Record fish....

[Berty]

Another thread got me thinking........

IMO it is the fish that is the part that matters for record purposes, the angler has something that is special to him or her but it the fish that should be recorded to the best of our abilities.

I got to thinking about how records are caught, either by design, the unexpected or just sheer accident.

from an anglers point of view what is the most meritous record?

To me it still has to be Clarrisa and that man again.

Thoughts please?

 

[barbelboi]

Yes......but it could so easily have been PT?

 

[Simon K]

Each "new" record fish that turns up out of the blue is the best for me almost by definition, regardless of species.

 

[Berty]

Yes......but it could so easily have been PT?

I rest my case.


Tis the fish that is important.

 

[quickcedo]

Slightly off thread but. If you rest your case there, why do we hold the captors of record fish in such high esteem?

 

[Lord Paul of Sheffield]

Sponsorship has created that beast

 

[Berty]

Slightly off thread but. If you rest your case there, why do we hold the captors of record fish in such high esteem?

Your not off thread, you are bang on............i dont.

Anglers earn respect by far more complex ways than catching record fish

 

[quickcedo]

Sponsorship has created that beast[/quote
I'm sure you are right there

Your not off thread, you are bang on............i dont.

Well that's 2 of us. But mate, I believe most anglers do.

 

[Berty]

I know mate........sad eh.

 

[quickcedo]

Yes it is sad. Rods and reels are sold off of the backs of those names too. Anglers read about a record fish. the papers always say what rod, line, hook etc etc. I always know when something special has been caught because my local tackle shop rings me up to ask " has some specimen been caught on a so and so hook" (he's a match angler) He's had 30 guys walk into the shop over the morning asking for some obscure pattern that have never been asked for before. Now that is sad.
Fish records are great, they show what is possible. They also give 'specimen hunters' a goal to aim at.

 

[Lord Paul of Sheffield]

IMO
the record fish shold be just that

the bigest fish of a species

no name of who caught it
no name of venue

 

[barbelboi]

Your not off thread, you are bang on............i dont.

Anglers earn respect by far more complex ways than catching record fish

Exactly - look at Bob Richards, I don't wish to degrade his capture, but even he would have agreed he was a novice angler in the right place at the right time. There are certain others who have made a habit of being in the 'right place at the right time' on a regular basis, maybe not catching a record fish but consistantly being there or there about and catching what a given water is capable of throwing out.

 

[Lord Paul of Sheffield]

Exactly - look at Bob Richards, I don't wish to degrade his capture, but even he would have agreed he was a novice angler in the right place at the right time. There are certain others who have made a habit of being in the 'right place at the right time' on a regular basis, maybe not catching a record fish but consistantly being there or there about and catching what a given water is capable of throwing out.

how very true

 

[dezza]

Yes Brummie it's the fish that holds the record. It's not the angler that weighs 44lbs or whatever the record breaking weight was.

Right!

 

[andy nellist]

The record is of the largest authenticated capture by fair angling for each species

 

[dannytaylor]

I think the possibility of ever catching a record fish is well out of reach for most anglers, just a dream. When i look at the current record list the weights given are just fantasy fishing, truly impossible specimens.
I think that it is just as great an achievemnet to catch a venue record afterall to quote that often used angling cliche you can only catch what is there.

 

[quickcedo]

I think that it is just as great an achievemnet to catch a venue record afterall to quote that often used angling cliche you can only catch what is there

Absolutely spot on. There are many great anglers about who choose to ignore the lime light. Who consistantly catch top fish for thier venues and one or two have one lucky break and milk it for all it's worth, and usually get very boring about it too.

 

[Graham Marsden]

Sponsorship has created that beast

I'm sure you are right there
Well that's 2 of us. But mate, I believe most anglers do.

Three of us.

Catching big fish (for the waters fished), or winning matches, consistently is how good angling is defined.

A one-off record is no measure of anything.

 

[Bob Hornegold]

The record is of the largest authenticated capture by fair angling for each species

Quite right Andy,

Regardless of who caught it and in which manner !!

The rest is Bow Locks ?

Bob

 

[Philip]

Exactly - look at Bob Richards, I don't wish to degrade his capture, but even he would have agreed he was a novice angler in the right place at the right time. There are certain others who have made a habit of being in the 'right place at the right time' on a regular basis, maybe not catching a record fish but consistantly being there or there about and catching what a given water is capable of throwing out.

Exactly..consistent catching of exceptional fish, & that's why I think Terry Hearns capture of Mary has to be up there as one of the 'great' record captures. A series of exceptional captures from impossible venues culminating in the capture by design of the star fish at a new record weight.