Team9nine

Some interesting stats on this whole question from Ken Duke: Https://www.bassmaster.com/news/age-and-pro-angler-part-1 Https://www.bassmaster.com/news/age-and-pro-angler-part-2

Every major grocery store I've been in has them in their cookware section

There's a reason BASS uses average career AOY placement to fill remaining Elite field openings, as well as recently adding "Legend exemptions" into the mix. A very fair and realistic point. The critical question then to me would be, does their competitive nature allow them to just be mediocre at best, largely going through the motions with the occasional good showing? Top competitors in all sports are often quoted as saying when they are no longer competitive, they'll know it's time to walk away. But as we all too often see, "walking away" isn't always so easy when you've been on top. And as BASS has shown, booting "legends" off the tour isn't an easy call or even a popular one.

6'8" to 7'2" here, at least for baitcasting. On spinning, I prefer a bit shorter, closer to 6'6" as the standard, or a couple inches longer/shorter.

I don't view it as the same thing at all. I think in your example above, technology is central to the position and keeping up with changes in that technology as part of a broader platform is an advantage (and arguably required). To professional angling, I don't see the comparisons. There is really no benefit to having grown up with paper graphs and flashers in the age of Mega-imaging. How great you are on a trolling motor means nothing to a GPS programmable unit linked to every depth finder in the boat and controlled by the press of a button. Everything you ever learned about baits, techniques, lakes, etc is available to today's anglers, and absorbed in weeks instead of a lifetime. Every major tournament ever won is available for them to study and dissect, and learn from. As it seems to be turning out, there is very little advantage to angling experience when these kids started at such a young age and have the ability to learn from every mistake ever made on the pro trail. An Elite friend of mine chides me all the time about me "fishing history." Today's young pros, for the most part, have no fear of, and could largely care less about, how we fished in the past (baits, technology, patterns, etc.). Just my take on it having experienced it first hand.

To expand on the technology part, learning curves for younger anglers is incredibly shorter and more expansive than it ever was for older anglers thanks to websites, social media, their penchant for networking, etc. They're learning a majority of what took the old pros sometimes a decade or more to figure out in a matter of a couple years now. Additionally, their growing up with technology (wireless, hand held, immediate, etc.) means they embrace it and are the fast adopters of things like networked depthfinders, SI/DI, Panoptix, newer hybrid TM (Ultrex), Google Earth and other online imagery, and on and on. I'm sure the older anglers are aware this stuff is out there, but how many are actually mastering and utilizing it in a quick and efficient manner is the difference (see Turtle135's comment above).

Combination of youth (desire, physical abilities and energy), technology (both equipment and learning curves) and versatility (esp. with "newer" techniques).

Trade offs? Here's a different take, and just my personal opinion. By trying to combine two different material types to get the best of both worlds, in reality, you end up with a line that compromises on nearly every attribute and excels at none of them compared to the respective parent materials. By most testing data I've seen, YZH is just a "middle of the pack" line. The positive spin to that is that it makes for a good all-around line that does a lot of things decent, and is pretty popular because of that. The negative is that if you are looking for a particular characteristic in a line, you can likely do better going with some other line made solely from one of the parent materials. For example, to the OP's original point, if cost is most important, then its hard to argue YZH vs. InvizX, as InvizX is nearly 4X as expensive. However, you could easily go with a proven all-around line like Big Game and beat the price of YZH by another 4X.

As fishwizzard mentioned, 8-10 lb. braid and an 8lb. leader are considered standard. Personally, I often go lighter with 3 or 5 lb. braid and 5-6 lb leaders, but I enjoy playing with the extremes.

I wouldn't think the knot would come into play - will be interesting to see what you find there. The most likely causes are either a poor quality bait (a bad one slipped through QC), a stuck rattle(s), high retrieve speed (even 'slow' is fast if using an 8:1 or similar), or line that is too heavy (diameter) for the weight of bait used (shouldn't be the case in your situation). Hooks sometimes come into play, but not too often. I'd guess a bad bait... Let us know what you figure out.

Like you said, it's about where you're throwing it. For me on my waters, 12-16 lb. fluoro gets the bulk of the action. I'll go 8-10 with some jerks and deep cranks, or 17-20 with A-rigs, football heads, or in heavier timber. I could see 25 in some specialized conditions, but it would rarely ever be the norm around my parts. It's no different than any other line, so just use what you'd normally use and you'll be fine.

The only unbiased comparison I've seen between leader line and main line (using Seaguar Red Label) showed no difference in abrasion resistance between the two. Certainly not saying that's the case with all line types, but enough evidence to make you wonder. I'd like to see more similar testing before drawing an absolute conclusion. In the mean time, if I specifically need abrasion resistance in a leader, I just use a particularly abrasion resistant main line (Toray Superhard), but more frequently just go with a high end main line leader.

Perch are super plump with eggs and getting ready to spawn around here. March is the month for them

I'm the opposite, striving for limited tackle AND limited combos (simplicity)...making progress, but I'm not there yet

If you're going to go that route, mono will be fine and that way you won't have to switch anything out. I also don't think you have to worry about any stretching issues with jigs/plastics. The stretch you'll have will be a benefit, not a liability.

Braid can easily lose 40-50% or more of its true breaking strength once you put a simple knot in it, so manufacturers under rate it so that the listed breaking strength is closer to actual breaking strength of the knotted line (since nobody fishes braid without tying a knot to their bait or leader). On diameter...it can be very difficult to judge braided lines based on stated diameter because A.), there is no standard of measurement for braid, and B.), since it is a braid/weave, it easily compresses under pressure. What you don't know is how much pressure was applied, if any, to get the stated diameter measurement. Personally, I have very little interest in "the best" since that is totally subjective in nearly all cases, and not universally applicable. Instead, and this is partly my R&D background, I tend to fish with what I refer to as "standards." Standards or 'controls' are placed into experiments because we know exactly what to expect from them, time after time, and can then use those controls to compare other similar things against them (for better or worse). For me, basic Power Pro is that standard, with a proven reputation and a consistent track record. I always know what I can expect out of that line without any surprises, so it is my braid of choice 90 percent of the time. YMMV

Low 40s and mist. Don't mind the cold, but when the hands get wet and cold, that's a little different story Been catching everything on blade baits. Was getting them out of the deeper holes when things were cold and clear, but now that the rain has really stained the water, the fish have moved a bit shallower and I'm catching them with a slow steady retrieve in 1 to 3 feet of water. Managed ten more today, but water was even more stained and most of the fish were smaller, though I did get a couple nice keepers. Got dumped on again tonight, so things will probably deteriorate even more. But it's February, so it's all good

Glad the ice is gone and I'm fishing open water again, but winter can be brutal, and not every bass makes it through alive...

@IndianaFinesse was it this one you were referring to? http://www.bigindianabass.com/big_indiana_bass/2017/12/lake-monroe-fish-composition.html

My luck, I'd take out the neighbor's window by accident with that thing, and then they would just mock me even more

That time of year again. They're back; they're obnoxious; and they'll heckle anyone walking by....

Like everywhere else in this part of the country, we went from sunny and 73 to rain, wind and 34 overnight. Rain has continued for several days, some places getting as much as 5-6 inches already and still 2 more days predicted. Lots of flooding, and most all major rivers and reservoirs are getting trashed. Only thing being spared in my area are smaller lakes and ponds with little to no major inflow, and they're staining up, but fishable. Hit judt such a place after work in a cold (43 deg.) mist and was surprised by a better than normal bite. Managed 10 in about 90 minutes, including some better quality individuals. It was definitely an above average trip for these little places. Stained water had them up shallow and aggressive.

Spent about an hour talking Midwest fishing history with a living legend last night...

It's not the length. XF is great for feel/sensitivity, but certainly lacking in many other areas. If they don't seem right to you, get rid of them and replace with something a little less fast. You'll be fine, and from the sounds of it, happier, which is all that really matters. There is no shortage of people who will buy them off you as XF seems to be an "in thing" these days with anglers.

I'm leaning more towards Paul's side on this. Can they hear them - likely yes, but probably nowhere near the extent you might be thinking when you sit there and shake these baits or pull them by you in the water. Going back to Jones' book and others, it's pretty well accepted that 1000 Hz is about the high limit of bass hearing. I know of a study done that tested the dominant sound range of about 2 dozen different rattlebaits, and 20 of the baits had dominant ranges between 3200-10,000 Hz, well above the range of hearing for bass. Only a few had dominant ranges low enough that bass could likely hear them. That's not to say these same rattling baits aren't making some noise in the spectrum bass can hear, and bass can certainly feel (via displacement) and see them, so they are likely well aware of their presence in the area. There are always a lot of variables at play, and it can be hard to isolate out specific ones which might be causing an outcome as opposed to the most obvious one. As Smokinal alluded to, pairing up what we think we know to be true with what the manufacturers tell us is true can be a dangerous combination for the wallet