FTOTY 2009 - Need Some Feedback

[Guest]

There is one reason why I split the realistic categories into two separate categories. Every year we have done this there has been an uproar about flies winning categories that everyone thought was too realistic to actually fish. At the same time it was very fishable but many of them is not what I would consider a "super realistic".

 

For the "super realistics" we had some amazing flies in the past but they were tied to never be fish. Many of them were on hooks and even used almost all natural materials. Look at this bumblebee that won in 2005: http://www.flytyingforum.com/contest/2005f...c5e49505bc9.jpg It has everything that you guys have mentioned yet there is no way to fish that fly.

 

Guys, keep in mind this is something for people all around the world to participate in. If you want to be helpful instead of throwing out personal opinions trying thinking about what would be good for the contest and the forum as a whole. That is the what I have to base my decisions on...

 

[Fred H. 0]

There is one reason why I split the realistic categories into two separate categories. Every year we have done this there has been an uproar about flies winning categories that everyone thought was too realistic to actually fish. At the same time it was very fishable but many of them is not what I would consider a "super realistic".

 

For the "super realistics" we had some amazing flies in the past but they were tied to never be fish. Many of them were on hooks and even used almost all natural materials. Look at this bumblebee that won in 2005: http://www.flytyingforum.com/contest/2005f...c5e49505bc9.jpg It has everything that you guys have mentioned yet there is no way to fish that fly.

 

Guys, keep in mind this is something for people all around the world to participate in. If you want to be helpful instead of throwing out personal opinions trying thinking about what would be good for the contest and the forum as a whole. That is the what I have to base my decisions on...

 

Will , I will suport the forum and participate in this years tying contest. My sugesstions are opinionated

but I made them with the best interest of the forum and fly tying in mind.Thank you for holding the contest. I know it takes alot of effort and much of your time.

Fred

[flydude 0]

Sounds really good. When does the ftoty start?

[rich5665 0]

Maybe change the names of Super realistic to "Non Fish-able" If the fly has an eye that I can tie a leader to, then it's fish-able, no eye it's artwork. Otherwise I think the list is fine. There are a few flies that cross fish species and then there are those that are species specific. I think you start splitting hairs when you begin breaking the flies down by fish species.

[rockworm 0]

Will

 

I applaud your attempt to simplify and rationalize the categories. You know you can't please all the people all the time. But in general, I agree with your changes. My feedback:

 

-I agree with Jeff that micropatterns should be #24 or smaller.

 

-Although I know what you are saying, I think you need a better name than "Deer Hair Topwater" for this category. A lot of my caddis patterns would fit here, which I don't think is your intention.

 

-The realistic category seems simple: either it is fishable or it isn't. But you can't tell this from looking at a picture of the fly! The tyer probably knows how his fly will behave in the water. But the rest of us can't know. I think you need to define the criteria separating these categories more carefully.

 

-I think letumgo is right in asking for a "tube fly" category.

 

Once again, thanks for all the time and effort you have invested in this site!

 

 

 

[day5 0]

Will I like the new proposed set up. (this coming from the no1 pain in the ass! at least I know my place...lol) It levels the playing field. For instance there is no egg on this planet that will ever beat some on the killer nymphs in the steelhead category. The same is true for the bass categories. Tying a fly that is not deer hair and beating the deer hair flies that are in the same category is impossible. I call it fly appeal A nymph is more appealing than an egg and deer hair when done well is way better than a streamer..... and do not even get me started with artistic realistic in the pan fish category! LOL.....

[Old Hat 0]

My meager 2 cents Will:

 

First off, I thoroughly enjoyed voting last year...I did not send in any as I wanted to see how it all ran. I appreciate all you are doing to simplify it for yourself and alleviate any conflict. Focusing on fly styles and not species is a good move. Concerning realistics, when I voted last year my vote took into heavy consideration will the fly catch a fish and what are the components to this. In a couple of the catagories I dropped this only because the catagory was emphasizing the artistic..ie..realistic, classic salmon flies, freestyle salmon, creative etc. Sure they'll catch fish but I don't see that as the emphasis. With that said...if there was a more realistic fly in a catagory it did not necessarily get the vote. I want to see fish triggers more than just it looks a lot like a bug or whatever. There are too many flies that look like nothing and catch a ton a of fish. All the normal points followed, creativity, profile, materials, quality of tying and on and on. I also see classic as an established classic pattern but realize that you can have contempory patterns in the classic style.

 

Here are my initial thoughts and that is all they are... thoughts...

 

Dry

Emerger

Nymph (this should be weighted at the body or head with lead(subst.) or bead.)

Streamer size 6 and smaller (Classic Streamer)

Streamer size 4 and larger (Contemporary Streamer)

*I just don't see size as distinguisher

Deer Hair Topwater ( not experienced enough here... is this a skater pattern? or like the spun frog patterns?, Both?)

Popper

Foam (I don't get this one at all. It's a material not a type of fly and can be used in many catagories)

(Classic ) Wet (contemporary wet would be covered in nymph or emerger)

Featherwing Streamers (I think this is covered in the previous streamers)

(I think tube flies deserve a catagory)

Spey/Dee

Classic Full Dressed Salmon

Freestyle (Contemporary just to stay consistent) Full Dressed Salmon

Hairwing ( is this an Serendipity, elk hair caddis or steelhead pattern?...too broad) (How about hairwing steelhead/salmon fly this would include all hair material if this is what yor after here)

Fishable Realistic ( I'm on the side of just one catagory....Realistic, see above)

Super Realistic

Itsy Bitsy

Creative (Artistic)

 

So to clean it up:

 

Dry

Emerger

Weighted Nymph

Classic Streamer

Contemporary Streamer

Deer Hair Topwater

Popper

Tube Flies

Classic Wet

Spey/Dee

Classic Full Dressed Salmon

Contemporary Full Dressed Salmon

Hairwing Salmon/Steelhead

Realistic

Itsy Bitsy

Artistic/Creative

 

Carl

[flytyinfreak 0]

You're doin fine with the new program Will, Only thing i would add would be a tube fly catagory. Nuff sed!

[day5 0]

Old hat I really think streamers need to be separate feather wings v others. Simple reason is most often feather wings have a tremendous body made of silk and tinsel. And that is tough to beat with a non silk body streamer. A meat whistle will never beat a grey ghost in a this contest. Both are great flies but one has more appeal. Honestly the way smallie has them split but fly type is really good. One thought I had was adding a terrestrials categories craws hoppers etc...

[Old Hat 0]

Old hat I really think streamers need to be separate feather wings v others. Simple reason is most often feather wings have a tremendous body made of silk and tinsel. And that is tough to beat with a non silk body streamer. A meat whistle will never beat a grey ghost in a this contest. Both are great flies but one has more appeal. Honestly the way smallie has them split but fly type is really good. One thought I had was adding a terrestrials categories craws hoppers etc...

 

I can see your point, I was thinking that the classic vs. contemporary would alleviate most of that. The same could be said for many of the categories though. An extended body feather wing dry would probably beat out an elk hair caddis any day...A winged wet would probably beat out a flymph, a delicate parachute emerger over a soft hackle..and on and on. I think if a person is out to win then they should take into consideration the type of fly they enter in the category. I don't have an answer just trying to spark some thought. It's a hard thing to put together because there are so many variables involved from perspective, location, personal preference. Once you start breaking it down too much, trying to please everyone you can really take on a lot of work. The trick I think Will is to make it as easy on you. Overall, I would rather see a lot of flies in one category as opposed to half a dozen.

 

I do agree that a terrestrial category should be added. A great idea.

 

And how about a one year and under tyer category where there is one or more specific pattern/s chosen by Will to be entered. Of course the year would have to be on the honor system.

 

It's all fun and a great personal challenge to put all your effort into a pattern no matter which style, so I will have no arguments regardless. I think Flytire's system would work also.

[MIKE*A 0]

Great idea Will! Also a couple good suggestions from some of our members.....bottom line......whatever works best and makes the most sense to you Will!

 

:headbang:

 

Mike

[VERN-O 0]

What about the GreatLakes steelhead salmon catagory?

[day5 0]

What about the GreatLakes steelhead salmon catagory?

 

 

Covered under nymphs and streamers..

[Guest]

A tube fly category is something I thought about and discussed with some people while making this list. The problem is every type of fly can be tied on a tube. People are even tying dry flies on tubes so I'm not sure how I can make that into a single category.

[Guest]

What does everyone think about allowing more than one submission to a category?