IMX Pro Creek

possiebugger

Well-known member
Messages
164
Reaction score
31
Location
Fraser, CO
so I SWEAR I was on the Loomis site a few weeks back and saw a new IMX Pro “Creek” model, some shorter small-stream specific 2-4 weights to be released. I can’t find a thing about them now though. Has anyone else seen anything or am I just going crazy?
 

PharmerDom

Member
Messages
15
Reaction score
7
Location
Clare
Since reading this post, I've probably checked their website almost daily. What I'd really like to see though is an NRX+ Creek series, something that might give the Dart a run for its money. Loomis hasn't seemed interested in competing in this category though.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
 

Lamarsh

Well-known member
Messages
281
Reaction score
152
Location
Michigan
So a little birdie told me these are supposed to be on again after all. 7’9” 2-4wts with “LP” taper....
Thanks for sharing. I have IMX Pros in 9' 6wt and 8wt and love them. Definitely got my attention with a 7'9" 2wt. Would be a nice one rod quiver for tiny creeks. Stoked to check one out in stores hopefully soon.
 

LePetomane

Well-known member
Messages
815
Reaction score
991
Location
Wyoming
IMX graphite is nothing new. I had an 8' four weight GLoomis IMX in the late 90's/early 2000's. A nice rod that I sold when thinning the herd.
 

logan1994vh

Member
Messages
20
Reaction score
10
I’d be curious to know more about how IMX rods and technology have evolved over the years. I keep hearing folks reference these rods from the 90’s, but it seems these newer rods must have undergone updates considering they are readily introducing new rods to the series.

Anybody able to comment on the technology of these modern IMX rods?
 

silver creek

Well-known member
Messages
8,186
Reaction score
1,995
Location
Rothschld, Wisconsin
Thanks LePetomane

I found this thread explaining the various modulus of fishing rod graphite:

https://www.bassresource.com/bass-fishing-forums/topic/33305-who-understands-graphite-ratings/


"Below is a general example of modulus ratings using G Loomis classes:
GLX - 65 million modulus
IMX - 55 million modulus
GL3 - 47 million modulus (IM8)
GL2 - 42 million modulus (IM7)
IM6 - 38 million modulus
Standard Graphite - 33 million modulus"


According to the GLoomis TEchnology page below NRX is a higher modulus than GLX

 
Last edited:

Lamarsh

Well-known member
Messages
281
Reaction score
152
Location
Michigan
I’d be curious to know more about how IMX rods and technology have evolved over the years. I keep hearing folks reference these rods from the 90’s, but it seems these newer rods must have undergone updates considering they are readily introducing new rods to the series.

Anybody able to comment on the technology of these modern IMX rods?
I own an IMX Pro in 9' 6wt and 8wt. They are moderately fast to fast actions. Really ideal for streamers and maybe nymph rigs. Not the greatest action for dries IMO, but you could get away with it. My dad has one of the original IMX rods from the 90s. That rod is not as fast, more of a medium fast action, but definitely closer to medium than the new ones. That rod is what I would describe as the perfect do all rod, not particularly perfect for anything, but a great one rod quiver.
 

possiebugger

Well-known member
Messages
164
Reaction score
31
Location
Fraser, CO
Allsome.

I know this isn’t necessarily the majority opinion, and certainly isn’t what the marketers want you to believe, but I don’t think the highest-possible-tech graphite is always necessary, particularly in a less-aggressively-tapered, lighter weight rod. A little bit slower blank recovery in a 2-4 weight creek stick isn’t necessarily a bad thing. IMX might be just the ticket for this application.

And I didn’t know about the swim rods, but that’s intriguing. I fished with Mike Shultz a couple years back, and we used the IMX one piece steamer rods, which are awesome purpose-built tools.

Mike said he wanted Loomis to make shorter model streamer rods, so it’s cool to see 8’8” in 7 and 8 weights. At the time he suggested even shorter yet, 8’, as he felt shorter rods are more accurate, but I bet these things rip either way.

I think the upgraded graphite may be better appreciated in a heavier weight rod with an aggressive taper designed for launching 6” game changers accurately between structure piles on a smallmouth river, among other similar applications.
 

WNCtroutstalker

Well-known member
Messages
1,362
Reaction score
914
Location
North Carolina
And I didn’t know about the swim rods, but that’s intriguing. it’s cool to see 8’8” in 7 and 8 weights.
I'm not going pre-judge anything, but I will say that I think the Sage Payload (8'9") at $575 is an awesome rod--very much a specialty stick, but great at what it was designed for. So just wondering about the $795 price point of the new G Loomis. Perhaps it's better and worth it. Eventually the market will judge/speak.
 

el jefe

Well-known member
Messages
3,083
Reaction score
886
Location
Albuquerque, NM
I'm not going pre-judge anything, but I will say that I think the Sage Payload (8'9") at $575 is an awesome rod--very much a specialty stick, but great at what it was designed for. So just wondering about the $795 price point of the new G Loomis. Perhaps it's better and worth it. Eventually the market will judge/speak.
Does the Sonic replace the Bass II rods in the Sage lineup?
 

WNCtroutstalker

Well-known member
Messages
1,362
Reaction score
914
Location
North Carolina
Does the Sonic replace the Bass II rods in the Sage lineup?
Did you mean the Payload? If so, hard to say. On the one hand, the Payload was introduced after the Bass II was discontinued and both were designed for throwing big flies with compact head/overweighted lines. But there's a 10" difference in length for most models (most Payloads are 8'9", but the 10 and 11 wts are longer), so that suggests a completely different rod. If it is effectively a new and improved Bass II, a good idea not to have called it the Bass III. I suspect the "Bass" may have kept some people from considering it, but I know those rods were/are good for streamers, fishing in mangroves and some other "non-bass" uses/species. Perhaps people liked the idea of the Bass II, but just felt 7'11" was too short; I know G Loomis also discontinued its Short Stix series. All that's a long way of saying "I don't know". Not sure what Sage's official spin is. But I think the Payload is great for streamers and I also recently used it for throwing poppers to smallmouth and largemouth. Very happy with it, swings light.
 

el jefe

Well-known member
Messages
3,083
Reaction score
886
Location
Albuquerque, NM
Did you mean the Payload? If so, hard to say. On the one hand, the Payload was introduced after the Bass II was discontinued and both were designed for throwing big flies with compact head/overweighted lines. But there's a 10" difference in length for most models (most Payloads are 8'9", but the 10 and 11 wts are longer), so that suggests a completely different rod. If it is effectively a new and improved Bass II, a good idea not to have called it the Bass III. I suspect the "Bass" may have kept some people from considering it, but I know those rods were/are good for streamers, fishing in mangroves and some other "non-bass" uses/species. Perhaps people liked the idea of the Bass II, but just felt 7'11" was too short; I know G Loomis also discontinued its Short Stix series. All that's a long way of saying "I don't know". Not sure what Sage's official spin is. But I think the Payload is great for streamers and I also recently used it for throwing poppers to smallmouth and largemouth. Very happy with it, swings light.
You're right, I did mean the Payload. The Bass and Bass II at 7'11" was to get it into competitions where this a rod length limit of 8'0". I guess maybe the Payload occupies a similar spot in Sage's lineup, and in the market, but your point about them being completely different rods is pretty clear, had I thought about it I would have realized that. For myself, I only say, "Doh!"
 

WNCtroutstalker

Well-known member
Messages
1,362
Reaction score
914
Location
North Carolina
your point about them being completely different rods is pretty clear
They certainly look NOTHING alike. The Payload looks very traditional, a brown blank (no sure what the official color is) with a black metal seat. So very, very different from the Bass II's lime green blank and red seat.
 

WNCtroutstalker

Well-known member
Messages
1,362
Reaction score
914
Location
North Carolina
I applaud Trident for doing its reviews and generally find them helpful, but I've watched this one twice and am unsure what the takeaway should be. It seems a bit contradictory. Early on there's a statement that the rod is quicker/faster than the typical 3 wt, then there's a statement than while the SA Trout works well some may prefer a Rio Gold for feeling the rod load (in its review, TA calls the rod fast and suggests going a size heavy line, so basically in line with the foregoing), but yet at the very end it's mentioned as a good choice for someone looking for a slightly softer action. So it's quicker (faster/less flexing) than normal yet softer? Maybe there's a way to harmonize that, but it's not immediately obvious to me. I realize this was a solo review and not a shootout, but just unclear how this new rod compares to other short 3 wts (e.g., GS 773, TLL 379, Dart 376, etc.).
 
Top