphs. Then the assessment would at least be based on best rod for certain defined situations. Shoot, I’d read about it.
Craig(Quote)
HA! Bravo, Craig. You’ve hit on something here. That’s a test I would read.
Logan(Quote)
About 10 years ago the company that I worked for hired Andy Burk to guide some customers around the Truckee and during the afternoon to give them casting lessons. Andy summed it up best stating that no one can possibly get all the performace out of a modern fly rod regardless of the price. I thought it was good to see rods in the $200 range perfroming well with rods over three times the cost.
Dan(Quote)
If there’s much doubt about where the industry’s headed, consider this: the Orvis fly fishing catalog features its new affordable Access rods right at the front of the catalog – not the big dollar Helios.
Tom Chandler(Quote)
The Hydros is every bit as sexy as the Helios and is -$300. Just say’n.
Bjorn(Quote)
Here’s my take on the shootout and your assessment. You didn’t mention the Thomas & Thomas rod (last place) only the two medium action Orvis rods were mentioned. Just wanted to point out that there were three rods in the test with slower actions, and they did mention that they would “shootout” bargain rods in the future as well as medium action rods.
Personally, I find the shootouts extremely useful. Based on their last shootout and their objective opinions I purchased an Albright and a G2 from Scott, even though neither rod won (both were middle of the pack). Based on their notes I was able to see which rod fit my style/location the best. Both rods were exactly like they described, and I think the guys at Yellowstone Angler have done all of us a good service, unless you just look at adjectives and then write off the entire test as a marketing ploy (not that you did this, per se, but other respondents seem to feel that your tone suggested a marketing strategy as opposed to an objective test).
Also, there were four testers, all of them were generous enough to share their opinions, and I believe with four testers and each with their own rankings of the rods you can get a very good idea of which rods perform in which situations. They all love the Z-Axis, for example, and that rod totally rocks for exactly the reasons they mentioned. In contrast, one of the testers actually liked the Thomas & Thomas rod and did so for all the right reasons, his reasons.
For what it’s worth, I love your site and think your writing is inspired, but I would disagree with the tone of this particular post and some of the “facts” you presented; which I believe are unnecessarily condemning of what I think was a fair test/shootout within the criteria they established; use their chart of performance at a specific range, cost, weight, swing weight, as well as warranty information and see which rods scored a 10. If that is your sweet spot range for casting distance, price, warranty, weight, etc then you have an idea of what rod to look at. Sure, there had to be winners and losers, but the real winners were the consumers/us. They’ve done all the research for us and taken out a vast majority of the hyperbole. For example, check out what Orvis says about the Access rods and then compare it to the Yellowstone Angler comments.
I hear your point, however, about 5.5 wt rods and GPX line, but love it or leave it in today’s fly fishing industry…that’s the trend. Thankfully, there are still quite a few manufacturers that still build legit 5 wt rods. For what it’s worth, I cast/fish the G2 and Albright I purchased, post shootout, with RIO Gold and they perform at the same standard as reported in the very first 5 wt shootout.
Thanks for the great work. I look forward to more of your thought provoking and well written posts.
Sincerely,
a.
aaron(Quote)
Thanx for the review of the review. I got a little weary reading the “shootout”, very few anglers I know spend that much time reading about rods, much less casting that many rods. What you said about home waters is spot on. I was talked out of buying an “all around 5wt” because of my home waters. The people I talked to suggested that I buy a rod for the water I fish not the water I dream of fishing. It was also pointed out to me that if you do go to fly fishing meccas out west or elsewhere you can usually rent a rod. I wound up buying a 6wt for my travels and fishing my St. Croix avid 8′ 5wt on my home waters.
Thanx again Tom, postings like this are why I read your blog.
Bubba Zinetti(Quote)
I applaud George Anderson’s “Shootouts”. I don’t necessarily agree with his findings, line choice or all his stated criteria, but he states quite clearly what his criteria are. Perhaps he hopes to generate some sales through these tests – that’s OK too. I think he said and if he didn’t we all know, that his chosen group of rods are not optimized for small stream angling. As an Easterner who fishes big rivers and small streams both East and West, I, like most of us, own an array of rods from #4 to #12, from 7 1/2′ to 10′ (single handed). But to find a trout rod that is optimal for fishing dry flies in close with sensitivity and lots of communication but also affords control and feel at distance is a rare thing. If one fishes the Upper Delaware watershed in the East as I do and the Henry’s Fork and Missouri in the West, a rod like those Anderson tested would be a great thing to fish. I actually own one of the top rated models (Sage Z-Axis #5) and it is a terrific rod. I fish it with a #5 not a 5.5 line and it is perfectly loaded and very sensative – not stiff or cluby at all. Flaws? Yes, the guides, though great for casting smoothly and with minimal line slap, are on the small side for freely feeding slack into the drift in a big water downstream presentation. I cast the Hardy Zenith and the also new NRX at the Somerset Fly Fishing Show last weekend and they are very different rods. The NRX is, as you remarked, is like a #6 and if throwing weighted flies is your thing, could be a great choice. The Zenith is a charmer, no doubt about it and, I was told will become available in a broad range of lengths and line sizes to suit many specialized angling applications. Do I need a new rod? Do I need yet anther bottle of Malt Whisky, or polarized sunglasses in another shade, or, for that matter, a trip to a Bahamian bonefish flat to escape the weekly snow storms of this North East winter…debatable, but I WANT all these things ($ not withstanding). Also, if I am going to buy a new rod, I am going to show up at a shop with several of my potential brands is stock with my own reels and lines to test cast with. If a rod needs to be over-lined to perform properly it is unlikely to wind up in my duffle.
Richard Franklin(Quote)
Fly rod comparo-tests are as silly as comparo-tests of neckties or guitars. A knowledgeable person might point out that one rod has better wrappings, or reel seat hardware, or varnish (if it’s cane); and at a given price point, those are worth pointing out. All the modern rods are well made enough that any of us should be so luck as to wear any part on one out. A review might point out that X is better than Y at heaving steelhead lines, or that Z is a great drift-boat rod; beyond that it is more a matter of an anglers’ taste and their getting used to casting a particular design.
And rubber soled boots still suck, if anyone’s interested. After a week in Argentina, I can report that the Korkers Chrome are neat boots (but they stay wet a long time); and their non-studded soles are as useless as the Simms ice-skates.
Philip(Quote)
I understand that Mr. Anderson is a really great caster, so some of the things he might find nice in a rod are going to useless for m0st of the rest of us. I’d say that for me to cast a weighted streamer or multiple beadheads to any distance approaching those in the testing I’d need at least a 7 weight rod. But likely I’d ask the guide to get the boat closer to the target instead, so that the fishing would be fun instead of hard work. By the way, I’ve noticed that 5 or even 4 weight rods are nowadays being suggested as all-around rods; whereas I remember getting my first 5 weight and being very pleased to have acquired this real lightweight outfit that allowed me to be so much more delicate than I had been able to be before. I still maintain that the right rod should be used for the task at hand instead of trying to make a light rod do the work that a heavier one would do with more grace and ease.
Bob Akerson(Quote)
Thank you for convincing me to trade in my fast 5-weight for an old Scott! Fishing for trout in the Northeast never requires me to cast more than 60 feet (in fact it’s usually impossible).
Kyle(Quote)
It’s hard to imagine me convincing anybody to do anything (Exhibit One: the L&T and Meski never do anything I ask), but good luck.
Fish what you like.
Tom Chandler(Quote)
Sounds like the view is pretty good from the cheap seats. Why don’t you sack up and do your own shootout. That way you could give an educated opinion on rod comparison.
Bud Lilly(Quote)
Wow. A month later ? Really ? Way to stay on topic, bud. Really on point.
Logan(Quote)
Uhh, I believe I just *did* offer an educated opinion on rod comparisons, my opinion being this one’s kinda silly for most fly fishermen.
Tom Chandler(Quote)
Not sure how YS Anglers 5wt shootout differs from TU’s 12 best fly rods of all time? I once watched Lefty Kreh grab a 5wt TFO off the rack, which still had the plastic wrap on the cork and put out a tight loop into the backing. After his demo, someone asked him what’s his favorite fly rod? Lefty replied, “The one I happen to be fishing with at the time.”
I’ve been casting everyday for the last 7 years, and learned skill has more value than any fly rod. My favorite fly rod? Sage Launch 9′ 5wt 4pc, can do everything all the top 5wts can do, plus it doesn’t getting beat up.
Tom2Cast(Quote)
That suggests you didn’t read them since one was a tongue-in-cheek look at historic fly rods, the other was a flawed attempt to sell fast-action 5wts that most angler’s don’t need…
Tom Chandler(Quote)
Or perhaps you may want want to retitle yours as The Dozen Best Historical Fly Rods of All Time. The fly rod is just a tool regardless of price or material, and is only as good as the angler who uses it.
Leaving tomorrow to the Arolik river, Alaska, back on July 25.
Tom2Cast(Quote)
The main text of the shootout(s) feature George Anderson’s opinion, but the other testers are given a chance to offer their two cents. In the latest shootout, James Anderson said he’d rather walk 40 feet closer instead of casting 70 feet. The rods are tested at 25 feet as well, and those that don’t do well in that close (if you consider that “close), did not finish well. The
top finishers did well at 25 feet and further. I own a 590 Z-Axis, and it easily and accurately casts 10 feet of line with a 9′ 4x leader. My preference for smaller fish and delicate presentation is a Sage ZXL 4wt. I also use GPX and SA’s Trout line. The Trout line is used for drys cast to spooky trout (it just lands so nicely), and the GPX seems to carry hoppers to weighted nymphs with ease. This gear is all very good, but do try it for yourself….
Frank(Quote)
How about a test of medium to medium-fast rods cast to 50 feet or less (real trout-fishing distances)? Hopefully there are still enough such rods available for a thorough test.
jstan(Quote)
Like you, I call that real life, more or less.
Tom Chandler(Quote)