Reel Repair by Alan Tani

Quote from: jurelometer on May 12, 2026, 09:43:33 PMThere is a subset of fisherman out there that like to use rollers for trolling because they like to use rollers for trolling. Some very fancy rollers. I think it is based on tradition from the time when the best saltwater trolling rods had rollers.

Rollers have more utility if you are not casting, not using modern braid (e.g., wire or mono), and/or need to pass knots through the guides.

A roller on the tip is more useful than other spots on the rod because the line angle at the guide can be more acute, and a short section of line can pass back and forth repeatedly through the tip as the rod bends and unbends from certain trolling methods such as high speed surface skirts.  The roller rolls, so there is no friction from rubbing.

But with modern braid and ceramic rings, the coefficient friction is so low that the advantages of rollers rarely outweigh the disadvantages IMHO.


And a big roller for a very small diameter blank tip is a very odd duck.

-J

I have four heavy (130# to unlimited) rods matched to Penn 80s as stand-up trolling gear for giant Bluefin. The rods have all roller guides.

With heavier lines (200#+) the line-to-line connections (i.e., mono topshot to flouro leader) are crimped with a micro swivel in between - so it's crimp, swivel, crimp and the whole shebang is pretty cumbersome. I can't imagine it running through a ring guide. The rollers handle it without a hiccup. It's at a location that tends to pass in and out of the rod during a fight too.

I tend to think that rollers are more convenient for winding on a lot of terminal tackle and heavy leader material. Captains here (East Coast) are recommending this set up for standard Canyon trolling with short (6') leaders so that the fish (usually yellowfin tuna) are within an easy gaff shot.

Quote from: Squidder Bidder on August 05, 2026, 06:03:45 PM

Quote from: jurelometer on May 12, 2026, 09:43:33 PMThere is a subset of fisherman out there that like to use rollers for trolling because they like to use rollers for trolling. Some very fancy rollers. I think it is based on tradition from the time when the best saltwater trolling rods had rollers.

Rollers have more utility if you are not casting, not using modern braid (e.g., wire or mono), and/or need to pass knots through the guides.

A roller on the tip is more useful than other spots on the rod because the line angle at the guide can be more acute, and a short section of line can pass back and forth repeatedly through the tip as the rod bends and unbends from certain trolling methods such as high speed surface skirts.  The roller rolls, so there is no friction from rubbing.

But with modern braid and ceramic rings, the coefficient friction is so low that the advantages of rollers rarely outweigh the disadvantages IMHO.


And a big roller for a very small diameter blank tip is a very odd duck.

-J

I have four heavy (130# to unlimited) rods matched to Penn 80s as stand-up trolling gear for giant Bluefin. The rods have all roller guides.

With heavier lines (200#+) the line-to-line connections (i.e., mono topshot to flouro leader) are crimped with a micro swivel in between - so it's crimp, swivel, crimp and the whole shebang is pretty cumbersome. I can't imagine it running through a ring guide. The rollers handle it without a hiccup. It's at a location that tends to pass in and out of the rod during a fight too.

I tend to think that rollers are more convenient for winding on a lot of terminal tackle and heavy leader material. Captains here (East Coast) are recommending this set up for standard Canyon trolling with short (6') leaders so that the fish (usually yellowfin tuna) are within an easy gaff shot.

Interesting.

Don't they even make jumbo opening roller guides designed specifically to pass extra chunky hardware? I seemed to remember something about that.

But I would argue that with modern braid and wind on leaders (a topshot is essentially a long leader), the use cases for needing to have hardware that has to be wound on decreases substantially.  There should usually be  ways to design an equally productive setup that does not require winding on any hardware.

If you are using a full mono line system, I can see how this would be more cumbersome.

-J

Quote from: jurelometer on August 05, 2026, 07:49:47 PMInteresting.

Don't they even make jumbo opening roller guides designed specifically to pass extra chunky hardware? I seemed to remember something about that.

But I would argue that with modern braid and wind on leaders (a topshot is essentially a long leader), the use cases for needing to have hardware that has to be wound on decreases substantially.  There should usually be  ways to design an equally productive setup that does not require winding on any hardware.

If you are using a full mono line system, I can see how this would be more cumbersome.

-J

Yes, the main manufacturers make guides with extra hood clearance for this purpose.

One other thing I forgot to mention is that a heavy hollowcore braid to heavy top shot splice is pretty cumbersome itself - it's stiff for a substantial length where the braid envelops the mono and there is a pronounced shoulder (especially under load when the hollow core is stretched) where the hollow core starts to have the mono inside of it. Some guys go 5+ feet into the hollow core. I don't think it would play well with ring guides under load. The splice seems to just lay over the rollers and slide as the rollers roll.

Here these inshore Bluefin are line shy, so the SOP is to troll a lengthy fluorocarbon leader (30' - 50'). You can't rely upon the fluoro as a shock absorber, so you need a connection from heavy mono (shock absorber) to heavy fluoro (for stealth and abrasion resistance). That's where we have two crimps connected by an Owner micro hyper barrel swivel. This is the apparatus that goes in and out of the guides several times during a fight.

I think for me at this point I'm so invested (financially!) in roller guides that it's take a lot to convince me that there are ring guides that would take their place. Also, I find roller guides to be very rugged versus ring guides, so I worry less about something weird (but common on a boat) happening and a guide insert getting banged and falling out or similar. If something was to happen to compromise a roller, it's an easy fix that I can perform with a couple of screwdrivers in a few minutes.

I've seen and heard of a number of splices coming undone from wind-on leaders and topshots when the splice hits a ring guide (or a crewman's glove, but that's another story), particularly the tip guide as any bending of the line is most extreme at that point. The 'Chinese finger trap' comes free in the blink of an eye.

This is less likely with roller guide (though not impossible). Of course, if the splice had been made properly...

I don't want to present myself as an authority on this, as I am not a chaser of jumbo tuna, but I would simply point out that here on the USA west coast, rods with ring guides using tied on and/or wind on topshots and  leaders up to 200lb is the dominant system for small to very large (up to 300b - we don't get the super jumbos here) bluefin and yellowing tuna. This is for lure tossing, day/night jigging, drifting live bait and trolling.

It is pretty rare to see a newer rod with rollers out here now.  So the majority have decided to move on from rollers, and it pretty much followed the widespread adoption of of braid.

It seems to me that rollers on larger rods are not significantly worse, just less necessary.  I am not going to argue  with Squidder Bidder's points on the benefits of rollers, because I think they are accurate. I do think that the functional niche for rollers is shrinking, and  pro-roller preference seems to be driven more by regional bias and custom, and less by actual differences in fishing requirements.

As to needing extremely long fluoro leaders for bluefin "because they are line shy":

Like all tuna, bluefin have vision that has evolved to favor sensitivity over acuity. They are ram feeders that are constantly on the move, and benefit from seeing more stuff less clearly over seeing less stuff more clearly.  The fish that sees the bait first gets to eat first.  One of the problems with farming bluefin is that they will swim right into the walls of a tank  - especially the younger ones.  Scientists have measured bluefin visual acuity and it isn't that great (we have a thread on this somewhere).

So while bluefin can be on the shy side at times, I don't understand why we all think it is caused by a minor difference in refraction in the leader, and not the big boat splashing around and emitting all sorts of loud odd noises ( bluefin hearing is not highly sensitive either ).  IMHO,  if you have to stick a swivel in your system, it is not going to scare a tuna by being five or so feet from your lure, and it will work better at that location. 

These is a logic based argument, and not based on firsthand experience with big tuna.  I wouldn't tell those East Coast guys that fish every day that they are doing it all wrong.  Just suggesting an open mind.

-J

300lb is a minnow in the Giant Bluefin fishery. A good fish is probably double that, and a real good one is a grander. The west coast head boat fishery isn't really a useful reference point.

I can't see any ringed guide surviving a crimped connection going through it at pace and under load.

Quote from: boon on August 12, 2026, 10:42:01 PM300lb is a minnow in the Giant Bluefin fishery. A good fish is probably double that, and a real good one is a grander. The west coast head boat fishery isn't really a useful reference point.

I can't see any ringed guide surviving a crimped connection going through it at pace and under load.

I think it is is a good reference point, if we are talking about the value of rollers for the majority of saltwater fishing. I still have a 20 lb class rod somewhere that is outfitted with rollers. It is a factory trolling rod from not that very far back in the day. You won't find those made very often nowadays.

From my understanding, most of the East Coast USA tuna sportfishery is for  the small to large yellowfin and bluefin. Targeting the giants is a small subset of the fishery. The west coast guys are maxing out at around 20-30 lbs of drag at strike and 200lbs of mono going through the guides on the topshot.  If you are going beyond that, or have a need to pass hardware through the guides, then rollers make sense, and rollers are not going to be very cumbersome with that size of gear.  (As a side note, I can't imagine that winding crimps onto a spool under high load is good for the line underneath it. If you gotta do it, you gotta do it, I guess)

Which is sort of my point.  For awhile- maybe staring around the 70s, the push was to make rollers for lighter and lighter rods (remember those weird single foot triangular rollers?), but since the advent of braid, the types of fishing where rollers are considered superior has gradually shrunk to the largest big game fishing, wire line fishing, spools of large diameter mono - some pretty small niches.  I am not being an absolutist and claiming that they are entirely obsolete.  Just mostly.

As for the minnow comment, as someone who thinks that tuna over 60-80 lbs are getting into the no-fun zone, you are hurting my feelings

-J

Absolutely, for the majority of fishing they are completely superceded by a quality SiC guide. I have a very small handful of fairly specialist rods that still have any roller guides. But they still have their place in a small handful of fisheries.

Keep in mind that the IGFA only changed the topshot rule to functionally allow braid mainlines in 2017. Prior to that, straight mono was king, and remains so in extremely light line class sportfishing.

EDIT: I should add, a bimini twist/offshore plait in hard 37kg mono feels pretty disgusting through a tip guide but goes through a roller tip without a second thought, and is still probably the #1 way of attaching a wind-on leader in a gamefishing setup.

Quote from: jurelometer on August 12, 2026, 03:57:32 PMpro-roller preference seems to be driven more by regional bias and custom, and less by actual differences in fishing requirements.

But differences in technique/style between regions = differences in fishing requirements.  The West Coast fishery where light livebaits need to be cast away from the boat, and where it's standard practice to brace the rod on the rail rather than angle the fish from a gimballed rod belt that keeps the line going "over the top" of the rod, just seems much better suited to rings and it's not a surprise there has been such a shift towards rings.  Trolling with shorter rods (than a West Coast rail rod) with setups where a long leader is connected to the main line with a wind-on swivel, with attendant risk of ceramic chipping guide inserts, quite simply imposes different requirements.

As to the need (or otherwise) for long leaders, fluoro leaders, and swivel to be unobtrusive and kept well away from the lure or bait - I am willing to credit that decades of on the water experience, often in direct competition with other boats, has shown them what works, and doesn't.  As I understand it it is common place for West Coast tuna anglers to go down in line size (= leader size, since the hook is straight tied to the line) when fish are not taking well, and do the reverse when the bite is hot.  This may to some extent be because the lighter line (= leader) allows the bait to swim more freely, but visibility surely plays a part, as I doubt you would get too many bites fishing the same diameter line in hi-vis.  Having your swivel close to the lure or bait is more practical in many ways - shorter lure or bait leaders are easier to store, leader consumption is less, etc. So if it is standard practice for professional fisherman to use a long leader and wind-on swivel, it's most likely because they have learned by experience there is a real advantage in presentation. 

I haven't been able to trawl through the literature to update myself on what the latest scientific studies on tuna vision are saying.  But anything capable of absolutely nailing fast-moving prey, like rocketing flying fish, both in and out of the water - which yellowfin and other surface tunas do, time after time - has got to have not only the speed to catch said prey, but good enough vision to detect and then to accurately target it.  The ability that tunas and billfishes have to maintain a high body temperature is supposed, amongst other things, to increase eye and associated brain function.  The one tuna species that has vision optimized for sensitivity (performance in low light) is the bigeye - and interestingly, that is also the species that is considered the least sensitive to heavy leader (or as commercial pole and line fishermen would say, dumb). 

Quote from: UKChris1 on August 12, 2026, 10:36:52 AMsplices coming undone from wind-on leaders and topshots when the splice hits a ring guide (or a crewman's glove, but that's another story), particularly the tip guide as any bending of the line is most extreme at that point. The 'Chinese finger trap' comes free in the blink of an eye.

That I have not myself seen (though don't doubt it has happened). A well made splice is a sound connection - but, especially in situations where the connection is regularly being cast, or otherwise going through the guides, one can see why a knot might be preferred.  The great majority of jigging and popping fishermen seem to use the FG or similar knot.  I gather the FG seems to be finding its way on board more West Coast boats too? 

Quote from: Patudo on August 21, 2026, 03:39:18 AM

Quote from: jurelometer on August 12, 2026, 03:57:32 PMpro-roller preference seems to be driven more by regional bias and custom, and less by actual differences in fishing requirements.

But differences in technique/style between regions = differences in fishing requirements. 

My apologies for not being clear.  By requirements, I mean required to catch the target species efficiently and effectively, not required to fish using certain technique/style.  While I may prefer using a fly rod to catch tuna, a fly rod is not a requirement to catch tuna (almost the opposite )

QuoteThe West Coast fishery where light livebaits need to be cast away from the boat, and where it's standard practice to brace the rod on the rail rather than angle the fish from a gimballed rod belt that keeps the line going "over the top" of the rod, just seems much better suited to rings and it's not a surprise there has been such a shift towards rings.  Trolling with shorter rods (than a West Coast rail rod) with setups where a long leader is connected to the main line with a wind-on swivel, with attendant risk of ceramic chipping guide inserts, quite simply imposes different requirements.

As noted before, rollers were frequently used on the West Coast, but they are rare now. So outside of some specific situations. rollers are clearly not seen here as a requirement for catching small to large tuna efficiently and effectively. For giants- well we don't get giant tuna (nothing over 350 lbs or so), so I won't speak to that part.

And as noted before, a wide variety of techniques are used on the West Coast in addition to live baiting.  We surface troll, downrigger troll, fish kites, toss jigs plugs and poppers, slow pitch, speed winding, nighttime deep drop jigging, and some other stuff that I am probably forgetting.

No argument that a specific type of rollers are a necessity when you start winding on hardware, but rather that wind on hardware isn't a  requirement (using my definition of requirement).

BTW: Good point about the necessity to keep the line off the sides of the guides with rollers- and the additional gear requirements that that sucks in.

QuoteAs to the need (or otherwise) for long leaders, fluoro leaders, and swivel to be unobtrusive and kept well away from the lure or bait - I am willing to credit that decades of on the water experience, often in direct competition with other boats, has shown them what works, and doesn't.  As I understand it it is common place for West Coast tuna anglers to go down in line size (= leader size, since the hook is straight tied to the line) when fish are not taking well, and do the reverse when the bite is hot.  This may to some extent be because the lighter line (= leader) allows the bait to swim more freely, but visibility surely plays a part, as I doubt you would get too many bites fishing the same diameter line in hi-vis.  Having your swivel close to the lure or bait is more practical in many ways - shorter lure or bait leaders are easier to store, leader consumption is less, etc. So if it is standard practice for professional fisherman to use a long leader and wind-on swivel, it's most likely because they have learned by experience there is a real advantage in presentation. 

I haven't been able to trawl through the literature to update myself on what the latest scientific studies on tuna vision are saying.  But anything capable of absolutely nailing fast-moving prey, like rocketing flying fish, both in and out of the water - which yellowfin and other surface tunas do, time after time - has got to have not only the speed to catch said prey, but good enough vision to detect and then to accurately target it.  The ability that tunas and billfishes have to maintain a high body temperature is supposed, amongst other things, to increase eye and associated brain function.  The one tuna species that has vision optimized for sensitivity (performance in low light) is the bigeye - and interestingly, that is also the species that is considered the least sensitive to heavy leader (or as commercial pole and line fishermen would say, dumb). 

A bunch to unpack here.  In fishing (especially open water), there are so many variables interacting in an at best partially observable environment, a rational strategy is to repeat what you were doing when you caught something, and to learn form others experiences as well.  The important thing to remember here is that this does not mean that the "successful" technique is the most productive, or even more productive than what you were just using and not catching fish. The sample size is woefully small, and the variables are constantly changing.  But at least you are upping the odds.  The trick is not to fall in love with what appears to work, and especially to understand that it is human nature to construct an explanation as to why it "worked" that we have far too much faith in. And as the anecdote keeps getting propagated, we hear the same from so many sources that we assume that it must be true, but it could just as easily be a house of cards.

Another example- this one from Keta:  "If 50% plus of the fisherman are using a xx colored xxx lure and 50% plus of the fish are caught on them only proves the math."  ( Plus tuna are effectively colorblind.   )

All tuna have vision that is optimized for sensitivity.  Maybe bigeye more than the others. it can be and has been measured for a variety of species. Mahi have the best acuity among saltwater gamefish, and even mahi are not going to pass the eye exam at the DMV without some heavy corrective lenses.

As to tuna having "good vision", a key is defining what "good" is.  We need to avoid anthromorphizing. For us humans on land, "good" is high acuity, a wide range of color differentiation, a high flicker fusion frequency (moving object capture), and a larger prefrontal cortex or similar to provide detailed image enhancement and correction.  But in open water, those attributes can actually lead to poorer survival, especially if you are a tuna.  As noted before, the ways that an eye's rod and cone cells work, there is an avoidable tradeoff between sensitivity and acuity.  a gain on one side is a loss on the other. The underwater visual environment is compromised due to light refraction and absorption, leading to an advantage in having a system that favors sensitivity. Fish also have optimizations to burn less calories by using  a smaller processor (brain) with less memory, less sophisticated image processing, less reasoning etc.  Think of it as a high sensitivity camera system tied to a stripped down but specifically optimized processor. This makes tuna being able to directly see a leader and recognize it as something to be avoided quite a longshot. But suppressed bait movement from heavier leaders affecting the ability to find and react to a bait - that fits right in.
 
There is a whole thread on this where I went through a bunch of the aspects of color vison and a bit on acuity and related vison topics in tuna.  Here is a post that is most relevant, but it might be worth it to give the whole thing a read if you have some spare time:

https://alantani.com/index.php?msg=455844

There are tests that could be done that would help us understand how much and why tuna react to different leader types and sizes, but not too many fishermen are willing to give up the valuable fishing time to do it.  There is a bit of study out there for commercial hook and line systems, but it is pretty limited.

In terms of warm bloodedness in in tunas and billfish, tuna warm up the whole body a few degrees, and billfish just around the eyes,  This won't change the cone to rod ratio, so the acuity is still going to be  limited, but it probably helps in other ways such as eye movement, and processing the signals after some photons hit a receptor cell.  We have a thread on this somewhere.  At any rate, it is not evidence that tuna have high acuity.


I am not trying to talk anyone out of using techniques that they believe in for whatever reason.  You will will catch less fish if you just try anything willy nilly.  But you will probably catch more fish in the long run (or at least learn more) if you maintain a bit of healthy skepticism of popular practices, and a exercise a bit of willingness to not always follow the herd.

-J