tonybull on 04/09/2015 15:55:30
avatar
Another good read
thecrow on 04/09/2015 17:37:57
avatar
Enjoyed that and look forward to all being revealed on Monday A bit ironic that on the page from the second link there is an advertisement for a "Canadian Waggler"
Michael Loveridge 2 on 04/09/2015 18:58:49
avatar
What a great well put together response . I have fished a lake this year with so called primitive tackle , a 10 foot MK1V , And a Mitchell 300 and a pretty run of the mill hook .... size 4 , Oh and sweetcorn Landed Carp to 26lbs , tackle perform perfect , after all if it was good enough for Walker and Yates its good enough for me .
The bad one on 04/09/2015 23:25:35
avatar
DING, DING.....what round is it? Seconds out!!!!!! Hope the original photos have turned up because we're a long way past word ping pong
Roto Fryer on 05/09/2015 03:06:39
avatar
Now we have Martins family branded as liars, pure self promotion, the baiting of a legal professional in open forum ( you had better be very careful here!). when one claims a capture in public it is up to the claimant to show the undisputed truth behind the claim. This is a very simple thing to do and the vast majority of record chasers/ holders and or big fsh captors had/have no problem with this. MG could have cleared this up very easily yet could/did not. His family admits he was in Canada on holiday and went fishing for carp but the promoters of truth oops my mistake. The promoters of self once again choose to stir it up and add MG's own family to those aiding his deception. This article is nothing more than self promotion
markg on 05/09/2015 07:14:45
avatar
It could be Lord Lucan in disguise and Shergar and Elvis were in the background with the Marie Celeste floating on the lake, that's my theory. Its just become a argument between interested antagonists. Who said what when, who saw what when, was he in Canada at all. I would like to see this fish proved to be caught in England or Canada beyond all reasonable doubt, no; beyond all doubt. Not based on hearsay and dis information. Character testimony is not enough alone and does not actually prove anything. Vindicate the fish and you vindicate the man, to do that you need to publish the un published pictures and verify them, produce some witnesses who can look at the water and verify the pics were taken there. That's the only way if your ever going to satisfy everyone, otherwise it will always be at best a hung jury. Its never going to happen so whats the point of keeping this story going. Mind you I would buy the film rights, rival Emmerdale any-day, but all good dramas have a satisfying ending, this wont..
Peter Jacobs on 05/09/2015 09:44:55
avatar
Back when this fish was caught I was moving house back to Norway so I never saw any of the publicity at the time. In recent years however I have seen and read an awful lot about these captures but to be totally honest it seems, to my mind, that there are facts and fiction on both sides of the argument together with what seems to be a lot of obfuscation . . . . . . . . A few questions do however spring to mind that maybe some of the main protagonists might be able to answer: 1. Did Martin Gay ever claim the record for this large Carp? 2. If not, then it prompts the question as to, why not? As a prolific specimen angler one might assume that he would have claimed the record, although wanting to keep the location totally secret may have precluded his claim(?)
dorsetandchub on 05/09/2015 11:09:03
avatar
Mr Editor, Sir, Stemming this unnecessary debate is an interesting term as it's a two way street and goes back to a point made in the recent FM follow up. I didn't know Mr Gay and I want to believe that he caught the claimed fish here in the UK. The fact remains, however, that he himself could have "stemmed the debate" from day one with a prop in a photograph to prove, beyond doubt, that they were taken in the UK. I appreciate that he may not have anticipated the furore his claims would cause but I still think a clued-in individual, if going to claim fish on the scale shown, would have opted for the "insurance policy" of photographic proof. To not do so is, arguably, at best naive and, at worst, lays Mr Gay open to the claim of deliberately inciting this situation. I didn't know Mr Gay and I want to believe his claimed fish and their origin but the fact remains, he didn't help himself, did he? He could have done so quite easily, to my mind. He, himself, surely could and, more importantly, should have stifled this debate on day one. He could have taken photography to prove his claims easily and made that available to trusted persons / groups. I want to believe he caught them here, but 99% is not 100% and Mr Gay, it could be argued, omitted that 1% through his course of action. I really don't think I'm being unreasonable with these points. Best to all.
tonybull on 05/09/2015 19:05:45
avatar
He could of caught that big fish in Canada anytime, need not of been at the time people think it was.
markg on 06/09/2015 08:11:33
avatar
Back when this fish was caught I was moving house back to Norway so I never saw any of the publicity at the time. In recent years however I have seen and read an awful lot about these captures but to be totally honest it seems, to my mind, that there are facts and fiction on both sides of the argument together with what seems to be a lot of obfuscation . . . . . . . . A few questions do however spring to mind that maybe some of the main protagonists might be able to answer: 1. Did Martin Gay ever claim the record for this large Carp? 2. If not, then it prompts the question as to, why not? As a prolific specimen angler one might assume that he would have claimed the record, although wanting to keep the location totally secret may have precluded his claim(?) I believe you have answered your question, Cliff Hatton said keeping the water secret was "Paramount" to the angler which was also why he never defended his reputation much apart from to a few close friends. To absolutely prove the fish was caught in a English water he would have had to reveal it and I assume the same if he wanted to claim a record. Something I believe will be the only thing needed to dispel any doubts today and as no one will, it will continue to cause a lot of doubt. It does beg the question why he let the fish become public in the first place if the secret identity of the water was paramount.
cg74 on 06/09/2015 17:07:27
avatar
look forward to all being revealed on Monday I think the new evidence will be somewhat underwhelming, rather like all this latest guff has been. It does beg the question why he let the fish become public in the first place if the secret identity of the water was paramount. I've been wondering the same thing since first reading about this whole affair. The thing that amazes and amuses me most is when I read quotes like; " the extraordinarily honest Martin Gay" But he was NOT that honest at all, he lied to gain greater credibility saying the fish was 48lb, when he knew it had bottomed-out his scales which went to 50lb.
fishface1 on 06/09/2015 18:12:42
avatar
25years ago? Along with the captor, the fish will now be dead, so why don't the people who were told about the water, just come forward with it's location now - there's hardly going to be a stampede to fish the place....
tonybull on 06/09/2015 18:39:32
avatar
25years ago? Along with the captor, the fish will now be dead, so why don't the people who were told about the water, just come forward with it's location now - there's hardly going to be a stampede to fish the place.... Not sure anyone else knew where the water was and I still don't believe the water did exist. Because if it was public and could of been seen from the road plenty of other specimen hunters would of come across it and found them fish before or after he did. Gods know what he was trying to prove with the story being published then every excuse in the book why no-one was allowed to know where this was water etc etc
Cliff Hatton 2 on 06/09/2015 20:55:59
avatar
Peter...Dorsetandchub...my previous article included scanned pages of Martin's accounts. They are quite legible. On one, Martin writes that he will not disclose the venue for fear of the hammering the fish will get, and this is the reason he did not claim the record. 'Records' meant nothing to Martin in this case; he was content to have caught that fantastic fish and was determined to keep it and the other superb specimens as safe as possible. Note that Martin didn't exploit the water; he fished it for the last time on August 14th 1990 (he died 12 years later in 2002) having achieved everything he wanted and could reasonably have expected - he says so in the articles. As an inherently honest man with a reputation for meticulous record-keeping and a circle of noted, intelligent angling friends, he expected to be believed in the same way any other angler would be believed for the whacker he'd caught from an 'undisclosed water'. He wasn't bothered if certain people did choose not to believe! Simple as that.
S-Kippy on 07/09/2015 07:29:59
avatar
I fail to see what purpose is served by dragging all this up again. I shall start another page in the Book of Indifference.
Windy on 07/09/2015 09:01:23
avatar
I shall start another page in the Book of Indifference. I would too, but just can't summon up that much interest.....
arthur2sheds on 07/09/2015 11:30:56
avatar
from the outsider's point of view... whichever way it goes, someone's reputation is going to be maligned... Of course from my own point of view, I see the whole affair as a case of sour grapes by those who would've fished the water should the location have been public... So Martin Gay refused to make public the venue...? so what, that's his prerogative. Martin Gay was a great angler, and as with today's top rods, he'll have had his fair share of nay-sayers and detractors... It's a crying shame that the poor man went to an early grave branded as a liar because of the jealousy of other people....
markg on 07/09/2015 12:17:46
avatar
from the outsider's point of view... whichever way it goes, someone's reputation is going to be maligned... Of course from my own point of view, I see the whole affair as a case of sour grapes by those who would've fished the water should the location have been public... So Martin Gay refused to make public the venue...? so what, that's his prerogative. Martin Gay was a great angler, and as with today's top rods, he'll have had his fair share of nay-sayers and detractors... It's a crying shame that the poor man went to an early grave branded as a liar because of the jealousy of other people.... I am not jealous of any of it, and though this might apply to a few I wouldn't mind betting the majority of anglers would just like to know the truth one way or the other. And I think it is a sad thing that those that could put it right don't do so; after all these years. I think its a bit obscene and disrespectful of the angler. Some things should be resolved in life, give the deceased angler some well deserved peace, whichever way it went instead of keep dragging it and him up every few years to satisfy what and whom, not the deceased angler I doubt? Its perverse. Time someone had the guts to step forward and put the whole sorry story to bed. I don't think I am going have anymore to do with it, it has become a bit sick and I am sorry I got sucked into it, not blaming anyone but myself but there you are. R.I.P. mate, life is but a brief moment..
fishface1 on 07/09/2015 18:24:55
avatar
Not sure anyone else knew where the water was and I still don't believe the water did exist. Because if it was public and could of been seen from the road plenty of other specimen hunters would of come across it and found them fish before or after he did. Gods know what he was trying to prove with the story being published then every excuse in the book why no-one was allowed to know where this was water etc etc Me thinks that there is too much smoke and mirrors for this to be true.... From the original article: In his letter to Tim dated 26thFebruary, 1990, when referring to the 13 anglers, Martin goes on to state: “One of them, my longest standing and most trusted mate has not only seen all the photographs including the 30 pounders and others (Robin only saw selected pictures of the 48 pounder) but a fortnight ago was shown the swim” Martin told me that he also took another person (not an angler but one who shared other interests) and showed him the water, if not the actual swim where he caught his English commons. So someone knows (or doesn't) as the case may be......
Cliff Hatton 2 on 09/09/2015 11:34:56
avatar
In fact, Fishface, 4 people know the well-known angler who was taken to the water and shown the swim that produced the 50lber.
fishface1 on 09/09/2015 12:51:05
avatar
Great news - then one of them will mention his name, and/or suggest that he names the water, to hopefully finally put this to bed.
tonybull on 09/09/2015 13:58:30
avatar
Great news - then one of them will mention his name, and/or suggest that he names the water, to hopefully finally put this to bed. Ain't got the bottle
Cliff Hatton 2 on 30/09/2015 08:58:12
avatar
I do apologise, Fishface....the offending post has been deleted, as has yours
fishface1 on 30/09/2015 09:17:55
avatar
Thanks Cliff
