Rod Power Rating

[Musky_Fever]

I'm starting to think that rod power rating is a lot like buying infant clothing.  In one brand it's listed for 6-9 months and appears too big and in other brands, it appears too small.  I have a Gander Mtn. rod listed as H and rated for 1oz to 5oz lures but the girth of my St. Croix MH is bigger than that heavy rated rod.  The St. Croix is rated for lures up to 1oz.  My Musky rod is rated for 3/4 oz to 4oz, which isn't even as heavy as my Gander Mtn. bass rod.  I wish these rod makers would come to consensus.  

[Jrob78]

Pay attention to the lure rating and forget the power rating.

[BobP]

A thinner rod blank can be more powerful than a much thicker blank, just depending on what it is made from and how the blank was formed, so I wouldn't get wrapped up in blank diameter too much.  That said, there's no accepted standard for rod power ratings so it varies from company to company.  St Croix rods have traditionally been a half step more powerful than most other brands with the same rating.  JMHO, you can't really depend on rod power and action labels across brands.  You have to try them and get familiar with a rods series from one company if you want to predict what another rod from the same series will be like.

[Jaw1]

The variances from manufacturers is what makes it so hard for me to order rods online. I wish there was an accepted standard as well.

[k3bass]

Yeah that's why I hate ordering a rod I've never handled. And good luck finding a place that actually carries a wide variety of rods to look at in person.

[SirSnookalot]

I only use inshore rods, every one of them gets overloaded every time I fish, pretty much SOP down here.  In another post I said had returned a few American made rods, one of the reasons was the blank not casting the heavier lure as well, which is important to me.

 

Rod power rating is different,  I will jump from a med to a mh from a seawall so I can pickup the fish easier, usually more current too.

[MasonV]

You gotta find a brand and model you like and stick with it. You get that same feel every time you pick up a different rod. I'm kind of obsessive about having as many things as possible the same.

[roadwarrior]

Our members can help you out here. These are a couple of examples:

 

Just for the sake of argument, let's say G. Loomis is the standard.

St. Croix Avid and Legend Elite Medium = Loomis Medium Heavy,

MH = H.  Both Okuma and Pinnacle are more in line with G. Loomis.

[WRB]

The bottom line is there isn't a standard to use for fishing rod power or action ratings.

Not only do the ratings change between rod makers, they change within the same rod makers line up of rods depending on materials used, price points and type of fish and or lure type a particular brand is targeting.

For example; G. Loomis Medium Heavy swimbait rod is very different than a Medium Heavy or 3 power spinning rod, the spinning rod is different in both power and action than casting rods, jig & worm casting rods are different than crankbaits rods....no possible way to define MH or medium heavy, let alone medium light, or heavy and combine action to power; moderate, fast, Xfast etc, etc. the G. Loomis price point rods differ GL2 is very different from IMX, GLX or NRX, all 4 price point rods feel and bend differently with the same MH, 3 or 4 power rating, fast action, between spinning, casting, swimbaits etc. impossible to make a comparison between brands with all the variables to consider.

The lure weight recommended help somewhat depending on the type rod and seem to be fairly consistant between rod makers.

Tom

[SirSnookalot]

You gotta find a brand and model you like and stick with it. You get that same feel every time you pick up a different rod. I'm kind of obsessive about having as many things as possible the same.

I find merit in the above post.  I fish 2 brands (same models) for most of my fishing,  As long as I understand what I have in my hand, the printed rod rating is only a guideline.   An over looked factor is where the fish is being caught, much easier to land a fish from a boat pulling it out of cover than on the bank pulling it thru cover and up the bank.  Same goes for inshore, I can land a good fish from the beach fishing light, on a sea wall or jetty the fish has to be picked up, I'll go with a heavier rod.

[k3bass]

Our members can help you out here. These are a couple of examples:

Just for the sake of argument, let's say G. Loomis is the standard.

St. Croix Avid and Legend Elite Medium = Loomis Medium Heavy,

MH = H. Both Okuma and Pinnacle are more in line with G. Loomis.

I don't really see how you can just lump all loomis rods or st croix rods together. Even within the same brands there are huge differences between rods of the same power rating.

[papajoe222]

Generally speaking, Road Warrior is right for in those particular series of rods. St. Croix rates their rods power lighter than most, but across the board attempting to compare brands/powers can confuse just about anyone.  This is why I like the technique specific ratings that a lot of brands are going to. Match up what you want to use a rod for and the weight of your intended baits along with line ratings and you should be okay.  

[Delaware Valley Tackle]

Blank makers vary in their approach. Larger diameter / thinner wall & smaller diameter / thicker wall can produce similar power and action. Neither is right or wrong. The important point is to accept and remember that there are no standards: it's all subjective. Same goes for technique specific labels.

[.ghoti.]

The variances from manufacturers is what makes it so hard for me to order rods online. I wish there was an accepted standard as well.

There is just such a standard. It's called the Common Cents System. I know of no rod manufacturer who will supply these measurements.

[Team9nine]

There is just such a standard. It's called the Common Cents System. I know of no rod manufacturer who will supply these measurements.

 

THIS ^^

 

The only "standard" I know of, developed for fly rods, but you'll find very little of it in the bass fishing world. Many years back a few guys ran a whole slew of popular bass rods through the paces and got Common Cents ratings for most of them. Of course, rod makers continued to come out with new models every year, so the effort became futile after just a season or two. Now I just test/rate my own as needed using the system so I know exactly what I'm dealing with if I never need to replace or duplicate a rod.

 

The whole thing is a lot like line ratings. No universal standardization across companies whatsoever. 

 

-T9

[poisonokie]

All my bass rods are Daiwa, so to me they fish as rated. When you look at the line/lure ratings for g Loomis, they are all a step lower than Daiwa. mh g Loomis = m Daiwa.

[Big Bait Fishing]

Generally speaking, Road Warrior is right for in those particular series of rods. St. Croix rates their rods power lighter than most, but across the board attempting to compare brands/powers can confuse just about anyone.  This is why I like the technique specific ratings that a lot of brands are going to. Match up what you want to use a rod for and the weight of your intended baits along with line ratings and you should be okay.  

very true about St. Croix , my rod is rated 3-8 oz lure rating but will handle double that !!

[SirSnookalot]

These bass companies got your ticket.  They produce all kinds of stuff wanting to confuse you into buying more, that you just gotta have.

[MickD]

CCS was developed initially for fly rods but was expanded with a rating scale that goes way up.  It is entirely valid for all rods.  While it's probably futile to influence the rod makers to publish it for each of their offerings, I think that with enough pressure from custom builders we can get the blank manufacturers to publish it IF WE TELL THE ONES WHO DON'T PUBLISH IT THAT WE WILL GO ELSEWHERE FOR OUR BLANKS.  Pac Bay publishes CCS on their blanks, and I believe a couple smaller outfits do too.  I recently got CCS data from a major company when I asked for a specific model's data.  I then reinforced the importance by telling them that the providing of CCS data resulted in my buying the $150 blank + all the components from them.

 

I think they don't want to provide it because it takes time to measure (think of doing it for a whole lineup of rods) and they don't really WANT an objective system for comparing blanks.  They would rather keep it subjective.and keep using their subjective terms to describe their blanks.

[.ghoti.]

MickD has hit the heart of the matter. The Common Cents System has been around for quite a while. If manufacturers were going to be measuring and publishing this data,they would have done so by now. They are not interested, for one primary reason. To do so would remove all propaganda ( I mean marketing ) from the equation. They want to throw their favorite, basically meaning less terms at us. Tournament ready, technique specific, advanced technology, precision manufacturing, balanced, crisp, ultra responsive, frighteningly sensitive ( I like that one ), precision engineering, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Who needs a bunch of dull numbers anyway?

[deaknh03]

MickD has hit the heart of the matter. The Common Cents System has been around for quite a while. If manufacturers were going to be measuring and publishing this data,they would have done so by now. They are not interested, for one primary reason. To do so would remove all propaganda ( I mean marketing ) from the equation. They want to throw their favorite, basically meaning less terms at us. Tournament ready, technique specific, advanced technology, precision manufacturing, balanced, crisp, ultra responsive, frighteningly sensitive ( I like that one ), precision engineering, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Who needs a bunch of dull numbers anyway?

I have been eyeballing the abu ad naseum line for a while..