You dont know me from Adam...
I speak from a reasonable experience that you obviously have not.
Sure, what the heck. Here goes:
1. The "Can't Cast a Single-Hand Rod" Claim:
This is a classic ad hominem attack and the easiest to dismiss because it’s a logical fallacy. I’ll ignore the ad hominem attack on me in the quoted post I’m replying to because I implied you would do well pretending to be a bot. I was wrong. But you may want to reconsider basing claims and arguments on fallacies.
2. “Spey Casting is Just That, CASTING" nice tautology there but mostly meaningless statement. The whole point of a spey cast is to deliver a fly in a way that is impossible with a single-handed rod, particularly when you're wading deep or have limited backcasting room. It allows you to present a fly to a fish in a manner that's often far more effective and efficient than a roll cast from the bank.
3. The "Fish are Within 40-60 ft" claim forms the bulk of your argument but it's a massive generalization that doesn't hold true for all types of fishing. It’s often true for smaller rivers or specific runs, and in those cases, a single-hand rod may be perfect. But on a large river like, say, the Skeena or even a wide section of the Skagit, the fish are not always within 40-60 feet of the bank. Fish hold in runs and seams that are often 80, 90, or even 100 feet from shore. Or you find yourself deep in a river. A two-handed rod usually allows you to reach those fish with minimal effort compared to the single hand rod and without spooking the close-in fish. It's about covering water effectively and efficiently. It also allows for more efficient and effective mends, but we were talking about casting on this one.
4. The "Limited Back Cast / Roll Cast" point.
A roll cast is a great tool, and every angler should know how to use it. But a roll cast is not designed to cover the same amount of water as a spey cast. A good roll cast might get you 40 feet, but a spey cast can easily double that distance with the same amount of physical exertion. A two-handed rod isn't about avoiding a roll cast; it's about giving you the ability to cast far and cast often without wearing yourself out or needing a ton of space behind you.
5. Your "Added Stress on the Fish" argument is a valid concern but your logic is flawed. In my experience a properly used two-handed rod often reduces fight time, especially on a large river and/or with a large fish. This is a really interesting point, and it gets to the heart of what a two-handed rod is for, it just doesn’t cut in favor of your position. A longer rod is about using leverage to your advantage. A 13-14 foot rod with a fighting butt allows you to apply constant, heavy pressure on the fish without tiring yourself out. You can actually land a fish faster with a two-handed rod because you can control the fish and pull it away from structure more effectively. It's like using a winch instead of a hand line, you’ve got a bigger lever. Landing a fish from 80’ away in my experience takes no longer than landing one at 40 feet on a single hand if you're using the right rod and know how to use it.
6. "Fishing Spey is Not for Me" argument is completely fair, and I respect that. Fly fishing is about finding a style that you enjoy. But for me, the benefits of a two-handed rod—the ability to cover vast amounts of water, the low-impact cast, and the power to control a large fish—make it the most effective and efficient tool for fishing big rivers for big fish. It's not about being better than a single-hand rod in every situation; it's about being the right tool for this specific job. To say or suggest a Spey rod is always trumped by a single hand rod is ill-informed.
Have a fluffy day.