Martin Gay's 50lb English Common Carp: Closure.

[FishingMagic]

This - hopefully - will be the very LAST word on the late Martin Gay's record-breaking 50lb English common carp - not to mention the six 30lbers and a stack of 20lbers! Read the detail in the reproduced pages from Coarse angler 1989 - 1990.

http://bit.ly/1I8MnRe

 

[flightliner]

To complex, the doubts raised in the past have clouded everything, so much so it will never be fully clarified.No doubt a competant angler tho.

 

[stu_the_blank]

Re: Martin Gay's 50lb English Common Carp: Closure.

I agree, too long ago too much muddy water and does it really matter after 25 yrs? We'll never know the truth for sure after all this time.

I've never really understood publicising a fish if you don't want anybody to know where it was caught. If that's the primary concern surely better to say nothing.

Stu

 

[geoffmaynard]

Re: Martin Gay's 50lb English Common Carp: Closure.

MG was a meticulous record-keeper and an angler of the 'no-need-to-lie' breed.

About these accusations of 'snow-clad mountains' and mentions of holidays in British Columbia: as far as I am aware, there are no carp waters in BC, nor any in sight of any snow clad mountains. The legendary big Canadian carp are products of the St Lawrence River on the other side of the continent.

Martin used to write articles for me when I was editor of a couple of early angling web-sites. He told me enough to convince me these fish were English carp. The man was at the top of his profession, was a well-known big 'name' in two hobby activities that I know of, and was no liar. These were genuine British captures.

I know it was long ago but I think it does matter; the man's name and honour was questioned. Throw enough 5hit and some of it will stick. That's what happened to one of this countries greatest anglers, by people who ought to know better.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Re: Martin Gay's 50lb English Common Carp: Closure.

At the time of the controversy I was away working back in Norway but had just returned from 2 years in Canada where I only ever fished for Carp in the St. Lawrence River myself, so cannot comment on lakes with mountains in the backgorund containing Carp or not.

As far as I am concerned if the man said he caught it in the UK then that is where it was caught.

In the Carp world (in those days) there were far too many fragile egos around so it is easy to understand how and possibly why the man took so much unfounded criticism.

Regarding "record" fish . . . my view is it is the fish that gets the credit and not the captor . . . the list is called the British Rod Caught Record Fish . . . and certainly not the British Record Fish Captor

That said, I find it wholly duplicitous for the man to be so hounded without any real or firm proof.

 

[no-one in particular]

Re: Martin Gay's 50lb English Common Carp: Closure.

With such an attack on his reputation the desire to keep this place hidden becomes almost pathological; surely there comes a point for any man, why not this one. And I cannot understand why he could not of offered to take 6 top members of the carp society to the place, under sworn secrecy which I am sure they would have agreed to; and shown them the spot where the picture was taken and a piece of the vegetation to be identified. With luck they may have spotted one of the big carp as well. They could then publicize that the place was genuine without revealing its location.
He had plenty of close angling friends as well of very high repute who would have been believed by the larger angling public, friendship or not; he could have taken any number of these under the same conditions of sworn secrecy and achieved the same result.
I am not disputing his claim at all but, it seems to me it all could have been satisfactorily put to bed one way or the other. I think he was his own worse enemy and brought this upon himself..

 

[thecrow]

Re: Martin Gay's 50lb English Common Carp: Closure.

Have to agree with Mark that this could have been sorted out very easily, could it have been that MG wouldn't prove that the photographs were taken in this country because he enjoyed the publicity surrounding the captures? if not then why publicise the captures? He must have been aware that doing so would inevitably invite comments of a negative nature from parts of the Carp fishing fraternity of the time.

Couldn't have been that he was "guesting" on the water where the claimed captures were made could it? and that was why he wouldn't prove it by taking someone well known such as Jim Gibbinson and showed him where the photographs were taken.

I think that there is a lot more to this saga than will ever be known, it was a big fish for sure, but there are to many unanswered questions that will never be answered as only MG knew the answers.

 

[Cliff Hatton]

Re: Martin Gay's 50lb English Common Carp: Closure.

Markg: the article makes clear the mutual dislike between Martin and the Carp Society/ fraternity. They were the last people Martin would have confided in! Do read again, carefully, to try and understand what MG was, quite reasonably, saying: 'I have shown a number of people where I caught the fish (so there is NO doubt) and I have told a number of good people about the fish and they TRUST me. I don't need the 'trust' of anyone else, thank you'

 

[no-one in particular]

Re: Martin Gay's 50lb English Common Carp: Closure.

Markg: the article makes clear the mutual dislike between Martin and the Carp Society/ fraternity. They were the last people Martin would have confided in! Do read again, carefully, to try and understand what MG was, quite reasonably, saying: 'I have shown a number of people where I caught the fish (so there is NO doubt) and I have told a number of good people about the fish and they TRUST me. I don't need the 'trust' of anyone else, thank you'

You will have to correct me where I am wrong Cliff because as far I can see the article states he only took one long standing trusted friend to the swim and another person he does not name and DID NOT not show the swim, why!. Neither of these people came forward and stated they have seen the swim and the original photo and identified any land marks! MG said he showed plenty of people the place; the PHOTOS not the actual place apart from the two stated as far I can read. However, because they were unknown and his friends they would not have made very good witnesses.
He seems to have known quite a few respected names in the angling world of the time any of whom he could have taken to the swim, confirmed the original photo was from the said spot and publicly said so. He could also have picked and photoed the bit of the said vegetation to confirm it was in a "English place " and have it identified by any plant expert.
For someone whose reputation and integrity was being questioned publicly on a national scale, he did very little about it. Any of these measures could have been taken, and not a lot of trouble to do so. I am sure several of his famous friends would have obliged if asked. He didn't tell any of them the location of the water as far as I can make out - why! Such venerable anglers of close acquaintance, wouldn't you tell them and trust them especially as they were your friends! I find that very odd, I would! And for what was at stake, why not the main challengers to his claim who were destroying his reputation, feud or no feud, this must have been of great interest at the time and of some biological importance. Or just any well known, trusted angler of a high reputation, wouldn't you trust Chris Yates who it appears he would only show the photo to. Yet he says he was not afraid to take an unknown friend and another "man" and show the water who he did not trust enough to show the swim to!.
Apart from that, at what point would you still allow your integrity and reputation be slandered so nationally and publicly just to protect a big carp water ! I wouldn't, I find that extraordinary. There would come a point where it just not be worth it for any other man.

I can fully understand the doubts raised, which MG caused himself by so much vacillation. He should have trusted more people, there were plenty around him at the time with undoubted trustworthiness and integrity, many his friends or other wise, who could have put this to rest at the time. he either couldn't prove it or just took the protection of the location to extraordinary lengths. He paid a big price for just that "little" thing.

I am sure I may have some facts wrong; please correct at will.

 

[thecrow]

Re: Martin Gay's 50lb English Common Carp: Closure.

at what point would you still allow your integrity and reputation be slandered so nationally and publicly just to protect a big carp water

Maybe my tongue in cheek remark about the fish coming from a "guesting" water were nearer the mark than I thought.

 

[no-one in particular]

Re: Martin Gay's 50lb English Common Carp: Closure.

Maybe my tongue in cheek remark about the fish coming from a "guesting" water were nearer the mark than I thought.

I do find it extraordinary that in all these years no one seems to have come across this water apart from this one man. I cannot imagine it is a free water or a club water as I am sure someone would have done by now, law of averages and all that. However, it equally could have been private where he obtained sole permission to fish. that would equally explain some of the reluctance but, why couldn't he have just stated that!. And, if so you would imagine the owner was a friend and considering the furor MG was going through at the time he would have allowed MG to prove his case. Lots of unanswered questions on this one. Could have, should have been dealt with; too little too late..
I am sorry if this man had his reputation unfairly ruined but, he only had himself to blame.

 

[Cliff Hatton]

Re: Martin Gay's 50lb English Common Carp: Closure.

You make a very important point, Crow: “…just to protect a big carp water” you say. Martin would have seen it as paramount that the water and the carp were spared the thrashing they’d have got if he’d disclosed the location – paramount!
You need to have known the man to understand the way he dealt with the matter. I appreciate this is an easy thing to state and something that is predicated on trust or faith in what somebody else says. But Ed Benham, Mac McArthy and me truly knew Martin; we knew him to be unerringly honest and straightforward, neither did he suffer fools. Call it arrogance if you like, but Martin most definitely would have taken the view that his word was good enough (and it was) He had a respected track record and a hardcore of very good and honourable friends. Yes, he made a rod for his own back to a large extent – and he knew it. But he was prepared to suffer this for the welfare of ‘his’ carp. Just imagine is a confidante had made a slip or, indeed, betrayed his trust…it would have been 'open season' and all that that implies wouldn’t it?
Yes…you do have to take some of it on trust but I would respectfully ask you, Crow, and anybody else with a doubtful slant on the story, to actually read and absorb what is written in the FM article. I shan’t repeat it again…it’s all there. If nothing else, take on board the meaning of Ed Benham being asked to proof-read Martin’s Coarse Angler articles. Think about it…it means so much. And the commemorative rod: don’t skim over the meaning of this! Look at page after page of his accounts and ask yourself if anyone but a sincere and honest man would go to so much bother!
I honestly don’t mean this to be patronizing because I know that I’m sometimes guilty of speed-reading and failing to get the message, but if you stop and ponder the facts Eddie Benham and I have given (rather than unconsciously choose to cherry pick contentious aspects) you could, I believe, only conclude that Martin was stitched-up by his frustrated rivals.
But I’ve said too much. Today’s FM article started with the words ‘one last time’ and I should stick to this (I’ll try but I can’t promise!) Doubtless Ed Benham will be happy to address some of your points further.
In any case, thanks for your and Markg’s interest and willingness to spend time on FM matters.

 

[no-one in particular]

Re: Martin Gay's 50lb English Common Carp: Closure.

Cliff-I have no interest in pulling down your memory of a friend or dismissing your attempts at settling this matter once for all for a long lost friend. However, to me being the first time I have heard of it - it is a fascinating story of which I am independently and unemotionally attached which I found very interesting from a purely academic view point. I am sure many people and members as myself the case of throws up a lot of questions which I do not understand and think there should or could be answers to with some debate.
The fact that all his dear friends say he would not make this up is undoubtedly fair but not conclusive and that his work was proof read does not mean it was proved and neither fact, more relevantly; answers any of the questions that intrigue me.
However if you want me to leave it alone PM me and I will out of respect to your friend. My personal intrigue on this matter is not very important.
Still, a fascinating story nevertheless.

 

[thecrow]

Re: Martin Gay's 50lb English Common Carp: Closure.

You make a very important point, Crow: “…just to protect a big carp water” you say. Martin would have seen it as paramount that the water and the carp were spared the thrashing they’d have got if he’d disclosed the location – paramount!
You need to have known the man to understand the way he dealt with the matter. I appreciate this is an easy thing to state and something that is predicated on trust or faith in what somebody else says. But Ed Benham, Mac McArthy and me truly knew Martin; we knew him to be unerringly honest and straightforward, neither did he suffer fools. Call it arrogance if you like, but Martin most definitely would have taken the view that his word was good enough (and it was) He had a respected track record and a hardcore of very good and honourable friends. Yes, he made a rod for his own back to a large extent – and he knew it. But he was prepared to suffer this for the welfare of ‘his’ carp. Just imagine is a confidante had made a slip or, indeed, betrayed his trust…it would have been 'open season' and all that that implies wouldn’t it?
Yes…you do have to take some of it on trust but I would respectfully ask you, Crow, and anybody else with a doubtful slant on the story, to actually read and absorb what is written in the FM article. I shan’t repeat it again…it’s all there. If nothing else, take on board the meaning of Ed Benham being asked to proof-read Martin’s Coarse Angler articles. Think about it…it means so much. And the commemorative rod: don’t skim over the meaning of this! Look at page after page of his accounts and ask yourself if anyone but a sincere and honest man would go to so much bother!
I honestly don’t mean this to be patronizing because I know that I’m sometimes guilty of speed-reading and failing to get the message, but if you stop and ponder the facts Eddie Benham and I have given (rather than unconsciously choose to cherry pick contentious aspects) you could, I believe, only conclude that Martin was stitched-up by his frustrated rivals.
But I’ve said too much. Today’s FM article started with the words ‘one last time’ and I should stick to this (I’ll try but I can’t promise!) Doubtless Ed Benham will be happy to address some of your points further.
In any case, thanks for your and Markg’s interest and willingness to spend time on FM matters.

That MG caught the fish is not in question, its a question of where the fish was caught, I don't know and unless anyone was there when the fish was caught neither do they, its all a matter of trust between people that knew each other which is no different for a lot of anglers today.

I am not surprised that anglers from the Carp Society muddied the water, there are and always will be large ego's in angling both then and now and probably in the future, it doesn't take much for the green eyed monster to raise its head.

You say that the unedited versions of the photographs were shown to both Chris Yates and Neville Fickling who both confirmed it was an English water, how did they do that? One of those I have no respect for at all anyway.

Were any of the anglers that saw these photographs ever invited to fish this water? were any of the captures witnessed by those who saw the photographs? if not why not? surely they could be trusted to keep the location of the water secret.

It still begs the question of why he couldn't have taken someone like Jim Gibbinson to the water, a man of integrity who as he hasn't been mentioned not a close friend, it would have settled the argument once and for all.

I don't question the honesty of MG although some well known anglers that have claimed big fish in the past have eventually been found out but I am not saying MG was one of them, I think the fish if caught in England were from a guested water and that the publicity was both welcomed and enjoyed by Mg as he had shown the hair rig using bolt riggers (something he didn't like according to the article) that their tactics were not needed to bank big fish.

This could go on and on and while I realise it means a lot to you the truth has gone with MG.

 

[tonybull]

Re: Martin Gay's 50lb English Common Carp: Closure.

This - hopefully - will be the very LAST word on the late Martin Gay's record-breaking 50lb English common carp - not to mention the six 30lbers and a stack of 20lbers! Read the detail in the reproduced pages from Coarse angler 1989 - 1990.

Martin Gay's 50lb English Common Carp: Closure.

Turn the fish vertical and you wouldn't see the bloke, so the fish must be huge.

Must be half the size of the bloke

If it was half the size of the bloke it must of been well over 50lb, so I don't believe it was 50lb.

 

[flightliner]

Re: Martin Gay's 50lb English Common Carp: Closure.

May have had a happier ending if mobile phones had been as easily available then as they are now.
Sadly an issue that will never be resolved.

 

[Roto Fryer]

Re: Martin Gay's 50lb English Common Carp: Closure.

i had no knowledge of this at the time and have not been aware of it until the last month or so, however, i find it hard to believe that no one has a confirmed provable knowledge of these fish, if from a British/English water, either at the time or in the years since! nobody else has ever caught these fish or proven their whereabouts . The whole story/saga boils down to a deception by MG for whatever reason, a confirmation from one of his family that the fish were allegedly caught in Canada, and "one trusted friend" has been doing the rounds of various fishing sites revitalising this story for whatever reason yet has added precisely nothing to the intrigue.

 

[Tee-Cee]

Re: Martin Gay's 50lb English Common Carp: Closure.

I must've been living on another planet as I was totally unaware of this catch in the first place or the controversy that followed it, but then I'm not a carp man at this level and don't follow the weeklies.
'
However, I've just looked at the picture posted by ' tonybull ' and it would seem to me that the background foliage and general greenery shown in the shot should be more than sufficient to establish if the pic was taken in the UK or elsewhere. It may not prove anything ' beyond reasonable doubt ' but it could go some way to help establish fact via the view of a botanist ?
Enlarge the pics to a decent size and any half decent university botanist could give an opinion and if proof is that important surely it must be worth a punt, if a man's reputation is at stake??

I could be way wide of the mark on this and I somehow doubt some bright spark has not thought of this before now, but I haven't seen any evidence of this within the narrative I've quickly scanned through to date.................

Anyway, just a thought.............

For me, this comes under heading ' life is too short '...... thank goodness !!

 

[no-one in particular]

Re: Martin Gay's 50lb English Common Carp: Closure.

By my loose reckoning looking at the scale of the picture the fish is about 3.5/4 ft by 1/1.5 ft.

MG states in one article :-"They have nothing to do with the fact the water being private (which it isn’t) or open to limited access (which it also isn’t)". So I assume it was an open free water which does make one wonder why it has not been identified in all these years.

The article is also confusing by two differing accounts:-
"We know that Martin fished with Robin Munday on 16th and 17th June and then went on holiday to Canada." and later:-
"He fished on 19th, 20th and 21st June and then went on holiday to Scotland."

It looks like a Scottish water to me or northern England, the vegetation looks Scottish, some sort of heather.

 

[stu_the_blank]

Re: Martin Gay's 50lb English Common Carp: Closure.

It looks like a Scottish water to me or northern England, the vegetation looks Scottish, some sort of heather.

The sun's shining! It can't be

Stu