It's like anything else that we are asked to measure, whether it be buisness or pleasure it's pointless making a 'measurement' unless we know what the measurement criterea is..
For example, if the best angler is to be judged on how many big fish he catches then it will be someone living in the Oxford area who doesn't work and fishes 7 days a week. Simple.
If he's judged on big fish v rod hours then it's probably still someone in the same area but an angler with greater technical knowledge and watercraft.
If the main criterea is foresight and innovation then it would in all probability be Mr Walker.
If judged on the same as the above with a geographical consideration placed within the measurement scale then it would be an angler with similar attributes to those above but could feasibly live anywhere in the country.
If the criterea is honours won, then it's someone like Bob Nudd or Alan Scotthorn.
If it's judged on what he puts back in the sport then it will in all probability be a very 'average' angler who spends his weekends taking kids, or people with special needs fishing.
If it's judged purely on how much enjoyment you get out of it then it's probably the bloke Bob spoke to on his rounds.
And so on, ans so forth.
Personally I don't belive there can ever be a 'best' as we all have our own idea of what makes someone 'the best'.
For what it's worth my personal viewpoint is the 'best' anglers are those who can consistently catch above average specimens of all species, from river, lake or sea, whilst having a healthy and balanced life outside fishing AND still love every minute of it.
