In my travels across the Net I recently ran into a report that tested various fishing lines (www.lurenet.com/labtestexcalibur.html).

You can print out the test report (10 pages) and draw your own conclusions. I drew two important points:

1. Unless and until the fishing tackle industry agrees on a longer list (other than 'diameter' and 'test') of common measures to define fishing lines, companies will be able to sponsor independent lab tests that prove whatever the company wants to show (e.g. that they make the best line). There's no cheating -- it's all in the definitions.

2. 'Shock absorption' is an important attribute in fishing line (and one that I'd ignored up till now).

Here are some of my other thoughts as well:

The first thing to note is that Excalibur Silverthread (a copolymer line) sponsored the test, so the factors tested (and the way in which the tests were specifically designed) can be expected to favor copolymer lines in general and Excalibur in particular.

The tests were done on Fireline and Spiderwire (both gelspun polyethylene, or 'superbraid'), a couple of versions of Stren and Trilene each, Maxima Chameleon and, of course, Excalibur Silverthread.

The tests conducted included: (a) Diameter; (b)Abrasion resistance; (c) wet knot strength ; (d) wet knot tensile strength; (e) dynamic load impact; (f) limpness; (g) castability -- dry; and (h) castability -- wet.

Excalibur won the competition with very high ratings for abrasion resistance (which has been substantiated in other line tests), thin diameter and limpness.

Maxima Chameleon, on the other hand, came dead last with a thick diameter, poor wet and dry castability and rotten limpness.

The only problem with the results is that I KNOW that Chameleon is an excellent line. (I also use Excalibur and like it, too, but I don't think it's been around as long as Maxima and certainly doesn't have the same reputation.)

The preceding made me reach the conclusions listed above. Below I have elaborated on each.

1. We shouldn't believe everything we read, even when independent, reputable labs do the testing. It is possible that the sponsors of the test fiddled around with the definition of the actual tests being performed to favor their line. In fact, I'd be surprised if they didn't (e.g. 'knot strength' wasn't tested using a fishing knot such as an improved clinch. Instead the testers tied an overhand loop in the line and then tested the amount of pressure necessary for the line to cut into itself. This doesn't strike me as the most valid way to measure 'knot strength')

But I guess everyone that fishes already knows all this -- we've all been burned on claims for 'wonder lures' and 'wonder scents' in the past.

Note that I'M NOT accusing anyone of dishonesty in these tests, just a strong desire to make certain that the money spent on the testing lab would have some positive results for the sponsor's line. For example, the sponsors could have done their own tests in-house using 3-4 variations of a definition of 'castability'. They then picked the one for external testing that most favored the sponsoring brand. (In business it's called 'getting an edge'. In sports it's 'gamesmanship'.)

2. A line's shock absorbing ability may be more important than it's generally given credit for. Everyone who fishes Maxima Chameleon or even Green knows it's thick and has a lot of memory when it's cold. So why use it? Because these lines catch fish.

Under the heading 'Dynamic Load Impact' (my 'shock absorption') Maxima Chameleon finished on top in the competition. (Excalibur was a very respectable third, by the way with Trilene Big Game taking second place.)

(The last table in the report on page 9 sums up all the scores for the 8 lines tested.)