Tackle Tour Reviews Bps Pro Qualifier 2024

SoFlaBassAddict reply :

http://tackletour.com/reviewbassproqualifierbaitcaster.html

Interesting read.

ColdSVT reply :

Yes it was...solid reel just we all have experienced

Alonerankin2 reply :

Don't like them at all, just a pitiful braking system,drag, etc.... Buy Shimano or Diawa, either company Excels with the baitcast reel, I suppose they are popular, though I don't understand why.

0119 reply :

They might as well have copy and pasted any other review of a Revo/Lew/Phel/Penn/Banax/Fox clone and saved the effort.

Delaware Valley Tackle reply :

The PQ is a good value budget reel. I give TT's opinion less consideration than that of most posters here. I wouldn't make any decisions about anything based solely on what you see there.

BassCats reply :

After reading the article I feel that it is justified in their world. They mostly use high end gear and JDM products. So a workhorse reel that the general public uses. In their world the reel is heavy and basic, to us it is a workhorse of ease and reliability.

Tackle Tour is good if you have ton of money and want to spend it on fishing. The everyday angler should stay off that page and focus on down to earth forums like this one. Though we do have some heavy hitters on here that push expensive things, the average angler outnumbers them.

Goose52 reply :

Interesting that TT reviewed the reel...although they did review a BPS Johnny Morris reel quite a few years ago. I'm not familiar with this reviewer but I'd have to say that he was perhaps predisposed in his review of the reel - he wasn't expecting much...and so he didn't want to find much. Some of the points from the review:

Faults the 6.4 ratio reel as being inadequate for deep cranking...but doesn't acknowledge the availability of 4.7 and 5.2 options (in both RH and LH).
Says the reel is not as "compact" as he prefers - wow, then he will be giving poor scores to LOTS of reels as the PQ palms about the same as most mid-size reels.
I'm surprised the drag went to 20lbs (as were they), but they fault the drag for being "lumpy." Well, it's certainly not the best drag, and might not measure well on their nifty machine, but in the real world, in actual fishing situations, the reel has an adequate drag.
Mentions that the reel is perhaps not good for lighter baits - can't argue with that - the spool is heavy due to the dual-braking system.
Mentions that the reel is heavy - can't argue with that either - BPS needs to take about 1 to 1.5 ounces out of the reel - not for performance necessarily...but for marketing.
TT is on this kick where they deduct points if a reel doesn't have bearing(s) on the level wind, if it doesn't come with a reel cover, and if it doesn't come with a little bottle of oil. Interesting - how many other $100 reels (and a PQ is really an $80 reel) have those items. One thing for sure, I guess I won't be able to catch as many fish without those items...
The scoring system is so subjective that they can really tweak those numbers (like 6.4 for "Features") to get their expected outcome.

Anyway, nice to see TT acknowledged the reel, but in the "real" world, and considering it's price point, it fishes and performs better than the score it received.

Lastly, I really liked this comment from the reviewer: "The drag star also clicks for confident adjustments if you are so brave to actually utilize this lumpy drag system." Well, I never considered it "brave" to use the PQ drag system, I just considered it fishin'... and then catchin'. I guess it's good that I use a really heavy line (10lb) to catch 40-50 pound class fish so I don't have to rely on the stock drag system............................

TNBassin' reply :

On 6/20/2014 at 12:55 AM, Goose52 said:

Interesting that TT reviewed the reel...although they did review a BPS Johnny Morris reel quite a few years ago. I'm not familiar with this reviewer but I'd have to say that he was perhaps predisposed in his review of the reel - he wasn't expecting much...and so he didn't want to find much. Some of the points from the review:

Faults the 6.4 ratio reel as being inadequate for deep cranking...but doesn't acknowledge the availability of 4.7 and 5.2 options (in both RH and LH).

Says the reel is not as "compact" as he prefers - wow, then he will be giving poor scores to LOTS of reels as the PQ palms about the same as most mid-size reels.

I'm surprised the drag went to 20lbs (as were they), but they fault the drag for being "lumpy." Well, it's certainly not the best drag, and might not measure well on their nifty machine, but in the real world, in actual fishing situations, the reel has an adequate drag.

Mentions that the reel is perhaps not good for lighter baits - can't argue with that - the spool is heavy due to the dual-braking system.

Mentions that the reel is heavy - can't argue with that either - BPS needs to take about 1 to 1.5 ounces out of the reel - not for performance necessarily...but for marketing.

TT is on this kick where they deduct points if a reel doesn't have bearing(s) on the level wind, if it doesn't come with a reel cover, and if it doesn't come with a little bottle of oil. Interesting - how many other $100 reels (and a PQ is really an $80 reel) have those items. One thing for sure, I guess I won't be able to catch as many fish without those items...

The scoring system is so subjective that they can really tweak those numbers (like 6.4 for "Features") to get their expected outcome.

Anyway, nice to see TT acknowledged the reel, but in the "real" world, and considering it's price point, it fishes and performs better than the score it received.

Lastly, I really liked this comment from the reviewer: "The drag star also clicks for confident adjustments if you are so brave to actually utilize this lumpy drag system." Well, I never considered it "brave" to use the PQ drag system, I just considered it fishin'... and then catchin'. I guess it's good that I use a really heavy line (10lb) to catch 40-50 pound class fish so I don't have to rely on the stock drag system............................

TackleTour just got O W N E D.

Arv reply :

I really disagree with that review. Like already mentioned, so much of the reviews are subjective. I feel like the reviewer had higher end reels in mind when writing the review. If they want to compare the PQ to an Antares or Steez, fine, that's their call. Will the PQ stack up to those? No. But they're also ~5x the price. Its like comparing a Ferrari to a Civic. Is a Civic a fine car, sure. Is it a Ferrari. Nope, not even close. Having owned and fished with several PQ reels I will confidently say that they are well worth the money. Are there better reels out there? Without a doubt. Are there better reels out there for $100? If there are they are on a very short list.

kickerfish1 reply :

I prefer the Goose52 review that he conducted and posted on here some time ago. With Goose52 being a user of alot of rod and reel choices at various price points, plus the fact it was done "over time" only adds to the strength of the review.

sarcazmo reply :

Solid workhorse reel.

I like TT, but if its not expensive typically it doesnt get reviewed very favorably. A lot of the people there try to tout their preferred products as superior to justify spending that much money. Case in point, Dobyns DX rods are god like over there... But IMO they dont fish any better than rods costing hundreds less.

Still a lot of GREAT info over there, but take everything with a grain of salt, just like every other site.

aavery2 reply :

Every review ever done is subjective, the key is to pick the things from the review that are facts, like weight, bearing count and placement, handle length, things of this nature. The rest is the opinion of the reviewer and you have to take it for what it is worth.

Someone told me once, if the only meat you had ever eaten was bologna, you would never miss a T-bone.

Despite some of things already mentioned and a few not, I felt the review was fair.

BadBassWV reply :

Its really got me thinking, I love my PQ and think its a very good reel. So does that mean that a reel that they rated quite a bit higher would be that much better than the PQ. IMO I think it was a little bit biased due to the price range of the PQ.

Delaware Valley Tackle reply :

On 6/20/2014 at 12:55 AM, Goose52 said:

Interesting that TT reviewed the reel...although they did review a BPS Johnny Morris reel quite a few years ago. I'm not familiar with this reviewer but I'd have to say that he was perhaps predisposed in his review of the reel - he wasn't expecting much...and so he didn't want to find much. Some of the points from the review:

Faults the 6.4 ratio reel as being inadequate for deep cranking...but doesn't acknowledge the availability of 4.7 and 5.2 options (in both RH and LH).

Says the reel is not as "compact" as he prefers - wow, then he will be giving poor scores to LOTS of reels as the PQ palms about the same as most mid-size reels.

I'm surprised the drag went to 20lbs (as were they), but they fault the drag for being "lumpy." Well, it's certainly not the best drag, and might not measure well on their nifty machine, but in the real world, in actual fishing situations, the reel has an adequate drag.

Mentions that the reel is perhaps not good for lighter baits - can't argue with that - the spool is heavy due to the dual-braking system.

Mentions that the reel is heavy - can't argue with that either - BPS needs to take about 1 to 1.5 ounces out of the reel - not for performance necessarily...but for marketing.

TT is on this kick where they deduct points if a reel doesn't have bearing(s) on the level wind, if it doesn't come with a reel cover, and if it doesn't come with a little bottle of oil. Interesting - how many other $100 reels (and a PQ is really an $80 reel) have those items. One thing for sure, I guess I won't be able to catch as many fish without those items...

The scoring system is so subjective that they can really tweak those numbers (like 6.4 for "Features") to get their expected outcome.

Anyway, nice to see TT acknowledged the reel, but in the "real" world, and considering it's price point, it fishes and performs better than the score it received.

Lastly, I really liked this comment from the reviewer: "The drag star also clicks for confident adjustments if you are so brave to actually utilize this lumpy drag system." Well, I never considered it "brave" to use the PQ drag system, I just considered it fishin'... and then catchin'. I guess it's good that I use a really heavy line (10lb) to catch 40-50 pound class fish so I don't have to rely on the stock drag system............................

Thank you. My thoughts exactly, but I'm being lazy.

Dwight Hottle reply :

On 6/20/2014 at 12:55 AM, Goose52 said:

Interesting that TT reviewed the reel...although they did review a BPS Johnny Morris reel quite a few years ago. I'm not familiar with this reviewer but I'd have to say that he was perhaps predisposed in his review of the reel - he wasn't expecting much...and so he didn't want to find much. Some of the points from the review:

Faults the 6.4 ratio reel as being inadequate for deep cranking...but doesn't acknowledge the availability of 4.7 and 5.2 options (in both RH and LH).

Says the reel is not as "compact" as he prefers - wow, then he will be giving poor scores to LOTS of reels as the PQ palms about the same as most mid-size reels.

I'm surprised the drag went to 20lbs (as were they), but they fault the drag for being "lumpy." Well, it's certainly not the best drag, and might not measure well on their nifty machine, but in the real world, in actual fishing situations, the reel has an adequate drag.

Mentions that the reel is perhaps not good for lighter baits - can't argue with that - the spool is heavy due to the dual-braking system.

Mentions that the reel is heavy - can't argue with that either - BPS needs to take about 1 to 1.5 ounces out of the reel - not for performance necessarily...but for marketing.

TT is on this kick where they deduct points if a reel doesn't have bearing(s) on the level wind, if it doesn't come with a reel cover, and if it doesn't come with a little bottle of oil. Interesting - how many other $100 reels (and a PQ is really an $80 reel) have those items. One thing for sure, I guess I won't be able to catch as many fish without those items...

The scoring system is so subjective that they can really tweak those numbers (like 6.4 for "Features") to get their expected outcome.

Anyway, nice to see TT acknowledged the reel, but in the "real" world, and considering it's price point, it fishes and performs better than the score it received.

Lastly, I really liked this comment from the reviewer: "The drag star also clicks for confident adjustments if you are so brave to actually utilize this lumpy drag system." Well, I never considered it "brave" to use the PQ drag system, I just considered it fishin'... and then catchin'. I guess it's good that I use a really heavy line (10lb) to catch 40-50 pound class fish so I don't have to rely on the stock drag system............................

Nice to see an impartial viewpoint. I know Goose uses a lot of high end tackle & enjoys doing so. When he critiques a low end product favorably it must have convinced him it was worth the price in its price range. WTG Goose.

Grantman83 reply :

I felt the review was fair. TT does deduct points for high priced gear so I feel it evens out. Several lower priced items have gotten great reviews such as the vendetta rod, *** rod, skeet victory reel, pinnacle rods, powell max etc so I do feel that they generally give lower priced stuff a fair shake. They have also been hard on higher end gear when it didn't live up such as the pixy spr and others.

That being said, what most will view as all purpose workhorse isn't the general trend over there. On TT, if it isn't shimano or daiwa, you are already starting off on a negative foot. I used to talk of liking lews reels there and several times was almost laughed off the board even though the curado g and lexa were less than stellar compared to the lews reels they were going against.

bootytrain reply :

On 6/20/2014 at 2:45 AM, Grantman83 said:

I felt the review was fair. TT does deduct points for high priced gear so I feel it evens out. Several lower priced items have gotten great reviews such as the vendetta rod, *** rod, skeet victory reel, pinnacle rods, powell max etc so I do feel that they generally give lower priced stuff a fair shake. They have also been hard on higher end gear when it didn't live up such as the pixy spr and others.

That being said, what most will view as all purpose workhorse isn't the general trend over there. On TT, if it isn't shimano or daiwa, you are already starting off on a negative foot. I used to talk of liking lews reels there and several times was almost laughed off the board even though the curado g and lexa were less than stellar compared to the lews reels they were going against.

To be fair their favorite rods often get a 1 rating in the price category. Also it was not the actual editors that put down LEWS, it was the forum members.

Arv reply :

On 6/20/2014 at 2:45 AM, Grantman83 said:

I felt the review was fair. TT does deduct points for high priced gear so I feel it evens out. Several lower priced items have gotten great reviews such as the vendetta rod, *** rod, skeet victory reel, pinnacle rods, powell max etc so I do feel that they generally give lower priced stuff a fair shake. They have also been hard on higher end gear when it didn't live up such as the pixy spr and others.

That being said, what most will view as all purpose workhorse isn't the general trend over there. On TT, if it isn't shimano or daiwa, you are already starting off on a negative foot. I used to talk of liking lews reels there and several times was almost laughed off the board even though the curado g and lexa were less than stellar compared to the lews reels they were going against.

This is a good point. They gave the max 683c stellar reviews along with other good reviews like you mentioned. I'm not sure who did those reviews off the top of my head, but I don't remember seeing the guy that did the recent review of the PQ much, if at all. He might be the same guy that reviewed the Savvy, but I haven't taken the time to look it up yet. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. The reviewer is entitled to his. My opinion, and probably the opinion of many others, differs from his on this reel, and that's fine by me.

Goose52 reply :

Sure, everyone is entitled to their opinion...but someone representing Tackle Tour, who posture themselves as authorities, should probably come up with more objectivity...and less subjectivity. Also, using convenience items like reel cases/bags, and oil bottles, as measures of a reels "fishability," or overall score, is to me, strange. Deducting score because the reel is "not as compact as I prefer" just means that perhaps TT should give that guy assignments to review smaller reels, not that there is any fault of the reel under review as compared to its competition.

So, like many have already said, take the measurable, objective portions of the review into account, but carefully weigh the subjective portions.

I've never said that the PQ is a great reel; I've only said that it is a good, serviceable reel, that represents good value at it's price point, and that much of the internet lore about the reel is not true. Available in 4 gear ratios, all in RH or LH, and it represents an excellent choice for an angler seeking a quality reel that is available in models to fit most bass angling needs.

TT rated the reel as "Fair" and gave it a score of 6.96 - only .04 below "Good." IMO, it should have scored solidly in the "Good" category. Just makes me wonder if one of those 6.0 or 6.4 scores was bumped a bit down to get it into the "Fair" range...

On 6/20/2014 at 1:31 AM, kickerfish1 said:
I prefer the Goose52 review that he conducted and posted on here some time ago. With Goose52 being a user of alot of rod and reel choices at various price points, plus the fact it was done "over time" only adds to the strength of the review.

The next, and final, report of the PQ 5-Year Challenge test reel is coming up on October 26 or thereabouts. The last report, at the 4-year point, is here: PQ 5-year Challenge

On 6/20/2014 at 1:47 AM, aavery2 said:
Someone told me once, if the only meat you had ever eaten was bologna, you would never miss a T-bone.

I'm puzzled by this comment. Can you translate? Was that meant to be turned around and mean that since the reviewer mostly ate T-bones that he couldn't appreciate a good bologna?

DTack reply :

I will give my opinion I guess... The reviews there often don't make much sense to me. They will deduct points for the strangest reasons... What I advise is reading the review entirely rather than going off of just the rating. They do give lots of details about products, which are helpful to read through in detail. I prefer making my own choice on what is important based on the detailed information they share.

The forums are just as any other, lots of information and opinions. Some I don't agree with, some I do.

CWB reply :

They mentioned there is better out there for the price but gave no examples. Strange. I gave my 6 year old PQ to my son and he absolutely loves it. had too many reels as I recently bought a Lews BB1 Pro for crankin'. Lews does cast a bit further.

For $79.99, which it is usually on sale for, I think you'll be hard pressed to find a better value.

aavery2 reply :

On 6/20/2014 at 3:47 AM, Goose52 said:

Sure, everyone is entitled to their opinion...but someone representing Tackle Tour, who posture themselves as authorities, should probably come up with more objectivity...and less subjectivity. Also, using convenience items like reel cases/bags, and oil bottles, as measures of a reels "fishability," or overall score, is to me, strange. Deducting score because the reel is "not as compact as I prefer" just means that perhaps TT should give that guy assignments to review smaller reels, not that there is any fault of the reel under review as compared to its competition.

So, like many have already said, take the measurable, objective portions of the review into account, but carefully weigh the subjective portions.

I've never said that the PQ is a great reel; I've only said that it is a good, serviceable reel, that represents good value at it's price point, and that much of the internet lore about the reel is not true. Available in 4 gear ratios, all in RH or LH, and it represents an excellent choice for an angler seeking a quality reel that is available in models to fit most bass angling needs.

TT rated the reel as "Fair" and gave it a score of 6.96 - only .04 below "Good." IMO, it should have scored solidly in the "Good" category. Just makes me wonder if one of those 6.0 or 6.4 scores was bumped a bit down to get it into the "Fair" range...

The next, and final, report of the PQ 5-Year Challenge test reel is coming up on October 26 or thereabouts. The last report, at the 4-year point, is here: PQ 5-year Challenge

I'm puzzled by this comment. Can you translate? Was that meant to be turned around and mean that since the reviewer mostly ate T-bones that he couldn't appreciate a good bologna?

You got it, but you have to also look at like this, if bologna was the best meat you had ever eaten, how could you possible appreciate what someone was telling you about a fantastic T-bone steak.

Keep in mind they are not comparing the PQ to reels within its price range or even reels that are a 100 dollars more, the comparison is being made to every other fishing reel they have reviewed. If you think of it in those respects, it rated good, and in my mind that is an accurate and fair rating .

Another thing I was pondering . regardless of the score, think about what this has done to promote the PQ, and all the talk it has spawned on message boards all over.

K_Mac reply :

Thanks for the comments Goose. My experience with PQs over hundreds of hours of fishing has been very good. My experience pales in view of the exhaustive testing you have done though. I completely understand that some may not like the PQ, but in its price range it is a fine reel and a very good value, and I think there is enough history here to make that case.

Montanaro reply :

They scored the d**n reel at 7 out of 10....

And you all say it isn't fair and they under value it? Very few of their reviewed products hit 8/10 or above...and the ones that do win awards.

If it scored in the fives I'd say you might have a point. But a budget, big box store, generic reel scored an average score when the expectations for those types of reels by consumers is that they are subpar (even junk). I'd say their review is right on point with everything I read about it on this forum.

SoFlaBassAddict reply :

I won't judge whether the review itself was fair. Certainly it should have been done a while ago. That reel hasn't had any changes to it for quite a while now.

I've still got a handful of them left. They get used just as much as my other "name" brand reels.

I would argue with the drag comment they had in it though. I've found all of mine to be quite smooth. Especially if you clean the excessive grease out of the reel. I've landed plenty of large hard running fish on the ones I take saltwater fishing.

For the price, they're darn good. On sale, they're a fantastic value.

Montanaro reply :

How many average Joes are going to clean the grease out? Maybe one in ten? Reel should be tested stock.

iceintheveins reply :

Is the PQ as good as a Chronarch, Curado, or higher end Lew's? No. But the only other reel I know of in the price range that compares is the Lew's Speed Spool. The PQ is better than the Curado G series, that much I can assure you. It's not QUITE as good as a citica or my Lew's Tourney MG (both around $130) but it's close.

aavery2 reply :

On 6/20/2014 at 6:20 AM, iceintheveins said:
Is the PQ as good as a Chronarch, Curado, or higher end Lew's? No. But the only other reel I know of in the price range that compares is the Lew's Speed Spool. The PQ is better than the Curado G series, that much I can assure you. It's not QUITE as good as a citica or my Lew's Tourney MG (both around $130) but it's close.

Thanks for your subjective review, and I mean that in a positive way.

LMB KING reply :

probably the best reel for $100 or $90 on sale now

Alonerankin2 reply :

There is no question in my mind... TT is very Biased , heavily,...in my personal observation ,...of years of reading, towards Shimano... I like my shimanos, but Diawas are just as dependable, as far as I can tell plenty of users enjoy their Lews, PQ's ..etc... What Pleases people is very personal, shared information is important... But generally is not Finite, I mean seriously, for the sale price of the reel? Who else can or will compete? The reel series has loyal followers... No one can dispute that.

Goose52 reply :

On 6/20/2014 at 5:04 AM, aavery2 said:
You got it, but you have to also look at like this, if bologna was the best meat you had ever eaten, how could you possible appreciate what someone was telling you about a fantastic T-bone steak......

I guess I'm slow - who is "you" ?

bootytrain reply :

On 6/20/2014 at 6:20 AM, iceintheveins said:
Is the PQ as good as a Chronarch, Curado, or higher end Lew's? No. But the only other reel I know of in the price range that compares is the Lew's Speed Spool. The PQ is better than the Curado G series, that much I can assure you. It's not QUITE as good as a citica or my Lew's Tourney MG (both around $130) but it's close.

How can you say its better than a curado G but not better than a citica when the curado is basically a tuned citica?

Goose52 reply :

On 6/20/2014 at 5:21 AM, Montanaro said:

They scored the d**n reel at 7 out of 10....

And you all say it isn't fair and they under value it? Very few of their reviewed products hit 8/10 or above...and the ones that do win awards.

If it scored in the fives I'd say you might have a point. But a budget, big box store, generic reel scored an average score when the expectations for those types of reels by consumers is that they are subpar (even junk). I'd say their review is right on point with everything I read about it on this forum.

Re 7 out of 10 - true - like aavery2 mentioned, they are rating the reel against all of the reels that they have tested. And 7 out of 10 isn't bad compared to a Conquest, or Antares/Calais, or x or x. But, they rated it at 6.96 and I'm wondering if there was mathematical manipulation going on to get it into the "Fair" category...because that was their pre-determined opinion of the reel (anyone seen any black helicopters flying around TT lately? ) One does, however, have to challenge some of the subjective opinions that they use to create their numerical score.

Anyway - I caught 5 bass on the test PQ today so at the end of the day that's what counts...or at least it should...

aavery2 reply :

On 6/20/2014 at 6:31 AM, Goose52 said:
I guess I'm slow - who is "you" ?

Goose, read it tomorrow or a week from now and see if it makes any more sense, if not, just disregard the post.

On second thought maybe it makes more sense if it is written like this,

"You got it, but the phrase needs to also be looked at from the sense that, if bologna was the best meat a person had ever eaten, how could that person possible appreciate what someone was telling them about a fantastic T-bone steak......"

Goose52 reply :

On 6/20/2014 at 6:56 AM, aavery2 said:
Goose, read it tomorrow or a week from now and see if it makes any more sense, if not, just disregard the post.

I'm just trying to find out if the comment was directed at me. In effect saying that my defense of the PQ is because I have no experience with any better tackle? That I have no perspective of how much better a reel can be. If so, you are incorrect. I do indeed have quite a bit of better tackle. The defense of the PQ was started nearly five years ago to refute incorrect comments and perceptions about a perfectly serviceable reel that is a leader at it's price point. Nothing more, nothing less. It works, catches fish...

aavery2 reply :

I will try another analogy and hope it is better. Think about a boxing match, where the champ is a popular guy and a well loved sports figure. The contender is known locally as a good hard working guy and is a solid boxer. As the fight progresses the Champion wins some rounds but most of the rounds are easily won by the contender. At the end of the fight, it goes to the cards, result, split decision win in favor of the Champion.

The point is that it does not make any difference how the Judges scored the fight on paper, because all the true fans of boxing know who won the match.

bootytrain reply :

On 6/20/2014 at 6:30 AM, Alonerankin2 said:
There is no question in my mind... TT is very Biased , heavily,...in my personal observation ,...of years of reading, towards Shimano... I like my shimanos, but Diawas are just as dependable, as far as I can tell plenty of users enjoy their Lews, PQ's ..etc... What Pleases people is very personal, shared information is important... But generally is not Finite, I mean seriously, for the sale price of the reel? Who else can or will compete? The reel series has loyal followers... No one can dispute that.

Dude, the 2 main guys who write the majority of the articles favor Daiwa, most of the forum members prefer Shimano but have reels of all brands. But the most active members that post in the TT forum favor Daiwa.

Goose52 reply :

On 6/20/2014 at 7:21 AM, aavery2 said:

I will try another analogy and hope it is better. Think about a boxing match, where the champ is a popular guy and a well loved sports figure. The contender is known locally as a good hard working guy and is a solid boxer. As the fight progresses the Champion wins some rounds but most of the rounds are easily won by the contender. At the end of the fight, it goes to the cards, result, split decision win in favor of the Champion.

The point is that it does not make any difference how the Judges scored the fight on paper, because all the true fans of boxing know who won the match.

That's better...

aavery2 reply :

I am goinig to agree with Bootytrain on this one, I have been a member of Tackle Tour for quite a while, long before their server crashed, and post counts started all over. I would say that my time at TT has always felt like a Daiwa dominated forum, much to the extent that Shimano is brand of choice here.

TorqueConverter reply :

I think Wall Booger is spot on although he rants on about the Zillion as if it has some relevance to a PQ review. The PQ is an old dog but it's also not a flash in the pan. The fair rating is appropriate IMO.

Montanaro reply :

Does it make difference if it is fair or good?

All I see is a respectable score for an underdog.

Ima Bass Ninja reply :

Maybe TT should come up with a system based on price point and what you get for the money. Put the PQ in the $100 or less category and it will rate very high compared to others like the exceler, caneen, prodigy, etc. but throw it in with zillions and chronarchs it's not exactly apples to apples. I felt the review was vs higher end tackle as well, but I put more faith in my own judgement and reviews here, than the number TT gives to a reel.

21farms reply :

how interesting. i read the review first thing this morning and thought it was pretty favorable toward the PQ. then, i come over here and read this thread and you'd think TT trashed it or something.

anyway, i've owned two PQs and i would agree with most everything they said. i think it is a good reel for $80 to $90 but not particularly memorable for anything. the PQ is definitely getting long in the tooth and is both larger and heavier than many of the newer reels. i liked mine a lot more a few years ago when i didn't have as much or as nice the stuff i have now...i think it's even moreso for the TT guys as they fish much more often and with a much larger variety of gear than most people.

Arv reply :

I guess my disagreement is coming from MY assumption that they should be evaluating a $100 reel as a $100 reel and not against ALL reels available. If it is put up to the same standards as $200-$600 reels, I agree that a "fair" rating is actually fair and a solid rating for the reel. However, IMO, if compared to other reels in the $100 price range, a "fair" rating is lower than deserved. I don't think they trashed the reel, regardless of the rating. I just don't think it makes sense to include things like a reel cover in the rating, especially when rating a $100 reel. But, that's their standard and they are entitled to review it by those standards. They are fair and rate all products by the same standards. Whether they are partial towards scoring certain brands higher than others can be argued. I know my opinion on that matter, but it doesn't really matter.

dam0007 reply :

How does the Curado G get pulled into this? I've caught more fish then I can count, won tourneys and cashed checks because of the G. It's not a bad reel at all.

Cgrinder reply :

It was a decent review, not one of their best. I don't know why the Crazy Cranker was ever mentioned and the comment about there being better $100 reels seemed tacked on at the end and certainly unsupported.

However I don't go to TT for the reviews. I go to TT to look at pictures that make my wallet empty.

Tywithay reply :

It's an $80, 8oz+, reel that hasn't been redesigned in several years and it scored nearly a 7 in 2014. I don't think that's anything to complain about. In the grand scheme, it's just an entry-level reel and is not meant to compete with Curados, Zillions, and certainly not the Steez.i understand that nobody wants to hear that their favorite rod or reel isn't the greatest thing ever, but not everyone will agree with you. It may very well be the best $80-$100 reel ever, but it's still an $80-$100 reel and it cannot compare to the more expensive reels. I've used a PQ and found it to be an ok reel, but it felt cheap and unrefined to me. That's partly because I am used to using the higher end stuff and that's where the bar is set for me. It doesn't mean it's a bad reel by any means. The particular chap that reviewed it typically does all the lower end items and I don't think he's as blinded by enthusiast gear like the other two guys. He gave it a fair review that was largely positive, and I think it's a fair representation of the reel's capabilities.

iabass8 reply :

His review was pretty spot on. He did sprinkle in a little subjective nonsense that he should have known better to include but he did a pretty fair job of the reel. I'll never understand the TT scoring system. deduct points for not having a reel bag included on a 99$ reel..come on...The silly "it doesn't palm well to me" scoring deduction. Spoiler alert..we don't all have the same size hands. I personally feel the reel palms amazingly well. Kind of a silly opinion based score. If this score was based on his own personal preferences and scoring system then I'm off base and apologize but I don't believe that to be true. It should have been graded higher if it were in a class of 100$ reels but if the scoring is based upon a scale of every reel, there's no way that reel should have even scored a 5. Aside from that, his review was pretty good.

JGBassinAL reply :

I feel like this thread should be named "I can't believe TT rated my favorite reel fair".

bbgobie reply :

I don't see how it's not fair for htheir methodology

Comparing it to $80-100 reels would be dumb. There would be like 1 other rel in the category for them in 10 years. If you're interested in a rwel in that price range they've provided ample info about it. When you look at the score and its in the same range as reels 2x as much you can make your own decision about it. If it scored a 9.9 for reels under 100 and the Tatula scores a ?9.8 for under 150 which is the better reel now? What if the tatula got a 9.9?

They have provided info. Either read it and digest it or blindly go buy something because someone told you too on the internet

The review is better than most on forums that go like this " got a new _____ its the best _____ ever!!!! Used it in my living room"

Montanaro reply :

They have a Section for enthusiast items. The pq isn't being compared to The 400+ dollar reels.

Goose52 reply :

I think the takeaway from all this isn't that the PQ rated "Fair" (by .04 points) - but that the TT scoring system is often overly subjective, subject to too much variance based on reviewer, is not consistently applied, etc. Many reading this thread have already agreed that several of the factors mentioned in the review, that deducted from the score, are probably bogus. Had those factors not been applied, the numerical score would have been 7.something - perhaps a higher score than the reel deserved. So, the issues are with how you got to the score...not the score itself. BUT, as just mentioned above, it's better than no review at all.

If one were to go back to my original post on page 1 of the thread, you will see that I agreed with the reviewer on several counts. TT's dire warning about the drag warranted mention in my post. It's nifty that TT developed a machine to objectively measure drag performance - can't argue with those results - apples to apples, reel to reel. But, I felt it necessary to point out to the board members that in real world fishing, it has proven not to be as big an issue as one might believe from the review - this based on about 1,000 days on the water and fish caught up to 48 pounds.

Regarding a comment about the PQ being one's favorite reel...I can't speak for others on the thread but the PQ isn't my favorite reel. I currently own 47 BC reels, from things like 2012 Antares, Calais DC, PX Type R, Conquests, on down to an H2O Mettle. I just have extensive experience with the PQ and when I see comments about the reel that I know to be inaccurate, based on my fishing experience, then I tend to take issue with those things.

Hogsticker reply :

I don't know. Seemed like a pretty fair review to me. Comments stated -

The reel is constructed well

Tolerances are all fine

Feels nice and solid

Has a short handle

Heavy

Not impressed or disappointed with casting capabilities

Not sure what else people are wanting/expecting from an 80 dollar reel. It got a score of 7, and while the actual review wasn't stellar, it's what I would expect from this reel...average. When the reviewer comments if you are so brave to utilize the lumpy drag system, he is referring to using it at or near the maximum output. Perhaps he could have worded it better, such as explaining how a jumpy drag "can" loose you fish for the more sensitive type. I wouldn't let this review steer you away from this reel if you're shopping on a budget. But come on guys, were you expecting a 10?

TT is an enthusiast site, and I'm not sure why they have chosen to review some of the reels/rods they have lately. It seems to be all Wolbuggers reviews.

ChrisD46 reply :

I have considered buying the BPS Pro Qualifier baitcast reel for a while now ...Howver the 6/18/14 Tackle Tour review was less than favorable (i.e. rough , bumpy drag) . My intended application would be dragging a C-Rig , dragging a football jig and occasional pitching / flipping , so the 7:1 ratio retrieve seemed about right if you are mostly looking to retrive line in a hurry (C-Rig , Football jig dragging ) . Lastly - a BPS employee said to expect the Pro Qualifier to go on sale at season end for $79.99 .

* So , for $79.99 would YOU buy a BPS Pro Qualifier 7:1 ratio (warts and all) mainly for C-Rig and Football Jig dragging - or would you save your money and look for something else ? Lastly , I would be especially interested to hear experiences / opinions from those who have bought recent or new Pro Qualifiers ? The fact that Edwin Evers has had such a great run with the Pro Qualifier may be attributed to his reels being several years old and were made to a higher quality level back then ? ...Thanks in advance for the replies .

Tywithay reply :

On 6/20/2014 at 7:08 PM, Montanaro said:
They have a Section for enthusiast items. The pq isn't being compared to The 400+ dollar reels.

A $400 reel is not necessarily considered "enthusiast," and it is compared to those, in a way. They've set a precedent, whatever that entails, and that's the standard by which all of their products are measured. It seems that people that use the PQ got their feelings hurt because a major review site doesn't think the reel is as great as they do. There was nothing bad about the review at all. So it doesn't cast light lures well; it's a workhorse reel, not a finesse reel. It doesn't crank as well as the Zillion, bfd, the Zillion costs $300. It's not real refined, that's because it's a $100 Chinese reel; it's not made from the highest quality materials or with the greatest precision, and the cost reflects that. It's a fair rating for a fair reel. If the review was based on "under $100" as a caveat, it may have scored a 10. You can't expect it to score a 10 against Tatulas, Zillions, Curados, Chronarchs, etc. Those better products come at a premium, but they are indeed better products. That has nothing to do with whether or not any of them catch fish better than one another.

masterbass reply :

On 6/20/2014 at 7:57 PM, ChrisD46 said:

I have considered buying the BPS Pro Qualifier baitcast reel for a while now ...Howver the 6/18/14 Tackle Tour review was less than favorable (i.e. rough , bumpy drag) . My intended application would be dragging a C-Rig , dragging a football jig and occasional pitching / flipping , so the 7:1 ratio retrieve seemed about right if you are mostly looking to retrive line in a hurry (C-Rig , Football jig dragging ) . Lastly - a BPS employee said to expect the Pro Qualifier to go on sale at season end for $79.99 .

* So , for $79.99 would YOU buy a BPS Pro Qualifier 7:1 ratio (warts and all) mainly for C-Rig and Football Jig dragging - or would you save your money and look for something else ? Lastly , I would be especially interested to hear experiences / opinions from those who have bought recent or new Pro Qualifiers ? The fact that Edwin Evers has had such a great run with the Pro Qualifier may be attributed to his reels being several years old and were made to a higher quality level back then ? ...Thanks in advance for the replies .

I own a pq, lews ss, tourney ss, tourney mg, revo sx and t-3 ballistic. I think at $80 the pq is pretty hard to beat and should be perfect for your application. I don't own any high end reels because I prefer to put more money into the rods. I want my reels to be dependable and durable. So far the pq has served it's purpose with no complaints.

masterbass reply :

This may be a topic for a different thread, but I've always wondered about why Edwin Evers uses pq's, carbonlites and crankin sticks when he is also sponsored by megabass. I like my bps stuff, but if I had a chance to have a full arsenal of megabass I'd be all over it. Maybe I'm missing something.

Goose52 reply :

Well, one thing for sure - it's a topic that attracts lots of interest - 1,300 views in the first 24 hours!

Tywithay reply :

On 6/20/2014 at 9:18 PM, masterbass said:
This may be a topic for a different thread, but I've always wondered about why Edwin Evers uses pq's, carbonlites and crankin sticks when he is also sponsored by megabass. I like my bps stuff, but if I had a chance to have a full arsenal of megabass I'd be all over it. Maybe I'm missing something.

It's more cost effective, for sure. Maybe he gets a better deal through bps or something. Good to have options.

OkobojiEagle reply :

The big winner from this thread is Tackle Tour.

Grantman83 reply :

On 6/20/2014 at 9:18 PM, masterbass said:
This may be a topic for a different thread, but I've always wondered about why Edwin Evers uses pq's, carbonlites and crankin sticks when he is also sponsored by megabass. I like my bps stuff, but if I had a chance to have a full arsenal of megabass I'd be all over it. Maybe I'm missing something.

He is sponsored by megabass regarding hard and soft baits, not rods and reels. That is why he used bps rods and reels but megabass hard baits

21farms reply :

On 6/20/2014 at 7:33 PM, Goose52 said:
TT's dire warning about the drag warranted mention in my post. It's nifty that TT developed a machine to objectively measure drag performance - can't argue with those results - apples to apples, reel to reel. But, I felt it necessary to point out to the board members that in real world fishing, it has proven not to be as big an issue as one might believe from the review - this based on about 1,000 days on the water and fish caught up to 48 pounds.

two things i want to say about the drag issue:

1) goose52, you are no doubt more knowledgeable about reels than the average fisherman and likely ensure your reels are properly serviced, lubed and set-up when you go out. this alone should prevent most on-the-water problems from ever cropping up in the first place and is likely attributable to your great success with the PQ. from what i've read of their test methodology, TT buys new reels from store inventory and tests the reels as they come (e.g., they don't flush the bearings or evenly spread a thin layer of cal's drag grease on the drag washers, etc.).

2) i've owned my fair share of BPS reels over the years and, from my experience, there's a HUGE amount of variability out there, even among the same model and generation of reel.

Goose52 reply :

On 6/20/2014 at 10:32 PM, OkobojiEagle said:

The big winner from this thread is Tackle Tour.

oe

You bet - lots of page views and hopefully, clicks on sponsors/advertisers links.

Perhaps this is why TT is testing more lower-end gear - gets more folks on the site, perhaps increases revenue. Good move.

Goose52 reply :

On 6/21/2014 at 12:28 AM, 21farms said:

two things i want to say about the drag issue:

1) goose52, you are no doubt more knowledgeable about reels than the average fisherman and likely ensure your reels are properly serviced, lubed and set-up when you go out. this alone should prevent most on-the-water problems from ever cropping up in the first place and is likely attributable to your great success with the PQ. from what i've read of their test methodology, TT buys new reels from store inventory and tests the reels as they come (e.g., they don't flush the bearings or evenly spread a thin layer of cal's drag grease on the drag washers, etc.).

2) i've owned my fair share of BPS reels over the years and, from my experience, there's a HUGE amount of variability out there, even among the same model and generation of reel.

Sure - could be a lot of variation. Not saying they all have world-class drags, but they have adequate drags for bass fishing. People will read the TT comment about the drag and perhaps take it as a fatal flaw. My real-world fishing experience says that it's not a fatal flaw. For most bass fishing, drag performance is an overrated factor anyway. Many times in this forum, knowledgeable anglers have commented that drag beyond 3-5 pounds is overkill for bass anyway. Many folks use 30-60 pound braid, or 12, 17, or even 20 pound mono or flouro - having the drag stutter a bit isn't putting you in danger of line breakage. And for those that want to haul fish out of slop with heavy braid, they are locking the drag down anyway (and perhaps breaking rods at the same time... )

I'm not challenging the results of their testing machine, just offering a counterpoint, based on quite a bit of experience.

Also regarding the drag issue. Five of my PQs still have stock drags, run dry. No special lube, cleaning, or any magic. The PQ 5-Year Challenge test reel did have carbontex washers installed at the 40 month point...mostly because the stock washers were getting paper thin from use and there was getting to be lateral play in the driveline.

Still, with a stock drag, on a reel that that had never been opened, the drag on this PQ worked well enough to reel in some nice fish - but as I mentioned earlier, it must be because I use that ultra-strong 10 pound test line to winch the fish in...

Raul reply :

On 6/20/2014 at 7:56 PM, Hogsticker said:

I don't know. Seemed like a pretty fair review to me. Comments stated -

The reel is constructed well

Tolerances are all fine

Feels nice and solid

Has a short handle

Heavy

Not impressed or disappointed with casting capabilities

Not sure what else people are wanting/expecting from an 80 dollar reel. It got a score of 7, and while the actual review wasn't stellar, it's what I would expect from this reel...average. When the reviewer comments if you are so brave to utilize the lumpy drag system, he is referring to using it at or near the maximum output. Perhaps he could have worded it better, such as explaining how a jumpy drag "can" loose you fish for the more sensitive type. I wouldn't let this review steer you away from this reel if you're shopping on a budget. But come on guys, were you expecting a 10?

TT is an enthusiast site, and I'm not sure why they have chosen to review some of the reels/rods they have lately. It seems to be all Wolbuggers reviews.

My thoughts exactly.

Hogsticker reply :

Anyone who read the review thoroughly would conclude that the drag comment was directed toward using the reel while the drag pressure was at the top of being maxed out. I feel any reel that can provide 20 plus pounds of drag pressure is going to shutter at top ends. I really don't think he was stating that the drag was like this at all settings.

aavery2 reply :

On 6/21/2014 at 3:09 AM, Hogsticker said:
Anyone who read the review thoroughly would conclude that the drag comment was directed toward using the reel while the drag pressure was at the top of being maxed out. I feel any reel that can provide 20 plus pounds of drag pressure is going to shutter at top ends. I really don't think he was stating that the drag was like this at all settings.

I'm not sure that is exactly correct, this is a statement from the review. "The drag is quite bumpy and jerky, even at the lowest settings. This reel is far from being ideal if you intend to target species that require a smooth drag system."

Goose52 reply :

True...but folks will remember the statement: "if you are so brave to actually utilize this lumpy drag system" more than they will remember any other comments about the drag or the figures in the drag chart... I couldn't help but grin when I read that statement and it made me think back to April 26, 2012. I caught two of those big carp that same day - one scaled at 48 pounds (illustrated on page 1 of the thread), the other at 44 pounds (photo below). The 48 pounder took 53 minutes to land, the 44 pounder was 1 hour, 9 minutes. Over two hours for both fish, drag being pulled MANY times, in some cases for 10-20 yard runs. I had more drag pulled on those two fish than I will in my remaining lifetime with bass. Drag seemed to work OK and I didn't feel brave at the time...I just felt tired

I read the review again this morning. It's not bad as many have said. I stand by my comments up on page 1 however. I have issues with consistency and subjectivity re the scoring system, and issues with some of the narrative comments in the review.

As has already been mentioned, it's a topic with a lot of interest as we are coming up on 1,600 views. And, as already mentioned, it's probably a good thing for TT - generating lots of page views!

TrippyJai reply :

The only reason why I bother to look at TT reviews is to get information like whether or not there are bearings in the handle knobs, what the reel is made out of, etc.

Take the Curado I for example. I did not read through it all and found out the following useful information to me.

-There are no bearings in the handle, 2 bushings that can be replaced.

-The drag star is in fact aluminum.

-The gearing teeths are smaller than the previous generation, but they are not micro gears.

I also like seeing pictures of the reel taken apart. It's a review and it's by one person so take it for what it's worth.

TorqueConverter reply :

On 6/20/2014 at 7:57 PM, ChrisD46 said:

I have considered buying the BPS Pro Qualifier baitcast reel for a while now ...Howver the 6/18/14 Tackle Tour review was less than favorable (i.e. rough , bumpy drag) . My intended application would be dragging a C-Rig , dragging a football jig and occasional pitching / flipping , so the 7:1 ratio retrieve seemed about right if you are mostly looking to retrive line in a hurry (C-Rig , Football jig dragging ) . Lastly - a BPS employee said to expect the Pro Qualifier to go on sale at season end for $79.99 .

* So , for $79.99 would YOU buy a BPS Pro Qualifier 7:1 ratio (warts and all) mainly for C-Rig and Football Jig dragging - or would you save your money and look for something else ? Lastly , I would be especially interested to hear experiences / opinions from those who have bought recent or new Pro Qualifiers ? The fact that Edwin Evers has had such a great run with the Pro Qualifier may be attributed to his reels being several years old and were made to a higher quality level back then ? ...Thanks in advance for the replies .

I would save my money and look for something else. I already have a PQ and I don't want another one. Not because I think it's a bad reel, but because there are a lot of reels to be had for a little more, such as the Tatula that I have more interest in.

I purchased my PQ at the BPS spring classic this year. I can't imagine older models being any better unless they were Korean built Doyos in stead of a Chinese built Doyo we see today.

Goose52 reply :

On 6/21/2014 at 5:31 AM, TorqueConverter said:
........................ such as the Tatula that I have more interest in.

The Tatula is a game changer at the "deal" prices that it can be purchased at. I fished my Tat reel and 7'7" Tat rod just today - this combo will likely replace the PQ 5-year Challenge test reel as my primary open-water lipless crank combo at the conclusion of the PQ 5-year test period...

Hogsticker reply :

A Tatula at 105 bucks on that auction site is a no brained Imo.

DogBone_384 reply :

Here's a better review of the PQ:

http://www.bassresource.com/bass-fishing-forums/topic/126636-bps-pro-qualifier-bc-reel-–-5-year-challenge-–-4-years-down-1-to-go/?hl=%2Bpro+%2Bqualifier+%2Btest

K_Mac reply :

On 6/21/2014 at 7:42 AM, Goose52 said:
The Tatula is a game changer at the "deal" prices that it can be purchased at. I fished my Tat reel and 7'7" Tat rod just today - this combo will likely replace the PQ 5-year Challenge test reel as my primary open-water lipless crank combo at the conclusion of the PQ 5-year test period...

I've handled the Tatula enough to know that as much as I like my PQs, it will be the next reel I buy. It is amazing the quality of both rods and reels available in the low to mid-range on today's market. For the price of a tank of gas in my truck I can buy a rod or reel that will serve me well as long as I will need it, and probably my grandkids...

smalljaw67 reply :

TT does a very good job with reviews, my only problem with them is they do have a bias when it comes to Daiwa or Shimano and I'll tell you why I feel that way and the PQ review is part of the reason. The minute they mention a reel being heavy as a bad thing, I don't like heavy reels either, I immediately think of the Zillion and the Metanium, great reels but neither ever got knocked on the weight issue and to me they are bricks. Both those reels are 8 oz, the same weight they knock other branded reels as being heavy, and I've asked about this and I was told that everything else is so good that they look past the weight because it really isn't an issue with these reels. Well is the weight isn't an issue with high end reels then it shouldn't be with any other reel and that is my only problem with their reviews otherwise I trust everything they report. Myself, when I picked up a Revo Premier 2nd generation and then a Smoke and finally a Tourney Pro, that was it, I was done with reels over 7.5 to 8oz, I don't care if the reel is said to be better than sliced bread, if it weighs more than 7oz it is a brick.

Tywithay reply :

On 6/21/2014 at 8:05 PM, smalljaw67 said:
TT does a very good job with reviews, my only problem with them is they do have a bias when it comes to Daiwa or Shimano and I'll tell you why I feel that way and the PQ review is part of the reason. The minute they mention a reel being heavy as a bad thing, I don't like heavy reels either, I immediately think of the Zillion and the Metanium, great reels but neither ever got knocked on the weight issue and to me they are bricks. Both those reels are 8 oz, the same weight they knock other branded reels as being heavy, and I've asked about this and I was told that everything else is so good that they look past the weight because it really isn't an issue with these reels. Well is the weight isn't an issue with high end reels then it shouldn't be with any other reel and that is my only problem with their reviews otherwise I trust everything they report. Myself, when I picked up a Revo Premier 2nd generation and then a Smoke and finally a Tourney Pro, that was it, I was done with reels over 7.5 to 8oz, I don't care if the reel is said to be better than sliced bread, if it weighs more than 7oz it is a brick.

If a reel offers other-worldly performance and weighs 8oz, it's easier to overlook than an 8.5oz reel that offers average performance. I have an SS SV that's a few crumbs over 5oz, but I still reach for my Antares 9/10, even on the same rod, because the performance makes my day that much more pleasurable.

What'd you do to a Metanium to make it weigh 8oz? Mine only weighs 6oz.

smalljaw67 reply :

On 6/21/2014 at 8:18 PM, Tywithay said:

If a reel offers other-worldly performance and weighs 8oz, it's easier to overlook than an 8.5oz reel that offers average performance. I have an SS SV that's a few crumbs over 5oz, but I still reach for my Antares 9/10, even on the same rod, because the performance makes my day that much more pleasurable.

What'd you do to a Metanium to make it weigh 8oz? Mine only weighs 6oz.

Wrong reel, I meant the Antares. I understand performance aspects but as I've said, weight is a killer and deal breaker for me no matter how good the performance. I fished with a friends Zillion type-R yesterday, I wouldn't pay more than $100 for it because it is a brick. Did it perform well, absolutely but just as some guys can't get past tip heavy rods, I can no longer get past reels in the 8oz area. The same thing for rods, TT does a great job but they do show a little bias when doing a high end reel that performs well, no mention or points deducted for weight, fine but then you can do it to others either, if an 8oz reel is heavy for a $100 dollar reel then 8oz is heavy for a $600 dollar reel.

frogflogger reply :

Hope this isn't off subject - Just weighed a box of reels - my old PQ10hb packed with 12# fluoro weighs 7.7 oz. - - my Ardent packed with 10# flouro comes in at 8.4 oz. - I fished these reels along with curados, calais, daiwas for 250 - 300 days a year, never minded their weight- back a few years ago we palmed 5000's without permanent damage to our bodies or minds - I've always been far more concerned with the weight of my rods than the reels.

Goose52 reply :

On 6/21/2014 at 8:18 PM, Tywithay said:
If a reel offers other-worldly performance and weighs 8oz, it's easier to overlook than an 8.5oz reel that offers average performance......

Absolutely – if a reel is really nice, I don’t notice, or even mind, the weight at all. I have a bunch of nice reels that are in the PQ weight range, or even an ounce or so heavier, that have similar line capacities and would fill similar roles as the PQ – Antares, Calais 200DC, Calcutta 100DC, Conquest 100s, Calcutta CTE-100GT - don’t mind the weight at all and they are all delightful reels.

HOWEVER – as has been mentioned, TT has decided that weight is “bad” and detracts score for weight. Thus that detraction should apply equally to all reels. Now, since the 2012 Antares has been mentioned, let’s look at TTs Design & Ergonomics Ratings for the Antares vs. the PQ:

Weight: Antares – 4 / PQ – 3 OK, Antares gets a better score – the factory listed weight IS a whopping .7 oz lighter than the PQ. Perhaps they have a table that says that reels 7 oz and under get a 5, 7.1 to 8 get a 4, 8.1 to 9 get a 3, etc. At least I HOPE they have a table or they are getting subjective on what should be an objective criterion.

Handle Length: Antares – 4 / PQ – 3 That’s strange – they have the same length handles – why did the Antares score higher?

Knobs: Antares – 5 / PQ – 3 Are the Antares knobs really THAT much better – two scoring points? I guess it is to them so I’ll go with that.

Palming: Antares – 4 / PQ – 3 Curious – the Antares is bigger in every dimension and visually dwarfs the PQ. They have an equivalent height when on the same reel seat (the Antares has a recessed reel foot but the PQ has a smaller height of the palm sideplate so that’s a wash). So, why does the Antares palm better and get a higher score? And don’t forget the sensation you get when picking up and “palming” an Antares/Calais that’s been in the hot sun or on a cold morning… :lol: Anyway – must be some subjectivity here.

Ease of Breakdown: Both score a 3 – a wash.

Now, before anyone gets the wrong idea, I’m not directly comparing the Antares and PQ, I’m examining the scoring system.

So, as I have mentioned repeatedly in this thread, I have no problems with the PQ scoring in the seven-ish range, I just have issues with consistency and subjectivity re the scoring system, have issues with some of the narrative comments in the PQ review, and felt it necessary to offer a counterpoint that real-world experience indicates that the “drag issue” is not as dire as they would have you to believe.

OkobojiEagle reply :

While in college we had a pretty subjective scoring system of the gals present at the bar we were frequenting. That scoring system endured dramatic revisions as closing time approached...

iabass8 reply :

On 6/22/2014 at 2:36 AM, OkobojiEagle said:

While in college we had a pretty subjective scoring system of the gals present at the bar we were frequenting. That scoring system endured dramatic revisions as closing time approached...

oe

Sometimea you just gotta take home that pro qualifer bro

Hogsticker reply :

I don't even pay attention to the scores on the TT reviews. I just read it and take it for what its worth. None the less, the reviews done there are some of the best on the web IMO. I also think part of it is that this particular reviewer does not enjoy reviewing these lesser expensive rods and reels. He did a review on a Denali rod and it pretty much sounded the same. But when he reviewed the Megabass XX he was all sorts of pumped, which again leads to my original question - Why are they doing these reviews? I can think of so many other reels that have not been reviewed that would fit the TT niche a lot better. Maybe Wolbugger needs justification for his position? I have to be honest though, I wasn't the least bit excited when I saw they reviewed the PQ. I didn't even read it till I saw this.

bootytrain reply :

On 6/22/2014 at 1:07 AM, Goose52 said:

Absolutely – if a reel is really nice, I don’t notice, or even mind, the weight at all. I have a bunch of nice reels that are in the PQ weight range, or even an ounce or so heavier, that have similar line capacities and would fill similar roles as the PQ – Antares, Calais 200DC, Calcutta 100DC, Conquest 100s, Calcutta CTE-100GT - don’t mind the weight at all and they are all delightful reels.

HOWEVER – as has been mentioned, TT has decided that weight is “bad” and detracts score for weight. Thus that detraction should apply equally to all reels. Now, since the 2012 Antares has been mentioned, let’s look at TTs Design & Ergonomics Ratings for the Antares vs. the PQ:

Weight: Antares – 4 / PQ – 3    OK, Antares gets a better score – the factory listed weight IS a whopping .7 oz lighter than the PQ. Perhaps they have a table that says that reels 7 oz and under get a 5, 7.1 to 8 get a 4, 8.1 to 9 get a 3, etc. At least I HOPE they have a table or they are getting subjective on what should be an objective criterion.

Handle Length: Antares – 4 / PQ – 3   That’s strange – they have the same length handles – why did the Antares score higher?

Knobs: Antares – 5 / PQ – 3   Are the Antares knobs really THAT much better – two scoring points? I guess it is to them so I’ll go with that.

Palming: Antares – 4 / PQ – 3   Curious – the Antares is bigger in every dimension and visually dwarfs the PQ. They have an equivalent height when on the same reel seat (the Antares has a recessed reel foot but the PQ has a smaller height of the palm sideplate so that’s a wash). So, why does the Antares palm better and get a higher score? And don’t forget the sensation you get when picking up and “palming” an Antares/Calais that’s been in the hot sun or on a cold morning… Anyway – must be some subjectivity here.

Ease of Breakdown: Both score a 3 – a wash.

Now, before anyone gets the wrong idea, I’m not directly comparing the Antares and PQ, I’m examining the scoring system.

So, as I have mentioned repeatedly in this thread, I have no problems with the PQ scoring in the seven-ish range, I just have issues with consistency and subjectivity re the scoring system, have issues with some of the narrative comments in the PQ review, and felt it necessary to offer a counterpoint that real-world experience indicates that the “drag issue” is not as dire as they would have you to believe.

The Antares was reviewed by Cal, while the PQ was reviewed by Wolbugger. So the preference or opinions in handle length, palming, etc are bound to be varied. I think my Metanium palms better than my Curado I despite the Curado being smaller. Other people will have different opinions.

shanksmare reply :

I have read several of the reviews that TT has done. I must say that I take what they say with a grain of salt.

I purchased a PQ about 4 years ago. I use it 4 or 5 days a week. I fish for 3 or 4 hours each outing. I like using reaction type baits so I am continually casting and winding. I fish from the bank and like traveling light so I only use one outfit. Since I'm fishing off the bank my outfit takes a bit of abuse. I have had to replace the pawl and worm gear on the reel because of this abuse. I put a few drops of oil in this reel every month or so. I break it down and clean it maybe once a year or less.

Is this reel the best thing since sliced bread? No! But it is a tool. It works well enough and I see no reason to upgrade to anything more expensive.

2102

Tackle Tour Reviews Bps Pro Qualifier 2024

related Fishing Rods Reels Line Knots topic

previous topic

next topic

most viewed Fishing Rods Reels Line Knots topic