Yuku free message boards

I meant to stress double taper more than any particular brand, although I don't think you need to look any further than the two that were perfected in the 'glass era, before Orvis stomped out DT lines with its emphasis on WF. Why I have no idea except from the standpoint of marketing, sourcing, and sales: simplifies manufacture or sourcing by eliminating one type, makes maintaining stock simpler, catered to the "distance" craze that graphite brought on, and, ironically was thought to be easier for beginners, because it is easier to just fling out there. I don't see many relatively new fly fishers take any advantage of WF lines at all, making only short casts, never shooting line, and often substituting the fly rod and line for a cane pole and bobber. Other than that, there are few freshwater fly fishing situations where WF offers much advantage, except for really bulky flies, poppers and such that can't be cast, nor need to be, that delicately anyhow, or in windy conditions where the potential for delicacy is comprimised anyway. DT lines offer a wider range of line control during and after the cast at normal fishing dishes up to, say, 60 feet. WF lines, the more so according to how compact the weightiest section and front taper is, offer the narrowest sweet spot for casting, let's say five or ten feet just before the the transition to the running line.

DT lines have a much wider range--that the feel of 'glass can really take advantage of--for controlled casting. One place it really comes in (I think this was part of the need to "aerialize" and stress accuracy) is to measure a cast for accuracy at, say, 45 or 50 feet, making sure the fly will fall on the intended feeding lane or distance from cover, spot above a rise, and so on. Either line will cast this distance to deliver a fly very comfortably. But as the WF gets into its running line, it's harder to make one or two long false casts to measure, repeat a smooth back cast, and deliver the fly well. If all that were needed was one cast, then the WF would be fine, and you'd shoot about ten feet of line to deliver the fly. But a WF line out past the transition to running line tends to hinge or collapse the backcast near the tip of the rod in a series of measuring false casts. So in repeated casting, it is best stripped in to its sweet spot, and then the line shot again for a longer cast. A DT line will measure the distance better, and if the first cast or two doesn't produce and the fly has floated through the feeding zone, it will do a neat roll pick up at greater distance--without stripping in much line--and be cast again to exactly the same distance more readily.

The bulkier DT line--the more so with progressive 'glass--transmits energy more smoothly through the back or forecast. It comes back more uniformly, you can adjust the distance a foot or two by slipping/shooting line on the backcast (maybe that's just my fingers, but I find the thin running line of a WF harder to start and stop in my fingertips when adjusting distance; I shoot line on the back cast all the time without even thinking about it with DT lines; next thing I carry this habit over to a WF line my fingers lose the handle on the thin running line.). So a cast is more precisely and rythmically repeated through a few long false casts with minor adjustments with a DT than a WF.

For the same reasons, a level line can actually be more accurate; that was a very shrewd suggestion.