Record Fish

R

Ron Clay

Guest
I sometimes think that the angling world gives too much regard to record fish. The anglers who catch them are almost deified for what in many cases is just a stroke of blind luck.

As a person who has caught two species of fish in excess of a national record (not UK) I can assure you all that at the time it was pure luck and certainly not a result of any great feat of angling on my part.

Record fish are biological facts, not prizes. Most of them are caught by very poor anglers and are sometimes inferior and bloated specimens of their species.
 
D

David Will

Guest
I have always thought that a record fish was interesting in as much as it gives a measure of the size fish can grow to.
I think Ron is being a bit unfair to himself.In order to catch a fish whether it be a record or not you must have been doing something right.
Most record captures are down to two things , being at the right place at the right time and putting a bait in the right place at the right time.Whether you can attribute this to luck is a matter of debate.
For example if you fished a water with big Perch and fished the right rig and bait in the right place would the capture of a record be luck or skill.Could you be making your own luck ?
On the other hand if you caught a record Perch whilst Zander fishing in the Fens would that be luck or simply the fact that a very big Perch took a bait intended for another species ?
It would still require the bait to be in the right place right time the only difference is you had no idea the water contained big Perch.
For luck read ignorance of a fact.
When Darren Gough bowls a slower ball he does not know he will take a wicket so is it luck or skill when he does ?
 
R

Ron Clay

Guest
Of course record fish are interesting, but that interest must be kept in perspective.

The one species of fish that I did catch was a smallmouth black bass. I caught it in a small lake where the average size of the fish was about 1.5 lbs. That fish went 6.5 lbs. At the time I didn't know it was a record. I found out that later. I wasn't expecting such a big fish. It must have been the lord of the manor amongst all the smaller bass and was probabley eating a few. It was caught in a black streamer fly. I was fising blind and the fish did not fight particularly hard. I was not a great feat of angling.

Angling is very much different from cricket or any other sport. In field events ot's easy the measure how far you can throw things. There are many cricket pitches and people get fitter and throw things farther all the time. It's not always possible to have a fish bigger than the last record and it's not always possible for the best barbel angler in England to fish Kickles Farm for example.

There is also the tendency to state that the angler is the record holder. He is not. The fish is the record holder, and the angler was able, had the opportunity, and yes, also was fortunate at the time to land it.
 
D

David Will

Guest
Thats a bit like saying the javelin is the record holder not tghe thrower.
 
R

Ron Clay

Guest
Or the hook that caught it.....

No it isn't David, and you know it.
 
S

Steve Baker

Guest
Does that mean matchfishing is just a case of luck then? Perhaps if my luck holds i can get a place in the england team.
 
D

David Will

Guest
Right on Steve !
There are some lucky beggars out there . Rod Hutchinson , Terry Hearn , Ivan Marks, Bob Nudd , **** Walker etc etc etc. I think you make your own luck. Like a mate of mine who is always unlucky . Unlucky the knot slipped , unlucky he ran out of bait , unlucky when one of his many wayward casts goes in a tree. :)
 
T

Tony Myatt

Guest
Record fish are an indication of sizes attainable by the individual species. They are rarely an indication of an anglers skill. However that been said certain anglers catch, shall we say, more than their fair share of fish and this consistency cannot be put down to luck alone.

PS too ugly to send a pic
 
A

Andy Rooke

Guest
i have to agree with everyone here ron. i agree totally with steve although i dont know much about match fishing because i am a carper but ron in match competiton i thought that a match intailed
a lot of good anglers all competing against each other to keep the shoal of fish in the swim. trying to outwit the other anglers. fine tuning there tackle down to get bites, trying diffrent things, winning a match how do you call that luck when if there was so many people there. A fly fisherman who fishes for wild brown trout. the angler must treck up and down the river looking for the fish. what flys are hatching and which ones are flying at the moment. the carp angler who looks for the fish for a ges feeds it all close season and watches it, and then gets the fish feeding on his/her bait and then hooks in to a record fish on the bank how do you call all that a bit of luck mate???!!!
cheers andy r
 
J

James Bradshaw

Guest
What we have to remember here is that the fish, not the angler, is the record-holder... Steve, you're right about match fishing - but that's about catching the best TOTAL weight of (any) fish on any given day - that IS down to skill and knowledge, and damn hard work! But that's not the same as catching ONE fish bigger than any other of that species. Let's take carp fishing, purely because that's the most publicised... look at the likes of Terry Hearn, Richie Gardner, Rod Hutchison et al... none of which (as far as I know!) have ever held the carp record... is that because they're not as good as the anglers who HAVE caught the record?! I'm not knocking anyone who HAS caught a record fish - as David said, they must be doing something right - but if I were to catch a (taking David's example) record perch, I would consider myself lucky, rather than ''good''... I could have spent 5 years trying to catch a record perch from that water, knowing that someone had told me that big perch were in there, fishing only for perch, on ''perch rigs and baits''... but that wouldn't be any reflection on my angling skills - at the end of the day, I wouldn't want to be ''James Bradshaw - perch record-holder'', but ''James Bradshaw - captor of record perch''... there is a difference...
 
S

Steve Baker

Guest
"Record fish are biological facts, not prizes. Most of them are caught by very poor anglers and are sometimes inferior and bloated specimens of their species." taken from Rons first post.


This is the statement that most people dont agree with, whilst i agree some capture a luck (last months bream) i still belive you have to be a good angler and know the right people.
 
J

James Bradshaw

Guest
LOL Steve... ''...know the right people''?! I can't wait to see what reaction THAT gets...!
 
S

Steve Baker

Guest
Has anyone seen the 18lb 4oz bream in anglers mail, looks a nice fish, also the record grass carp. Doesnt look like an inferior bloated specimens but great fish.
 
J

James Bradshaw

Guest
You're right there, Steve... I mean, we all know that if the tench record (and possibly roach, aswell) was to go, it'd be to something full of spawn (which, in my eyes, would bring into question it's validity for a record claim), but for most species, records are broken by bigger (better-conditioned?) fish - simple as that! (Hehe - saying that, I can't wait for the ''uproar'' when the chub record is broken, as it invariably will be sooner or later, by a fish from stillwater! Will THAT be considered inferior?) Sorry Ron, but this is the only point I DO disagree with you on - after all, the natural world's all about ''survival of the fittest'', is it not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top