Here's The Evidence...Martin Gay's 50lb Common Carp

[Ray Daywalker Clarke]

There is NO Proof of this fish being English, FACT.

If there was, then why drag this along.

All that is needed, is Full Photos, and name the water.

Then everyone can say what they think regarding this matter.

All we have is a story, which a child could have told use.

As for those saying they were good friends to Martin, do the decent thing in his name and show the evidence. It is only these people dragging Martins name up, something he may never have wanted.

 

[Philip]

His Eddie nice to see a subtle but telling shift from you from total heels dug in there is no way I am guessing what the objects are to now begrudgingly agreeing they could be - Kayaks, Canoes, sailing boats….or strangely …timber ! …how you can mix the first 3 up with the last one even at a distance is interesting….still nice to see some progress.

Lets see if Mr Hatton is going to stick his neck out further than you on it…its Xmas so you never know.

Still waiting ! ....how far is he going to stick his neck out... if at all I wonder...

---------- Post added at 21:45 ---------- Previous post was at 21:41 ----------

And of course ...well worth repeating ! .....

Also, I can think of no instances where Eddie or myself has 'brushed away' readers' concerns or has been evasive in any way: we have no reason to be. We've nothing to hide. If you'd care to put those points to me / us again they will be directly addressed.

 

[Cliff Hatton]

Ray said: "There is NO Proof of this fish being English, FACT.

If there was, then why drag this along.

All that is needed, is Full Photos, and name the water.

Then everyone can say what they think regarding this matter.

All we have is a story, which a child could have told use.

As for those saying they were good friends to Martin, do the decent thing in his name and show the evidence. It is only these people dragging Martins name up, something he may never have wanted"



Ray: I recommend you (re)read the following articles; they address your concerns. I think you'd have to agree that 'a child' could not have made such an historic catch of carp - including a 50lber - then gone on to produce such meticulously detailed accounts of their capture, complete with times, dates and weather conditions.

You will also see that we're not going to see the full, unedited photos; nor do we know of the water's whereabouts..........you'll see that Eddie and I agree that the carps' 'Englishness' cannot be irrefutably proven AND you'll also see that we have - in fact - provided a wealth of excellent evidence (if not proof) that the fish were caught in England. That said, Martin's attendance of the 1990 Moor Hall committee meeting in Essex at the time Selman and Co reckon he was in Canada catching a 34lber might be seen as solid proof.
So might the curiously avoided fact that Martin caught his half ton of 1990 commons over a dozen-plus trips from June to August: Martin's very responsible position as a university bursar didn't permit 3 month jaunts to Canada.

Is this good enough for you now, Ray? You might have to squint a bit, but DO read the reproduced accounts then reconsider if 'a child' could have produced them.

http://www.fishingmagic.com/feature...-48lb-common-setting-the-record-straight.html

http://www.fishingmagic.com/news_ev...n-gay-s-50lb-english-common-carp-closure.html

http://www.fishingmagic.com/news_events/headlines/18106-here-s-the-proof.html

http://www.fishingmagic.com/news_ev...s-there-is-only-one-version-of-the-truth.html

 

[dorsetandchub]

Cliff,

MG's vaunted position SHOULD have been enough to ensure he didn't alter weights - but he did.

It should have been enough to ensure that he recorded his catch(es) meticulously, to an academic standard - but he didn't.


Why do you keep putting him on a pedestal? Why will you NOT address his failure to keep to an accepted behaviour? Why will you not admit he could and should have done better? Why will you not discuss the idea that vaunting this catch will only validate and reward this behaviour?

When Ray claimed his record roach, he must have gone through a set of criteria and rules to satisfy the BRFC? He must have to solidly prove BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT the authenticity of his roach?

Why then should the rules be any different for MG? Why should he be rewarded for deliberately sidestepping a set of rules Ray played to?

Record fish or not doesn't matter, there are accepted standard behaviours in the reporting of big fish and I will not accept MG's fish given his standard of behaviour, destroying and mutilating evidence and altering weights to make a fish more believable? I think you're blinkered by your spat with Paul Selman here. Your friend behaved badly and you simply won't acknowledge it.

Fair play to Ray, he did it properly. MG did not.

Acknowledge MG's wrong doings, you and Eddie because they're there for all to see. I reckon you're both very decent blokes but until you do, your case goes nowhere.

 

[Cliff Hatton]

Dorset: you really are making a mountain out of a molehill here. It's been stated time and again that 'records' didn't matter to Martin; at no time did he claim a record and at no time did he complain that his biggest fish hadn't been accepted by Chris Ball & Co - he couldn't have cared less, I absolutely assure you.

Quite simply, Martin caught one hell of a big common and felt the angling world should know, and yes - that the Carp Society, in particular, should know. But, quite understandably, he wasn't prepared to name the water (for fear of what would become of it) and, quite understandably (if questionably) chose to 'under-report' the weight of the fish for fear of being branded a liar. He told me to my face, Dorset, that '50lbs' seemed just too 'round' and 'unbelievable'. There's no way Martin can be pigeon-holed with those who would exaggerate and, again, he wasn't out for fame or money. Martin was a pragmatic and straightforward fella. He caught a monstrous great common carp, weighed it on brand new 50lb scales and saw the needle hit the limit, thus his belief that the fish may have touched 51-52lb. Not caring for fame and fortune but keen to tell the angling world of a super-specimen, he rather admirably down-played its weight. It DID weigh every ounce of 48lbs as he said - and more. Martin's 'standard of behaviour' was absolutely fine because he didn't seek reward.
Anyway, pretty soon we'll have another article from Eddie Benham - should be interesting.

 

[thecrow]

Not caring for fame and fortune but keen to tell the angling world of a super-specimen

Sorry Cliff but those things just do not fit with each other, if not wanting the former why do the latter?

 

[bennygesserit]

Dorset: you really are making a mountain out of a molehill here. It's been stated time and again that 'records' didn't matter to Martin; at no time did he claim a record and at no time did he complain that his biggest fish hadn't been accepted by Chris Ball & Co - he couldn't have cared less, I absolutely assure you.

Quite simply, Martin caught one hell of a big common and felt the angling world should know, and yes - that the Carp Society, in particular, should know. But, quite understandably, he wasn't prepared to name the water (for fear of what would become of it) and, quite understandably (if questionably) chose to 'under-report' the weight of the fish for fear of being branded a liar. He told me to my face, Dorset, that '50lbs' seemed just too 'round' and 'unbelievable'. There's no way Martin can be pigeon-holed with those who would exaggerate and, again, he wasn't out for fame or money. Martin was a pragmatic and straightforward fella. He caught a monstrous great common carp, weighed it on brand new 50lb scales and saw the needle hit the limit, thus his belief that the fish may have touched 51-52lb. Not caring for fame and fortune but keen to tell the angling world of a super-specimen, he rather admirably down-played its weight. It DID weigh every ounce of 48lbs as he said - and more. Martin's 'standard of behaviour' was absolutely fine because he didn't seek reward.
Anyway, pretty soon we'll have another article from Eddie Benham - should be interesting.

Cliff or Eddie would you please answer some direct questions , you may have answered some before ( I have read all this thread twice but it is a long thread )
1) Cliff if he didn't seek reward why publish at all ?
2)If there was nothing distinctive in the background of the photos why mutilate them?
3)Do you think JamesN is making it up or do you believe Martin's family in Canada agree that he fished there and caught large carp ? Have you been in touch with them ?
4)What about the range of prominent anglers who state the fish were caught in Canada.

I don't think this thread will achieve anything I think you would have been better simply to publish your articles and not invite comment.

I did toy with going through the thread and making a table ( like the footy one ) and trying in an unbiased fashion to list every point in this and the other thread and mark them for or against eg

Fact | FOR | AGAINST | IMPORTANCE
Testimony of Martins Friends | FOR | | high
Testimony of Paul Selman | | AGAINST | medium
Testimony of JamesN | | AGAINST | high
Water never found | | AGAINST | medium

and so on listing every fact in a way that means we can see them all at once without having to scan a very long thread over and over

Of course weighting the importance of each fact is still subjective

What do you think Cliff ? it might break the circularity of this thread ? You would have to agree to include all the FOR and AGAINST facts though

---------- Post added at 12:54 ---------- Previous post was at 12:43 ----------

perhaps a bit insensitive of me to be honest of course the evidence of your friends word is all you need

 

[dorsetandchub]

No, Cliff, I'm not - I'm trying to apply a series of standards that apply to everyone that you and MG seem to think don't / didn't apply to him.

I'm trying to get across to you that you're ignoring a series of reasonable concerns and doubts because they get in the way of your friends claims.

I can't seem to get across basic facts to you, I don't believe you're stupid so my belief must be that you don't WANT to acknowledge them. Destroying Paul Selman's case and even that of Canada doesn't prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the fish were caught in the UK. Probably, yes, but NOT beyond all reasonable doubt.

You're quick to point out my "misdeeds" but never once have you admitted MG's. I have to ask myself why not?

Finally, there is NO laudible action in down sizing a fish, it is untrue, a lie and as bad as exaggerating it. It is NOT true and, as a journalist, I cannot believe you are applauding this behaviour. As a University professional, MG would have been dismissed for behaving in that manner professionally and, as an editor, I think you should be reassessing your standards.

You're trying to shove this catch down a lot of throats without the necessary evidence, with complete disregard for the unethical behaviour which accompanied it and with complete disdain for anyone who raises a reasonable doubt.

You're blinkered by Paul Selman, trying to destroy him is blinding you to pure cold, hard fact.

You've said yourself you can't prove the fish was British, you've said yourself the weight is a lie and yet still you refuse to acknowledge any wrongdoing. Good luck on the Titanic, those of us can see and appreciate the icebergs here wish you well.

I'm not making a mountain out of anything, I'm raising doubts that you're brushing away in a way you swore last week you had never done.

We're not your children, Cliff, we're your readership. Your word isn't law. You're selling a pup and I, for one, am not buying it.

 

[james n]

I want to make it quite clear that in no way have I ever implied that Martin caught the fish from the article here in Canada.

My story was that Martin did visit his family in Canada and went fishing for and caught carp while here. Were they the carp in the article? I don't know but it was another part of the story that I was quite excited about when I heard it and wanted to share it. I wish I hadn't now.

You can read back through what I wrote on the Cemex website and those that read what I originally put up on here will know it was along the same lines. My words have never changed at all.

What I have object to, and the only reason I am still involved in this thread is being called a liar / writing 'bullshine' / producing ridiculous stories by certain people in the Gay camp who have made incorrect assumptions, twisted my words and spoken about me negatively to others behind my back to match their own agenda's which caused great embarrassment for me and my family.

I still stand by my previous statements that I would like the location of where the fish were caught to remain a mystery. I spent hours looking at those pictures as a kid and dreaming of finding that water but after a few years realised that the whole unknown part of it was what made it magical and the thought of possibly stumbling by a water that contained fish like those he held in front of the cameras.

I will re-iterate again. Yvonne Gay is never going to tell anyone where those fish came from. Cliff and Eddie don't know and all evidence on both sides is circumstantial.

All opinions have been made and more articles are going to do nothing to this story.

Just let it go....

 

[dorsetandchub]

You're actually quite right, James. I should have stepped away from this a while ago but, I'll candidly admit, I don't like having anything shoved down my throat that isn't established fact.

My last words on this subject are this. You want proof that angling is no different from the rest of the world in someone trying to pull a fast one for reasons of fame or fortune?

Take last week's Angler's Mail, in a sealed bag the front cover screamed "21lb eel" - a near forty year record doubled in one fish? Couldn't be real, could it?

Only having paid your two bucks did one find it was not Anguilla and was in fact from Australia, the other end of the world. Not quite so exciting now but hey ho, they got your two scheckels. So the only thing that got caught last week was me (and a few others, I suspect).

That said, in a world where sharp practices are "good business" I trust it helps explain why I perceive proof "beyond any and all reasonable doubt" is needed.

I fear the reason your character was challenged, James, was because your logic and reasoning could not be.

Last words on the subject from me. Take care, all.

 

[Ray Daywalker Clarke]

Ray said: "There is NO Proof of this fish being English, FACT.

If there was, then why drag this along.

All that is needed, is Full Photos, and name the water.

Then everyone can say what they think regarding this matter.

All we have is a story, which a child could have told use.

As for those saying they were good friends to Martin, do the decent thing in his name and show the evidence. It is only these people dragging Martins name up, something he may never have wanted"



Ray: I recommend you (re)read the following articles; they address your concerns. I think you'd have to agree that 'a child' could not have made such an historic catch of carp - including a 50lber - then gone on to produce such meticulously detailed accounts of their capture, complete with times, dates and weather conditions.

You will also see that we're not going to see the full, unedited photos; nor do we know of the water's whereabouts..........you'll see that Eddie and I agree that the carps' 'Englishness' cannot be irrefutably proven AND you'll also see that we have - in fact - provided a wealth of excellent evidence (if not proof) that the fish were caught in England. That said, Martin's attendance of the 1990 Moor Hall committee meeting in Essex at the time Selman and Co reckon he was in Canada catching a 34lber might be seen as solid proof.
So might the curiously avoided fact that Martin caught his half ton of 1990 commons over a dozen-plus trips from June to August: Martin's very responsible position as a university bursar didn't permit 3 month jaunts to Canada.

Is this good enough for you now, Ray? You might have to squint a bit, but DO read the reproduced accounts then reconsider if 'a child' could have produced them.

http://www.fishingmagic.com/feature...-48lb-common-setting-the-record-straight.html

http://www.fishingmagic.com/news_ev...n-gay-s-50lb-english-common-carp-closure.html

http://www.fishingmagic.com/news_events/headlines/18106-here-s-the-proof.html

http://www.fishingmagic.com/news_ev...s-there-is-only-one-version-of-the-truth.html

Like I said you can not prove these fish are english, or even the correct weight. Your the one's who said this was a record common, it wasn't, isn't and never will be.

You and Eddie have done nothing other than drag Martins name into this, for what reason no one knows. I doubt you know yourself.

So all in all, I will sum up your facts regarding these fish.

1, You don't know the true weight.

2, You don't know where they were caught.

3, You have NO photographic evidence.

4, You only have a story, nothing more. It all reads a little like.

Once upon a time there were 3 little pigs.

Meetings and times, who said what, who saw what, means nothing.

Its just hear say.

I think you and Eddie need to say sorry to Martins Family, and to FM members for misleading everyone on something you clearly know little about.

---------- Post added at 18:25 ---------- Previous post was at 18:20 ----------

I want to make it quite clear that in no way have I ever implied that Martin caught the fish from the article here in Canada.

My story was that Martin did visit his family in Canada and went fishing for and caught carp while here. Were they the carp in the article? I don't know but it was another part of the story that I was quite excited about when I heard it and wanted to share it. I wish I hadn't now.

You can read back through what I wrote on the Cemex website and those that read what I originally put up on here will know it was along the same lines. My words have never changed at all.

What I have object to, and the only reason I am still involved in this thread is being called a liar / writing 'bullshine' / producing ridiculous stories by certain people in the Gay camp who have made incorrect assumptions, twisted my words and spoken about me negatively to others behind my back to match their own agenda's which caused great embarrassment for me and my family.

I still stand by my previous statements that I would like the location of where the fish were caught to remain a mystery. I spent hours looking at those pictures as a kid and dreaming of finding that water but after a few years realised that the whole unknown part of it was what made it magical and the thought of possibly stumbling by a water that contained fish like those he held in front of the cameras.

I will re-iterate again. Yvonne Gay is never going to tell anyone where those fish came from. Cliff and Eddie don't know and all evidence on both sides is circumstantial.

All opinions have been made and more articles are going to do nothing to this story.

Just let it go....

Well said. I must add i feel sorry for Yvonne Gay having Martins name dragged up like this.

As the post above says,

Cliff and Eddie should be saying Sorry.

 

[thecrow]

Last words on the subject from me.

Me an all, perhaps if we all stopped posting on this it will just fade away.

 

[Ray Daywalker Clarke]

Me an all, perhaps if we all stopped posting on this it will just fade away.

Maybe the Mods should lock the thread after Cliff and Eddie have said Sorry


Don't hold your breath

 

[sam vimes]

There's a small local water to me that I fished as a kid. I was there an awful lot in my early teens. Back then it was a club water and a most unlikely venue for big carp (for the area). It's now a much changed little commercial. Back in the day, what it was capable of producing was largely kept quiet. As it is now, very few believe it when they are told that it produced at least two fish over 30lb. An awful lot of people fished the place for years and never saw anything close.

I was lucky enough to witness two different 30lb+ fish from it. Those that saw similar, those that were very familiar with the water and good angling friends will believe me without question. Pretty much anyone else will, understandably, think I'm off my rocker. I couldn't give a damn if they do.

Ultimately, although the story has never been in the press (to my knowledge), I didn't catch them, I didn't know the captors names, and I doubt that anyone in the Carp Society would have been remotely interested, for me there are echoes of the Matin Gay story. Genuine friends really should believe, many others will have their doubts. Of course, there's always a chance that I'm lying through my teeth or I've been conned. Ultimately, I'm not particularly concerned whether strangers believe me or not. The fish have gone, the water is not what it was and none of it really matters anyway.

 

[bennygesserit]

There's a small local water to me that I fished as a kid. I was there an awful lot in my early teens. Back then it was a club water and a most unlikely venue for big carp (for the area). It's now a much changed little commercial. Back in the day, what it was capable of producing was largely kept quiet. As it is now, very few believe it when they are told that it produced at least two fish over 30lb. An awful lot of people fished the place for years and never saw anything close.

I was lucky enough to witness two different 30lb+ fish from it. Those that saw similar, those that were very familiar with the water and good angling friends will believe me without question. Pretty much anyone else will, understandably, think I'm off my rocker. I couldn't give a damn if they do.

Ultimately, although the story has never been in the press (to my knowledge), I didn't catch them, I didn't know the captors names, and I doubt that anyone in the Carp Society would have been remotely interested, for me there are echoes of the Matin Gay story. Genuine friends really should believe, many others will have their doubts. Of course, there's always a chance that I'm lying through my teeth or I've been conned. Ultimately, I'm not particularly concerned whether strangers believe me or not. The fish have gone, the water is not what it was and none of it really matters anyway.

Put yourself in Cliff's shoes though a lifelong friend has been "allegedly" slandered in the angling press , whether you personally would seek to address that or not , you could understand why some people would react in the way Cliff and Eddie have.

 

[sam vimes]

Put yourself in Cliff's shoes though a lifelong friend has been "allegedly" slandered in the angling press , whether you personally would seek to address that or not , you could understand why some people would react in the way Cliff and Eddie have.

It's just a question of scale. Yes, no one is calling me a liar in the angling press, but some have suggested that I'm lying. To their credit, some have said as much to my face, others aren't brave enough for that. Either way, I couldn't care less, and neither do those that believe me.

I perfectly understand why Cliff and Eddie might react the way they have. However, I can't see why they are so upset with the non-believers that aren't connected in any way to the original protagonists.

 

[bennygesserit]

..... However, I can't see why they are so upset with the non-believers that aren't connected in any way to the original protagonists.

yes I'd certainly agree with that I don't know who Cliff is trying to convince

 

[Philip]

I will re-iterate again. Yvonne Gay is never going to tell anyone where those fish came from. Cliff and Eddie don't know and all evidence on both sides is circumstantial.

All opinions have been made and more articles are going to do nothing to this story.

Just let it go....

Thing is dragging it out is good publicity for a web site James. Here’s a thought…

I wonder what Yvonne Gay would think if she saw this thread in its entirety now ? Perhaps she would realize that rather than preserve her husbands image as I suppose was sold to her early on, it was actually being dragged through the mud.

Maybe she would decide enoughs enough and (un)dispose of the photos and finish this once & for all....

 

[ciprinus]

actually, IF those statements above are correct as a whole and can be proven to be so, then there is the proof that MG has at least once in his life LIED,,, OMG!!

They're NOT true, Ciprinus.

Finally, there is NO laudible action in down sizing a fish, it is untrue, a lie and as bad as exaggerating it. It is NOT true

well???

---------- Post added at 13:41 ---------- Previous post was at 13:12 ----------

Dorset: you really are making a mountain out of a molehill here. It's been stated time and again that 'records' didn't matter to Martin; at no time did he claim a record and at no time did he complain that his biggest fish hadn't been accepted by Chris Ball & Co - he couldn't have cared less, I absolutely assure you.

Quite simply, Martin caught one hell of a big common and felt the angling world should know, and yes - that the Carp Society, in particular, should know. But, quite understandably, he wasn't prepared to name the water (for fear of what would become of it) and, quite understandably (if questionably) chose to 'under-report' the weight of the fish for fear of being branded a liar.

cliff, i am not making a point here but i am rather perplexed and just asking for clarification of a few points (if you would oblige).

in the above (truncated) post you state "It's been stated time and again that 'records' didn't matter to Martin; at no time did he claim a record and at no time did he complain that his biggest fish hadn't been accepted by Chris Ball & Co - he couldn't have cared less, I absolutely assure you."
if that is the case then what do you think his reasons were for reporting these catches to the CS

why did he even think that if he didnt tell anyone then the world would be a place that was worse off for not knowing?

if he felt that the "angling world should know, and yes - that the Carp Society, in particular, should know" did he not think that they would also want to know the exact weight and the exact location as well as other information such as bait, tackle and such, as was ALWAYS required by the CS whether claiming a record or not?

lastly, if he had no intentions of making the required information public then why oh why did he ever bother bragging about these catches in the first place

 

[Cliff Hatton]

Cyprinus: Martin didn't report his catches to the Carp Society; he told his friend, Robin Monday, who then told his colleagues in the Carp Society. No formal claim was made. You either believed him or you didn't - that was Martin's view.
I apologize if a particular comment I made was not clear, Cyprinus. Yes, Martin did want the Carp Society to know ...but not for reasons of fame or publicity. It was, shall we say, a gesture.

Ray said: "You and Eddie have done nothing other than drag Martins name into this, for what reason no one knows. I doubt you know yourself"

Your comment reveals SO much, Ray...