A Creature Feverish Search for The One? The 735C from Dobyns

[Cal]

A Creature Feverish Search for The One? The 735C from Dobyns Rods


Introduction: Dobyns Rods Champion series has become one of the most popular domestic rod lines here in the States. The combination of performance and value in their product together with the winning history of the company's namesake, Gary Dobyns, is the reason these sticks are among the top picks with anglers fishing tournament circuits across the US. Their most popular model? A stick that just happens to fit right in with our Creature Fever theme from last year. Here's our look at Dobyns Rods Champion Series 735C.

Complete Article: http://tackletour.com/reviewdobyns735c.html

[civicrr]

Overall the rod scored well & I thought the review pointed out some interesting things. The flexibility of techniques the blank could be used for was touched upon. Still, IMO, it really is only a bottom contact or frog rod. Using it for larger ripbaits (Pointer 128) was mentioned. The rod transitions to lockup fairly quickly which, to me anyways, makes it a bad candidate for even the fairly large trebles used on the 128.

Cal pointed out something that has been discussed here on the forum countless times. I'm talking about the Med/Heavy power designation. I can't count the number of times I've either posted or read that the Champion 735C is a Med/Heavy power rod in the "Frogs, Flip and Pitch" category. Taken as a single model, it is easy to understand the confusion, especially if the consumer hasn't looked for information on the whole rod line. While I do see how it can be a source of confusion, it would have been great to see the categories within the Dobyns line explained. I guess bottom line is that, as has been pointed out many times, line & lure ratings are a truer measure than power ratings.

Something I didn't catch when I skimmed through the article on the new rod ratings is the Features ratings. Rod Sleeves are a point category??? I've had St Croix Xtreme & NRX that came with basically useless sleeves offering nothing more than dust protection. It will be interesting to see how they rate them.

The Kigan's do have a different design on the frames to ring interface than do the more commonly seen Fuji guides. Not sure I've ever had to worry about cleaning. Perhaps a better way to phrase it is not anymore than other guide brands. It could also be that I'm not as concerned about keeping my rods/guides pristine.

I'll have to go back & read the last two reviews. I just sort of quickly skimmed them concentrating on the text dealing with how they fished & uses. I think the bottom line is I'll have to get used to the new rod ratings being used for the reviews. Seeing how the new ratings are applied to rods I'm familiar with will give me the ability to better estimate if future rods being reviewed will be to my liking or not.

[bassbandit]

Nice points, civicrr.

I am somewhat surprised to see the rod downgraded for what the reviewer perceived to be mislabeling the power of the rod. In the end, terms like "heavy" or "medium-heavy" are completely arbitrary terms that have little meaning, especially when different manufacturers are compared. All I really care about is whether the lure rating is accurate and the action. This tells me more about a rod's characteristics than meaningless terms.

Also, if Kigan guides are designed to be "backward", I don't see why they should be downgraded. I am sure I am misinterpreting the intent of the reviewer, but I strongly suspect that Kigan guides "backward" look would be heralded as revolutionary if Megabass rod featured them.

But, I could be wrong.

[mikeysam]

I never knew the guides were " backwards". I really like the rod for frogs and swim jigs.

[Cal]

I am somewhat surprised to see the rod downgraded for what the reviewer perceived to be mislabeling the power of the rod. In the end, terms like "heavy" or "medium-heavy" are completely arbitrary terms that have little meaning, especially when different manufacturers are compared. ...

Please do point out in your most astute observation where we deducted points for the labeling of the rod as "medium heavy" instead of heavy or can you not distinguish between a criticism and actual point deduction? Where is the scoring in our Performance matrix for "proper labeling of rod"?

Also, if Kigan guides are designed to be "backward", I don't see why they should be downgraded. I am sure I am misinterpreting the intent of the reviewer, but I strongly suspect that Kigan guides "backward" look would be heralded as revolutionary if Megabass rod featured them.

And again, please point out where this actual point deduction occurred or are you too blind in your own devotion to a single brand that you cannot understand an objective criticism when you read one?



Be very careful when inferring that a TackleTour editor is criticizing one product or the other because of a perceived bias. We do not mind healthy discussions regarding our reviews and methods, but when you begin projecting bias into our reviews and accuse us of criticizing one manufacturer in favor of another, that's when we take offense. I challenge you to find another site that is as balanced and truthful in their product reviews as we are. Do they take the time to actually fish the product? Do they run the same barrage of tests that we do? Do they see the variety of product we see each and every week? Do they run out and purchase products or do they simply wait for manufacturers to send them samples for "review"? Do manufacturers come to them for suggestions and private opinions about product development?

It's fine to disagree with our assessment. But never accuse of of bias. You want criticism of Megabass? Maybe you missed this article: http://tackletour.com/reviewmegabassrc256.html

Oh you think we favor Daiwa: http://tackletour.com/reviewdaiwat3ballistic.html

Shimano? http://tackletour.com/reviewshimcalcutta12vsd.html

We give praise and props where they are due, and we also criticize when it is warranted. If you want all fluff and only positive view points, you're in the wrong place.

[angry john]

I very much enjoy the critical review and appreciate the pointing out of the rating of medium heavy vise heavy. As many people know the industry has not done a good job of establishing a standard. One more tid bit that i was looking for and would find very useful is the accuracy of the listed blank speed. This is also not a standard, but would be very good to know in comparison to other rods. I most likely would not buy the rod due to the x-fast designation, as i fish a lot of braid and personally do not like the x-fast rods and braid combo. I am sure i could figure it out by comparing the chart, but i do not have a good baseline to understand the differences. Can you please comment on the accuracy or compare speed to rating.

Thumbs up to another great review AJ

[Cal]

One more tid bit that i was looking for and would find very useful is the accuracy of the listed blank speed. This is also not a standard, but would be very good to know in comparison to other rods.

Yeah, our chart does not provide this information either. This is why we usually try to provide this type of photo in our rod reviews so you can see the bend of the rod's tip and attempt to judge for yourself. In the case of the 735C, that rating is pretty accurate, but even so, the tip of the rod really loads nicely so it does not fish like other x-fast tapered rods with similar ratings.

[angry john]

Thanks man your all PRO

[civicrr]

As you can see from the pic, the 735 isn't really that fast. Not compared to a St Croix xfast action or a Daiwa Zillion xfast anyway.
Hope that helps.

[bassbandit]

I am somewhat surprised to see the rod downgraded for what the reviewer perceived to be mislabeling the power of the rod. In the end, terms like "heavy" or "medium-heavy" are completely arbitrary terms that have little meaning, especially when different manufacturers are compared. ...

Please do point out in your most astute observation where we deducted points for the labeling of the rod as "medium heavy" instead of heavy or can you not distinguish between a criticism and actual point deduction? Where is the scoring in our Performance matrix for "proper labeling of rod"?

Also, if Kigan guides are designed to be "backward", I don't see why they should be downgraded. I am sure I am misinterpreting the intent of the reviewer, but I strongly suspect that Kigan guides "backward" look would be heralded as revolutionary if Megabass rod featured them.

And again, please point out where this actual point deduction occurred or are you too blind in your own devotion to a single brand that you cannot understand an objective criticism when you read one?

Be very careful when inferring that a TackleTour editor is criticizing one product or the other because of a perceived bias. We do not mind healthy discussions regarding our reviews and methods, but when you begin projecting bias into our reviews and accuse us of criticizing one manufacturer in favor of another, that's when we take offense. I challenge you to find another site that is as balanced and truthful in their product reviews as we are. Do they take the time to actually fish the product? Do they run the same barrage of tests that we do? Do they see the variety of product we see each and every week? Do they run out and purchase products or do they simply wait for manufacturers to send them samples for "review"? Do manufacturers come to them for suggestions and private opinions about product development?

It's fine to disagree with our assessment. But never accuse of of bias. You want criticism of Megabass? Maybe you missed this article: http://tackletour.com/reviewmegabassrc256.html

Oh you think we favor Daiwa: http://tackletour.com/reviewdaiwat3ballistic.html

Shimano? http://tackletour.com/reviewshimcalcutta12vsd.html

We give praise and props where they are due, and we also criticize when it is warranted. If you want all fluff and only positive view points, you're in the wrong place.

Unless I am mistaken, the perceived "mislabeling" of the power of the blank, along with the "backward" guides were listed on your chart of Pluses and Minuses as negatives. I chose to comment on these issues because I did not perceive these issues the same as you. Would you have mentioned either of these issues if you had fished the rod blindfolded without being told what power it was and unable to see the guides?

As for being a fanboy, I do not own a Dobyns rod and do not foresee one in the future as they just don't "do it" for me. I currently own a few Fenwicks, several Powells, a couple e21, some Shimanos, and a couple housebrand rods. I try to buy the best rod for my application regardless of brand within my price range.

I disagree with your comments regarding bias. Like it or not, bias exists within each of us. To suggest otherwise is either dishonest or a demonstration of a lack of self-awareness. My initial comments certainly reflected mine my inherent biases.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but there seems to be a growing attitude on this forum and in society in general that people who don't think the exact same way as we do are always wrong. If divergent opinions are no longer tolerated on this site, then simply disable the forum feature or refuse to allow comments on your reviews. Otherwise, let's agree to disagree.

[Cal]

Perhaps I am mistaken, but there seems to be a growing attitude on this forum and in society in general that people who don't think the exact same way as we do are always wrong. If divergent opinions are no longer tolerated on this site, then simply disable the forum feature or refuse to allow comments on your reviews. Otherwise, let's agree to disagree.

You're perfectly welcome to disagree with any of our takes on the equipment we review. I've no problem with that whatsoever. Where I take offense are the comments that if the feature we're criticizing were on a different brand's product, then it would be praised because there is a perceived bias for that brand by the author. This is simply untrue.

[IlliniDawg01]

Design & Ergonomics Ratings for Dobyns Rods 735C

Grip (1-5)
Colors / Graphics (1-5)
Balance (1-5)
Weight (1-5)
Total
Possible
Rating
4
3
4
4
17
20
8.5

Unless I'm unclear on how the scoring system works there is something wrong with the above table. Either the total should be 15 or the 3 should be a 5.

DaveJ