Are you experienced?

We often hear about "experienced angler" etc.

Jimi Hendrix also posed the same question in his debut album.

But what should it take to class yourself as an experienced angler? Is it the same as being proficient or good?. Do you have to be a jack of all trades or a master of one method/target species?. Does experience need to be updated regularly?

Just wonderin'

Is it something like the flying hours that identifies a pilots experience?. To be an experienced carper i guess you would need 1000 rod hours or so? Or must you have caught say ten twenties or a thirty to be regarded as a specialist carper?.

That's a good question. The ultimate honour I can bestow on anyone is to say they are a "good angler". I know exactly what I mean by that but its hard to put into words. For me a "good angler" is someone who can turn their hand to most [not all] forms of fishing & do reasonably well. They would be a competent/above average all rounder with probably one or two particularly strong areas.

And yes I think you do need to keep yourself updated or you lose the edge that made you a "good angler" in the first place.

I think it's a very subjective question.

I would hazard a guess that many older anglers would consider themselves experienced which is a completely different thing (in my book) to being good... Good being defined by what someone has learned through their experiences and how they have applied it to move forward with their fishing.

I guess anyone with time under their belt could consider themselves "experienced"... Whether or not they were experienced and "good" is a different matter entirely.

That's a bit of a grinder for those such as myself who occasionally see far younger and very skilled anglers doing their stuff especially when I think I was doing quite well, but a hearty reassurance that there is talent out there for the future.

Personally for me I reckon I was a lot sharper ten to fifteen years ago but can still shake out a few results if I try, although it's much more of an all round experience these days as opposed to pure results.

So, for me:

Experineced... Yes.

Good... Hmmmm?

Maybe working on it?

And you can be both experienced and a newbie at the same time: I've been fishing for (blimey!) nearly 60 years so, yes I'm experienced but I've recently taken up salmon fishing and I'm definitely a beginner at that.

A while back I was advised that to become an expert, at anything, requires about 10000 hours.
That's around 5 years or so full time I think. Not sure as I'm no maths expert.
I feel I can say with some certainty on that basis I am 'expert' at not catching.
Happily interrupted from time time by catching something. Today for instance a few tiny bleak as a consolation for spooking some very chunky looking Chub.

I think being experienced, good or successful are different things. I am an experienced lure fisher (if thats the right term) - i have tried the technique many times over many years: devon minnows, spoons, plugs etc etc - but have NEVER caught anything (partly because i always gave up after 15 mins max). So as far as the talent goes, there was none apparent.. and so far as success goes, there was none of that either. But I think I can say i am experienced at lure fishing (but rubbish at it).

Experience is not the be all and end all as far as I am concerned. For example what if the experience is bad experience?

The question/criteria/metric/goal should be competence.

That then begs the question how do you determine competence?

I would define competence as a blend of skills, knowledge AND importantly experience. Pre-supposing that you have good skills and decent knowledge, means it is likely that the type of experience would be good.

PS - Rock on Jimi, great album!

I'll agree that being a good or competent angler is better than being an experienced angler (if experience is defined by time on the bank), often they both equate to the same thing but not always. Much the same in the workplace I have encountered people with 20 years experience and I wonder how can someone who has been doing it that long can acquire so little knowledge, on the other hand I've encountered young, relatively inexperienced people who are quite good.
Back to angling I have been fishing for quite a few years but I don't get the opportunity to go that often each year, nowhere near once a week so I am not really very experienced. The amount I can learn from places such as this is testament to me being not really very good. I can catch fish, I believe I treat them well and I love doing it but put me alongside someone who is really good on the bank and they will hammer me.

I think anyone can be experienced. It`s just a matter of putting in the hours.

To be good or an expert is definitely different. That requires study and thought and practice.

People often seem to confuse good, experienced and simply being at it a long time. I know eighty year olds that have been fishing all their lives. However, dig a little deeper and you find that they've fished once or twice a year all that time and can barely catch cold. Conversely, I know twenty five year olds that have practically lived on the banks since they were sixteen and could catch fish in an empty bucket. On the face of it, the twenty five year old has little more than ten years experience compared to the eighty year olds sixty years plus.

People can claim to be experienced when they really aren't. People can rightly claim to have been fishing for fifty years yet have not actually fished as much as a kid that's been at it for five. I've seen angling magazine experts and big names in the flesh that I've been deeply unimpressed by. I've seen little old blokes, that no one will ever hear of, that have been incredibly and impressively skilled.

Ultimately, the only way to tell is to see someone on the bank. Disregard their age, disregard any notion of how good their gear is and just watch what they do. You can soon suss the good, experienced angler from the bluffers, even if they don't catch. Whether that angler is old or young, experienced or inexperienced, is pretty much irrelevant to me.

chub_on_the_block said:

Is it something like the flying hours that identifies a pilots experience?. To be an experienced carper i guess you would need 1000 rod hours or so? Or must you have caught say ten twenties or a thirty to be regarded as a specialist carper?.

Click to expand...

I know a couple of lads that have just qualified for the final of the carp cup. Both would have the requisite hours, both would have no more than the odd twenty and no thirties that I know of. I know plenty of very experienced carpers in my neck of the woods that wouldn't meet that criteria. It rather depends on where you are fishing. Conversely, you could easily get a first year carp angler meeting the weight requirements if he's on the right water. Sometimes what you catch is a fairly poor indicator of experience or skill.

sam vimes said:

People often seem to confuse good, experienced and simply being at it a long time. I know eighty year olds that have been fishing all their lives. However, dig a little deeper and you find that they've fished once or twice a year all that time and can barely catch cold. Conversely, I know twenty five year olds that have practically lived on the banks since they were sixteen and could catch fish in an empty bucket. On the face of it, the twenty five year old has little more than ten years experience compared to the eighty year olds sixty years plus.

People can claim to be experienced when they really aren't. People can rightly claim to have been fishing for fifty years yet have not actually fished as much as a kid that's been at it for five. I've seen angling magazine experts and big names in the flesh that I've been deeply unimpressed by. I've seen little old blokes, that no one will ever hear of, that have been incredibly and impressively skilled.

Ultimately, the only way to tell is to see someone on the bank. Disregard their age, disregard any notion of how good their gear is and just watch what they do. You can soon suss the good, experienced angler from the bluffers, even if they don't catch. Whether that angler is old or young, experienced or inexperienced, is pretty much irrelevant to me.

Click to expand...

Bang on! You beat me to it. Time elapsed since you took up fishing counts for diddly squat if your gear only gets an outing every blue moon. Similarly, fishing the same method over and over again only makes you experienced in that method, nothing else. And, claims of being good or experienced equally count for nothing unless corroborated by a reliable independent source.

On the Internet you can often tell the experienced anglers by the answers they give to technical questions. Anyone can recommend a rod, reel, line, etc. But where are these 'experts' when someone asks about hair length or fishing a sliding float?

I like the opinion about being either experienced or good.I am certainly experienced after 60yrs but good??
It was and still is enjoyable learning and very satisfying when the penny finally drops on something puzzling.

We all get failures and red letter days.I had one such red letter day last week.
I havn't bothered much lately hemp and tare fishing for roach. I tried a local res
that only gets tench and carp fished.

I only weighed the best 6 roach and they went 8lb between them. The others I just turned the net and released them as it wouldn't have been fair to lift the net.
I could think I am good but the truth was it was the roach who were really having it and putting the effort in.

I think the word experience" is more than just time spent. I think learning from that time spent constitutes experience, otherwise it's just time.

Consistent, successful angling is a number of things together.. information, technical knowledge & ability, watercraft, dedication and experience all play a part and if one or more is lacking then overall success suffers.

You could say that every angler has reached different levels on all of those things, and added together gives their overall ability in any given situation. Fishing is no different to any other sport. Everyone has a level they are happy with, or aspire to, and long may it be so. We all want different things from our fishing.

"Good" is having high technical ability and using information, most often referring to their previous experiences, to catch the fish you're after in different fishing situations. The more experienced you are, the more information you have to help you decide how to fool a fish.

Take, for instance, some "new kid on the block" who, although has learnt the modern techniques, has only been fishing 5 minutes and reckons he's beyond good. He might catch on easy days or catch a lucky fish every now and again but hasn't got the experience to turn a hard day into a successful one.

Consistency, in different fishing situations, is the true measure of an angler's ability imho.

A tiny minority of anglers are just naturals though and just seem to have an inbuilt understanding of what's in front of them.

Some interesting observations.

In other activities, such as driving for example, being "an experienced driver" is well understood statement that indicates a person has been driving for a few years, not recently passed a test, etc. To quantify it i suppose you could consider whether that experience is varied - eg driving in different countries, different vehicles, driving conditions, etc and whether or not person is a good or competent driver (however that is defined).

I guess its the same with fishing. As others have suggested it is about competency, skill, application of knowledge etc etc as much as rod hours. I would agree too that results - PBs and back-up lists etc - may also have little relationship to competency or experience. They would indicate experience of catching special fish though. This is as much related to the waters that are fished as any attribute of the angler concerned.

I'd agree. Variation is the name of the game otherwise it's just single subject learning. The youngsters coming straight into carp fishing without ever fishing for anything else is a prime example of that. No care for other fish species, other anglers, or the environment in general is too often the result.

I'd agree with you to an extent on pb's and back-up lists. They are only personal records after all and are very dependant on venues fished and circumstances. Anyone can catch a lucky big fish, it happens all the time, but the back-up lists can be very telling imho, no matter what the pb is or what waters it relates to as it shows consistency. Even then they can be misleading though.

nicepix said:

Bang on! You beat me to it. Time elapsed since you took up fishing counts for diddly squat if your gear only gets an outing every blue moon. Similarly, fishing the same method over and over again only makes you experienced in that method, nothing else. And, claims of being good or experienced equally count for nothing unless corroborated by a reliable independent source.

On the Internet you can often tell the experienced anglers by the answers they give to technical questions. Anyone can recommend a rod, reel, line, etc. But where are these 'experts' when someone asks about hair length or fishing a sliding float?

Click to expand...

How very true!

Expert:
Ex = a has been
Spurt = a drip under pressure

Most of my fishing i would class myself as average with a bit of good thrown in.

Total expert when it comes to meeting the wrong women...........................

Have cost me a fortune over the years..

Jimi Hendrix

Maybe he needed the experience, but he seemed pretty competent when I saw him at the Isle of wight festival.........................................................................Oh such happy days!!!


Experts...........Not too sure about them, some of us muddle along as jack of all trades and masters of none, if you fish long enough you are bound to catch the odd lump, which is why I have managed to get one every now and then.

I have always said that I would prefer to be a lucky angler than a good one!

So .....Here’s to staying lucky!

Tight lines chaps.

I had someone fishing next to me yesterday who, from his massive amount of gear (and age - 60ish), could be classed as 'experienced' but the noise he made in doing just about everything meant, to me, that he was not a 'good' angler...
The chap on the other side of him just sat shaking his head in disbelief when this chap took 20 mins to land a 6lb carp which was accompanied by a verbal commentary of how the 'fight' was going....
It turned out he was fishing for carp though..

To look at him you could only draw the conclusion he knew what he was doing but for me he wasn't' thinking' about what he was doing or about the other fishermen near him. To make matters worse he slung a ton of bait in the water as he finished with the 'should be a good swim tomorrow'..........................as he marched off down the bank with considerable footfall - the silly man!


smudger 172.............but what else would you have done with all that money eh?? Spent it on silly fishing rods, no doubt !!