Dalleinf wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:37 pm
Thank you for the review.
I will ask you to consider this (your own words) in relation to the many TT reviews:
“It is always amusing to me when I watch some youtube videos of cast comparisons, or see arguments about how far reels cast, and whether one can out-cast another, and how max casting distance is used as a singular factor of how “good” a reel is. The fact is that there are an incredible number of factors that influence casting performance, and when you are dealing with the difference between yards on premium reels everything from the user’s varying casts, to the type of line used and the condition of that line, or even a gust of wind during the cast, can impact the max distance significantly. I can get the Antares A70 to outcast the Bantam pretty easily, but I could also out-cast the Antares with the Curado 150 DC when I really tried.”
I started reading TT reviews many years ago and really enjoyed them. Perhaps because of my progression, I take less and less away from TT reviews today. They are simply not in-depth enough and you more or less point this out yourself while being amused with how others comment on reel performances. Why not go more in depth with how various types of line affect casting/performance for the many reels you review? Casting distances and casting performance in different conditions. Or how reels behave on different rods (lengths, actions). There are so many variables to consider when buying a reel and TT - being the premier tackle review site (thank you for that) - could inform on so much more than what is found in most TT reviews at present. I hope this does not offend you guys - it is not meant to. I know you are busy. Just a suggestion from someone who enjoys your site and would rather see fewer but more in-depth reviews. Let the rest of us offer the simple stuff...
Cheers Michael
Cheers Michael, and thank you for first reading the entire review, being a long time reader, and for your comments. No offense taken whatsoever, and I actually really appreciate the input. Those of you that have been reading TT a long time will likely have seen the evolution of our site and articles over time. Let me address the comment on casting first, and our current approach and why next.
In regards to my "amused" comment: The fact is that there are so many factors, and that it is incredibly subjective how well a reel casts. I never profess to be a great caster, and constantly get humbled by professional anglers that will take the same reel and rod, that I have been using all day, and out-cast me by ten feet. My point is that there are in incredible number of factors when it comes to casting, and after testing so many reels, rods, lines (in various configurations) in various environments I don’t even feel qualified to quantify the “max” distance on a consistent basis. If I start isolating control factors like specific rods, lines, conditions I could get closer to a repeatable process but it wouldn’t change my impression of how “well” the reel casts, versus focusing on how the reel is different than other reels, which in this case has more to do with the MGIII spool’s quick startup and how that impacts casting feel, and pinpoint casts with lightweight lures.
You mentioned “let the rest of us offer the simple stuff.” Unfortunately many people really don’t get the opportunity to really fish/experience a reel like the Antares before taking the dive and purchasing the product, this is why we feel it is important to share how the reel feels, behaves, the defining characteristics of the reel versus deep diving into how much further it will cast with XXX rod or XXX line. As with all configurations, and the individual angler, that max cast is going to vary, but how that reel feels in hand, or how it performs in various applications may be "simple," but are key factors in whether or not the reel may be right for their unique applications. Finally, I do feel that some anglers are too obsessed with “max casting” distance, as it not only varies with the factors that I discussed, but it doesn’t really improve the fishing experience when you get to reels of this level where distance gains/and losses are incremental. It is easy to go out and make casts and say XXX reel casts better than yyy reel. But delve into the specifics like how old your line is, what type of line, wind conditions, how old or maintained one reel is versus the other… the list is endless…and so are the variables. Anglers should take all of this into consideration before simply saying one reel is better than another, because it casts further in the “test.”
So why not go into more depth? We try and strike a balance between depth, tests, experiences, and being an article that people actually want to read. As a long time reader you probably know remember our test metrics, and reported results changed a few times over the decades. While I certainly appreciate that you feel we do not go into enough depth there are also many readers that feel we go too far. I get emails all the time saying certain reviews are too long, nobody cares about how much a spool weighs, that they just skip over all the data and go straight to the conclusion etc. Then there are others, like yourself, which would like more data, more details on lab tests, or configurations etc. We have had to make adjustments over time, and without getting into too much detail we had to move away from an excess of data because our readership was dropping off on those articles. We simply were not getting impressions as many reraders were tuning this out, and if we don’t get impressions we can’t afford to purchase tackle, or even run a site. I know you would prefer even in depth articles at the expense of more articles, but I also get plenty of input from other readers saying they would like shorter and more articles, and for us to get complete reviews up quicker. This is something I just am not comfortable with compromising. We will do previews but we won’t release a review until we are comfortable with our takeaways, that we have done enough in the lab, and in the field, to justify our conclusion and recommendation. In an age where many people would rather just watch a video, or jump to the conclusion, we need to strike a balance with long form content. I certainly appreciate every single one of our readers, like yourself, that read every word that we write. That’s what fuels us to keep buying tackle, testing, writing, and sharing our passion for tackle, and fishing.
Some of the ideas you mentioned could certainly be a standalone article, like configurations to increase casting distance, so I’ll certainly consider that. But for reel articles we need to try and cover all the attributes, and strike a balance. As always my hope is that there are takeaways where anglers can make their own decisions based on what is important to you. I know, and want, each angler to read the reviews with their own view of what factors are meaningful to them, and what may be simple to you may still be complex for someone else that is just getting into their tackle/angling journey. Finding that balance is hard, but I will always try and support our enthusiast readers, because we share your passion.
Thanks,
Z
jkjk
](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
. It has now been updated on page 3 of the Antares review.