Revelations my ass!!

dezza · Jan 7, 2012

It's incredible how many times you read in certain angling publications that a method of fishing, or bait, is now "revealed".

Or a sensational new rig appears that gets called some bloody weird name, eg: "Chod Rig"

It happened the other day and it concerned the use of beefsteak for chub.

Now I have caught a fair few chub in my life on lumps of meat. But since I have retired, I have to use beefsteak to feed myself, not the fizzing chub. And since there are just as effective chub baits as beefsteak around, I'll stick to them, rather than worry my bank manager.

But for goodness sake, anglers were catching chub on rivers like the Trent and the Ouse on such baits way back in Victorian times.

New?

Such baits are as old as Methuselah, as is the short link paternoster which was being described by Dame Juliana Berners in the 15th century.

And the fact that simple paternoster rigs with a few added links and swivels can be claimed by some as being innovative, doesn't impress me. I was using such rigs in 1968!

It's time that the children who write today's angling newspapers read up a little of angling history.

Don't you think?

Fred Bonney · Jan 7, 2012

I agree Ron.
Having said that, if you read most newspapers today they are much the same, headline writers rule, or lazy "journalism"

little oik · Jan 7, 2012

Deja Moo is all I got to say (cross between heard it all before and bullcrap).

I totally agree with all that you say .Its PR exercise of selling themselves and their products in my opinion anyway.

sam vimes · Jan 7, 2012

I pretty much agree with you about recycled revelations. However, I disagree about the chod. While the rig itself most certainly does constitute a variation on the paternoster, the use of a pop up bait makes it a little different. Different enough to get all excited? No. Different enough for it to be a definite twist on a simple paternoster? Yes. The addition of the pop up bait makes it a choddy and not just the rig alone.

cg74 · Jan 7, 2012

And now Ron perhaps you might see why I stand in WH Smiths "stealing information" because there is so little to actually warrant me purchasing a mag; very poor level of info combined with poorly written articles.

There are plenty of good writers out there but I think it's just easier for publications to use the same old faces over and over... To their detriment!
Plus possibly a few new naive writer using ill-adviced terms like "new" or "revolutionary" or worse claiming the credit for bringing to the fore what is essentially an age old technique.

Steve Pope · Jan 7, 2012

I believe there is a responsibility on the shoulders of all the "new" writers to credit those who have gone before and inspired them to pick up on and possibly adapt "old" ideas.

There is no loss of face by crediting someone who has inspired you.

As has been said there is very little thats new in fishing however new writers bring their own style and that is how things move forward.

I have a feature in this months Coarse Angling Today where I talk about the "big" luncheon meat method, I acknowledge and give full credit to my good friend Lol Breakspear who as far as I'm concerned came up with the idea.

Another point is that modern day writers owe a debt to so many and it is a responsibility to keep the names of the real pioneers alive.

I believe you gain far more respect by naming your influences than you do by trying to kid the public its your idea.

Often though the writer has no control over an editorial intro that may be used for impact!

sam vimes · Jan 7, 2012

cg74 said:
There are plenty of good writers out there but I think it's just easier for publications to use the same old faces over and over... To their detriment!
Plus possibly a few new naive writer using ill-adviced terms like "new" or "revolutionary" or worse claiming the credit for bringing to the fore what is essentially an age old technique.

How long a career in angling journalism would you expect if you came out and said something along the lines of, "nothing in angling is new, just variations on old themes."?

It may well be true, but most editors wouldn't be particularly happy about you saying so. It's only a step or two from an admission that you shouldn't bother with magazines as they are just constant re-hashes.

dezza · Jan 7, 2012

sam vimes said:
It may well be true, but most editors wouldn't be particularly happy about you saying so. It's only a step or two from an admission that you shouldn't bother with magazines as they are just constant re-hashes.

With odd exceptions, "consistant re-hashes" is what they are. But there are young people and even quite old new people coming into angling all the time, so I suppose magazines do a service.

It's just that many of the writers churn out loads of bollucks, and then next thing is they are claiming to be "celebrities".

There are very few genuine "celebrities" in angling, perhaps 5 in the last 50 years.

And I am sure we know who they are. And with the exception of one of them, the other four are standing on the shoulders of giants.

And one of the giants is one of the five.

cg74 · Jan 7, 2012

sam vimes said:
How long a career in angling journalism would you expect if you came out and said something along the lines of, "nothing in angling is new, just variations on old themes."?

It may well be true, but most editors wouldn't be particularly happy about you saying so. It's only a step or two from an admission that you shouldn't bother with magazines as they are just constant re-hashes.

Maybe this answers the question of why are so many "good" angling publications are/have gone to the wall; damned if do and damned if they don't.

But like Steve Pope says; there's no harm in giving credit to the origins of a technique, be it an angler or a genre of the sport.

As I've mentioned a few times before the 'name' carp angler who had "developed" a "revolutionary" new rig for fishing in weed and debris on a lake bottom. It was a pulley rig, end of, no alterations, no nothing.
Yet he claimed he'd spent many hours "fine tuning" and "devoloping" it.

But it was exactly the same rig as I'd been using for wrasse for 25yrs+:
http://www.seafishingonline.com/images/rigs/pulley.gif

---------- Post added at 13:08 ---------- Previous post was at 12:59 ----------

Ron The Hat Clay said:
With odd exceptions, "consistant re-hashes" is what they are. But there are young people and even quite old new people coming into angling all the time, so I suppose magazines do a service.

It's just that many of the writers churn out loads of bollucks, and then next thing is they are claiming to be "celebrities".

There are very few genuine "celebrities" in angling, perhaps 5 in the last 50 years.

And I am sure we know who they are. And with the exception of one of them, the other four are standing on the shoulders of giants.

And one of the giants is one of the five.

So who are they (a genuine question), as to me the term celebrity only applies to those who are widely known by people who have no interest in the said "celebs" field.
i.e, David Beckham, everyone (almost) knows who he is, no matter how little interest they have in football.

The nearest angling has to that is John Wilson?

sam vimes · Jan 7, 2012

There are no genuine angling celebrities and never have been. Despite an anglers influence on a household for over thirty years, not one of my family members could name a single celeb angler. The closest they'd get would be "that idiot with the stupid laugh", meaning John Wilson. They couldn't name him though.

dezza · Jan 7, 2012

sam vimes said:
There are no genuine angling celebrities and never have been. Despite an anglers influence on a household for over thirty years, not one of my family members could name a single celeb angler. The closest they'd get would be "that idiot with the stupid laugh", meaning John Wilson. They couldn't name him though.

There are just a few who I would name as genuine celebrities. Now this is my opinion after over 60 years of fishing in the UK and overseas. In naming these five I cover match, game and specimen angling.

And of the five, it doesn't mean that they were the best anglers at putting fish on the bank. The qualifications for celebrity go much deeper than that.

Bob Church
**** Clegg
Ivan Marks
John Wilson

And who is the fifth? Why, it is the person who's shoulders these four are standing on:

Richard Walker.

Steve Pope · Jan 7, 2012

While fully understanding Ron's point, in this modern day and age the word "celebrity" has almost been redefined.

Because of that I would argue that there are many more than five.

Its another debate whether the description of some as "celebrity anglers" is justified but today the term is so widely used and abused that it somewhat loses its real meaning.

dezza · Jan 7, 2012

Steve Pope said:
the word "celebrity" has almost been redefined.

Yes, you are right Steve. For example there is this programme for **** heads called "I'm a celebrity, get me out of here."

As far as I can see, they have never actually had a celebrity on the programme, I mean how can you call any of them "celebrities"? And George Galloway is a damned traitor!

And most of the females are slappers!

dangermouse · Jan 7, 2012

Steve Pope said:
While fully understanding Ron's point, in this modern day and age the word "celebrity" has almost been redefined.

Because of that I would argue that there are many more than five.

Its another debate whether the description of some as "celebrity anglers" is justified but today the term is so widely used and abused that it somewhat loses its real meaning.

It really depends on whether you`re an angler or not. To the general public most, if not all of Ron`s list would mean nothing whereas Robson Green or Jeremy Wade might well be recognisable simply because they have their own tv shows.

As Steve said the term celebrity is very subjective these days. If I was to throw out the name Doyle Brunson I doubt many people on here would know who he is but he`s definitely a celebrity to me and many others who participate in his area of expertise.

cg74 · Jan 7, 2012

Steve Pope said:
While fully understanding Ron's point, in this modern day and age the word "celebrity" has almost been redefined.

Because of that I would argue that there are many more than five.

Its another debate whether the description of some as "celebrity anglers" is justified but today the term is so widely used and abused that it somewhat loses its real meaning.

I'd say the meaning of the word 'celebrity' has not changed at all, as such its definition remains: "the state of being well known."
Not as broad spectrum as my interpretation but as a mass noun, it is open to subjective interpretation.

And what with the expansion of available media, it possibly is easier to gain the status of 'well known,' hence me quantifying it by being known outside of their specialist field.

bleak · Jan 7, 2012

To my way of thinking Ernest Hemingway was a celebrity angler. &
He wrote the best fishing story . The Old Man and the Sea.

cg74 · Jan 7, 2012

Ron The Hat Clay said:
Yes, you are right Steve. For example there is this programme for **** heads called "I'm a celebrity, get me out of here."

As far as I can see, they have never actually had a celebrity on the programme, I mean how can you call any of them "celebrities"? And George Galloway is a damned traitor!

And most of the females are slappers!

It doesn't matter your (our) views of an individual, in fact looking back at a past contestant of 'I'm a celebrity get me out of here;' Nigel Benn, he was a bit of a peoples champion and with worldwide notoriety but he was no more well known than his much hated foe Chris Eubank.

And dare I say it, all of those "**** heads" and "slappers" are far bigger celebrities than anyone claiming to be, or put forward as an angling celebrity, well unless they're famous for something else and happen to be an angler also; Chris Tarrant and David Seaman sort of thing.

sam vimes · Jan 7, 2012

Ron The Hat Clay said:
There are just a few who I would name as genuine celebrities. Now this is my opinion after over 60 years of fishing in the UK and overseas. In naming these five I cover match, game and specimen angling.

And of the five, it doesn't mean that they were the best anglers at putting fish on the bank. The qualifications for celebrity go much deeper than that.

Bob Church
**** Clegg
Ivan Marks
John Wilson

And who is the fifth? Why, it is the person who's shoulders these four are standing on:

Richard Walker.

I'd contend that they are only celebrities within angling circles. The chances of a none angler knowing any of them are slim in the extreme. To that end they aren't really celebrities at all. I suspect that if you ask a non-angler for the name of a well known angler, Jack Charlton, Robson Green, David Seaman and even that moron "Dappy" are all likely to figure before any of the above.

Steve Pope · Jan 7, 2012

A couple of tales to show how this "wellknown" lark can work.

A few years back I fished a number of times with Matt Hayes, I can honestly say he never was mobbed at any time when I was with him in Tesco's!

When I made my move from Essex to the Welsh border the fellow whose house I bought was an artist from the Wirral and had no interest in fishing, he had a friend in Bristol who was. On my second trip to look at the place Roger, the vendor, said he was adding ten grand to the price because I'm a well known angler...................I jest but you can see the point.

Another time quite a few years ago my middle daughter went for a job interview in the city and the man she had to impress was a barbel fisherman, he put two and two together and offered her the job!

And the last one, just after I moved, along with all my family I went to the village fayre at Bishops Castle, very busy but in the middle of nowhere. As we walked out of the carpark( Field) gate the attendant called out, are you who I think you are? Yep, another barbel fisher, have to say everyone was pretty impressed and I did play it up for the rest of the day!

We can all be famous for five minutes these days and its all a bit of fun if you don't take it seriously!

Ron has to be the biggest celebrity posting on here anyway!!

dezza · Jan 7, 2012

Steve Pope said:
Ron has to be the biggest celebrity posting on here anyway

Well I was born in the same Sheffield suburb - Handsworth, and I went to the same Technical College as one of England's most underrated actors.

Sean Bean

And talking of celebrities, I do mean angling celebrities, who are not likely to be known by the average man in the street.

But to be honest, mention the name: **** Clegg to anyone from Barnsley and they will know who he is. He's probably more famous in that town than ****y Bird.

Revelations my ass!!

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member