I can remember it as if it were yesterday, in fact it was forty-seven years ago. I was attending a meeting of the NFSA, the British equivalent of the NZACA. One member, who was a highly accomplished angler, suggested there was too much emphasis being placed on the callisthenics of the sport, at the expense of 'fishing'. This drew loud applause from the members, mainly because they had just added a new word to their vocabulary: callisthenics. To put it simply, the speaker was saying there is too much emphasis on casting and not enough talk about fishing.

This has been brought home to me twice in recent days: first by carefully noting the difference between two makes of rod I own, then this morning by a pretty clued up sales person in a local sports shop. I will refer to the salesman first.

This guy told me anglers are buying rods for their advertised ability to cast a long way, not their ability to help the angler control and eventually subdue a large fish. I have held those thoughts for a very long time.

The other instance is far more personal. I own two rods that are advertised as long casting rods, I also own a rod that is much softer in its action. The rod maker makes no claims regarding the distance pendulum casters with overhead reels can achieve, it simply does the job it is used for: it helps me land big fish.

The difference between the rods is truly remarkable, when a large fish makes a sudden run, the cheaper rod absorbs a huge amount of the pressure, there is no sudden strain put on the line, or more importantly, the reel. Now I land a lot of big fish, I target them for it's my belief that is what fishing is all about. My softer rod is well ahead on the 'fish landed' chart, but the strange part being, it cost half of what the other rods cost.

The salesman illustrated my belief when he gave the example of a the top section of a fly rod, soft and very pliable, brilliant at absorbing the pressure when a trout makes a sudden run or worst still when it jumps.

I peruse a lot of Internet YouTube sites (not that kind) and have been a long admirer of the rods available in Europe. Most of these rods are very soft in the tip section but that is to show the smallest take, not just to subdue large fish. In all fairness these rods are very expensive, most in the vicinity of $1000.00, but their worth can easily be seen when watching them in action.

So what do you go for? Is it your wish to own a rod (or rods) that are capable of casting large distances or are you mindful of how the rod will handle a larger fish by improving the chance of a successful landing.

This morning I was quoted a horrendous price for replacing two cracked eyes on a rod. I decided I would rather invest in another rod that fell into my scheme of things, soft in the tip and pliable, ideally suited to the fishing I love. Depending on cyclone Pam (bloody women), I will get back and let you know how it behaves, although the chances are it will be caught on video.

I have just made another video and this is bound for YouTube late next week. It shows me landing an eagle ray of thirteen pounds. The part the rod plays is captured perfectly, I was using a Go-Pro head video as well as my wife using a handicam. Two days earlier I videoed the same rod handling a ray estimated at forty pounds, it's a joy to use and on film it is easy to see why.