I really don't think this matter should be seen as 'old men fighting' or any kind of 'argument'; somewhere along the way, things went very wrong and a great moment in angling's history has been discredited along with the memory of an exceptional angler. Historians of all kinds haggle and wrangle over matters stretching back centuries so it's hardly going OTT to set the record straight - I've certainly no personal 'beef' with fellow anglers I've never met! I can only inform them and the angling world of what I know to be true and what is almost certainly so. Together we might resolve the problem.
I wrote to a buddy of Martin's this morning and asked if he - like me - thought the oft-seen 'blanked-out' shot of Martin with his '48' was the one we'd both seen back in ’89 in an untouched state. Remember, he and I were long-standing mates of Martin - not a couple of outsiders relying on hearsay! To my pleasure and relief he confirmed that it was. Yes, both he and I had seen the original photograph and we both can confirm that the background consisted of grass and a fence. To those of you out there still following this, I offer this advice: mentally incinerate any suggestion or statement you ever read or heard that there had been mountains in the background - it's simply untrue. I SAW that photo as did Martin's other buddy (and others!) and can solemnly swear that the blanked-out portion in that ubiquitous photograph conceals only grass and a fence. It was, of course, blanked-out subsequently for the purposes of press-circulation and the publicity that might well have led to the carps' whereabouts being identified (and everybody did that...and still does!) And here's another thought...if Martin had shown photo's of himself with mountains in the background to a relative outsider - or anyone else - why wouldn't he show them to me and at least 6 other close friends? Think about that!
I'd really appreciate Paul Selman coming back to confirm that only one member of the BCSG ever saw photographic evidence and that none of those excellent, esteemed anglers he listed ever did - not one of them; in which case, that "proof" he cited holds no water at all. Rather neatly then there is, in fact, nothing on which I could possibly predicate an accusation that Paul and his colleagues were “liars”– is there! There was nothing for them to comment on or lie about because with one exception nobody in his group saw the pictures, so nobody was in a position to deem Martin Gay guilty of lying.
I pursue this in a 'journalistic' sort of way and seek only to set the discredited record straight for the interest and benefit of all, and out of respect for an extraordinarily talented and thoughtful angler who simply wouldn't lie about a fishing matter: fishing meant too much to him.
If the well-respected chap to whom I truthfully refer is able and willing to expand on his knowledge, I’ll relate his recollection here in due course. It’s important to do so, I think, because by their very nature historians wish to deal with facts and in the absence of firm evidence historians speculate or theorize – they don’t decree what is or isn’t the truth. Work with me, Paul, to get the facts.
