1028 FOREST AND STREAM. [Dec. 29, 1906. 
The English Rod Controversy. 
Early last summer Mr. R. B. Marston, editor 
of the London Fishing Gazette, in referring to 
salmon fishing, remarked that, given two rods 
as nearly alike as possible, but one made of 
split bamboo and the other of greenheart, in 
playing a heavy fish in a strong stream, the split 
bamboo would bend more than the greenheart 
by an extra heavy strain, and consequently 
greenheart would give more control over line 
and fish. He was only suggesting, he says, that 
in this exceptional instance greenheart might 
beat split bamboo. He illustrated his theory 
with a diagram showing the curves of green¬ 
heart and split bamboo rods built as nearly alike 
as possible in length and diameter of joints. . 
This started a discussion that has been carried 
on in nearly every issue of the Fishing Gazette 
and at great length in some cases. The various 
participants not only did not stick to the origi¬ 
nal idea propounded by Mr. Marston, but they 
entered into a lively controversy over the merits 
of all sorts of split bamboo and greenheart fly 
rods, and some of them tried to prove that one 
material was better than the other for all pur¬ 
poses of the angler. As American anglers are 
almost universally in favor of split bamboo for 
all fly rods, and many of them do not under¬ 
stand why British anglers favor greenheart, 
stecl-centered split bamboo, steel-ribbed and 
other combination rods, we have extracted a few 
remarks from the columns of matter contributed 
to the controversy and reprint them herewith. 
It must be understood, however, that rods for 
fly-fishing only are referred to by all those 
quoted. 
Mr. P. D. Malloch, a professional, compares 
greenheart and split bamboo in this wise: 
“1. The split-cane has not the same amount 
of casting power, (a) Greater exertion is re¬ 
quired in getting out the line, therefore more 
tiring, (b) You cannot cast with the same ease 
against the wind; a thicker line must be used, 
therefore a light accurate cast cannot be made. 
“2. The split-cane does not impart the proper 
movement to the fly. (a) When a fish takes hold 
of the fly the top of the rod bends down, and has 
not sufficient power to hook him. Scores of 
fish are lost in this way. (b) Once hooked, the 
fish has such control over the rod that the 
point is pulled down, consequently the line be¬ 
comes ‘bagged,’ and command of the fish is at 
once lost. 
“3. Double the time is required in killing a 
fish, and far more are lost with the split-cane 
than with the greenheart, 
“4. Split-cane rods are more liable to break, 
and when broken are more difficult to repair. 
“5. No two split-cane rods can be made ex¬ 
actly alike. If the balance is not satisfactory at 
first it cannot be altered. 
“6. They do not keep their power, and con¬ 
sequently require to be made heavier to give 
the same power as greenheart. 
“Given two rod—one a split-cane and the 
other a greenheart—both of the same length 
and weight, and casting the same length of line, 
far less power is required in doing the work 
with the greenheart. If I want a rod to have 
the same action as cane, all I have to do is to 
make one of lancewood. This would double up 
like cane, and stand a very great strain before 
breaking, and, besides, would be a great deal 
cheaper. I am quite confident that during the 
last twenty years very little improvement has 
been made in rods. The makers of wood rods 
then knew better how to balance a rod than they 
do now.” 
Another British angler writes: 
“As for a split-cane being more liable to 
break, I defy any one to smash a really good 
one by fair fishing. I have had three split- 
canes, in the last twenty years, and used them all 
hard, and never had a smash or any trouble 
whatever with them.” 
J. E. B., an angler, asks, with very good 
reason: 
“Is not the principle of construction of double- 
built, and especially double-built steel center 
cane rods entirely wrong? A wood rod is one 
homogeneous mass, but the cane-built is made 
up of three, or, if steel center, five, layers of 
material of different quality—that is, (1) steel, 
(2) cement, (3) cane, (4) cement, (5) cane 
strips. 
“For the purpose of my present argument, I 
ignore the building together of the cane strips. 
Apart from the different qualities of the ma¬ 
terial, it is impossible to make a mathematically 
accurate joint throughout the entire length of 
the piece, the inequalities being supplied by the 
least valuable of the three materials—namely, 
the cement. Now, every cast and every fish 
played is continually pulling at this amalgama¬ 
tion and weakening it, and as the resistance 
and resilience of the three component parts are 
entirely different, the weakest—that is, the 
cement between the layers—will give way, and 
instead of one homogeneous piece acting in 
unison throughout, you have practically, in time, 
three loose tubes of different action, one inside 
the other, and so long as the joints of the 
strips forming the outer skin remain intact, the 
mischief which may be happening underneath 
is undiscovered, and you have (in theory) a 
rod which (above a certain point of its thicK- 
ness) does not offer the resistance and has not 
the power of recovery which it ought to do, ana 
have, and simply lies along the line as shown in 
the editor’s little diagram, which raised all the 
hubbub. Even if the mischief in the interior 
mechanism of the rod is discovered, how could 
it be repaired without pulling the joint to pieces? 
“There is another point: The adhesive prop¬ 
erties of (1) cane, cement, and steel, and (2) 
cane, cement, and cane are not identical, and, 
therefore, it appears to a mere angler that the 
combination is a bad one, or certainly inferior 
to an article of the same material throughout. 
I make these suggestions with’great diffidence 
and deference for the consideration of the ex¬ 
perts who, of course, may be able to show that 
my arguments are, from lack of proper technical 
knowledge, entirely fallacious and worthless.” 
A writer who signs himself A. K., says: 
“I am one of those many fly-fishermen who 
cannot use greenheart. I daresay it is entirely 
my own fault. Having thrown a long line back¬ 
ward I recover very sharply, and I strike very 
smartly. I never by these tactics break my 
casting line, however fine; but I break every 
greenheart top that can be made. I have tried 
almost every maker; I have paid high prices, 
all to no purpose. I like the feel of greenheart; 
I can throw a good line with it, it is all that 
is desirable, but, in my hands, which are other¬ 
wise not inexpert, and certainly have been in 
practice for over forty years continually, it will 
smash.” 
Mr. George Kelson says: 
“Any man free from prejudice, and really 
qualified to express an opinion, will tell you (1) 
that he can make all the casts ’used in salmon 
fishing with ease, provided his rod is made with 
either split-cane or greenheart properly bal¬ 
anced; (2) that were he asked for the loan of 
one of two such rods, he would lend the cane, 
as there is far less chance of its breaking. I 
have never actually broken a cane rod.” 
J. J. Hardy, a professional, referring to the 
Crystal Palace tournament—at which John En¬ 
right cast 147 feet with an 18-foot 43-ounce 
greenheart spliced salmon rod, beating- Mr. 
Hardy, and also defea.ting him by 9 feet with a 
14-foot rod—says of Mr. Enright’s 49-yards cast: 
"it was a poor performance, which I should 
have beaten easily had I not lost my temper.” 
Mr. Hardy’s assurance is wonderful, as will 
be seen further on. Replying to J. E. B.’s re¬ 
marks, he says. 
“Cane built, with or without steel center, in 
strips where the layers of fibre run continuously 
in line with the a?cis of the rod, is infinitely 
stronger than greenheart or any other wood in 
which the layers of fibre run obliquely across 
the axis, and this is the cause of the frequent 
breakages. As to the line of cement, that is 
very hard and tough, and I can’t remember 
having seen an accident from this. As a matter 
of fact, a properly made cane-b'uilt rod, whether 
steel center or no, used with reasonable care 
will last a lifetime.” 
Mr. Hardy wishes it to be distinctly under¬ 
stood, however, that his firm only, of all others, 
makes rods properly. Therefore, when he refers 
to properly made rods, he means his own. 
Another opinion: 
“You cannot get the same power out of split- 
cane, diameter for diameter, as you can out of 
greenheart. There is also a beautiful steely 
spring, and a far sweeter air-cleavage in green¬ 
heart, and there is none of that swoppy feel 
that there is in split-cane. I think it is the 
multitudinous bindings or wrappings that cause 
this deficiency.” 
This hazard is wide of the mark. Winding 
split bamboo solidly with silk probably makes 
such a rod “soft,” but windings an inch or so 
apart stiffen a rod perceptibly. In this split 
bamboo is referred to with particular em¬ 
phasis, although it applies as well to some if 
not all wood rods. 
Maj. Percival Lea Burch, the famous writer 
on sporting topics, and whose experiences are 
world-wide, says: 
“It must have occurred to the thinking angler 
that the combination of steel with bamboo 
cannot be scientifically sound, seeing that the 
elasticity and speed of recovery of steel and 
cane differ so widely. When a steel rod is 
worked into the center of a glued-up rod, it 
stands to reason that there must be a continual 
effort going on for the wood and metal to part 
company. So far there has been a general 
belief that steel-centered cane-built rods are 
practically indestructible, but a correspondent 
in an English paper relates how these rods oc¬ 
casionally break their middle joints when cast¬ 
ing.” 
M. F. W. writes: 
“I started angling some years ago with green¬ 
heart rods, and very little satisfaction they gave 
me. Many and many are the breakages I can 
recall, chiefly caused through getting “hung up” 
behind while fishing wooded streams in the 
north of England. My greenheart tops, too, 
had an exasperating habit of snapping suddenly 
when recovering a heavy tapered line that had 
been allowed, (somewhat carelessly, perhaps) to 
become partly “drowned.” It was mishaps and 
accident^ such as these which finally decided 
me to go in for a first-class rod of split-cane.” 
This from Val Conson: 
“If it be true that greenheart is diameter for 
diameter stiffer than split-cane (and I am not 
prepared to accept that as a proposition), it 
only means that greenheart reaches the point 
of breaking strain sooner than split-cane. It 
is the marvelous virtue of split-cane that, how¬ 
ever stiff, there seems always a bit more give 
in it to save a break. A split-cane may break 
with a jar, but I never knew one break as the 
result of a fishing strain. I am not, however, 
prepared, to admit that it is true that green¬ 
heart is stiffer, diameter for diameter, than split- 
