The "Golden Era"

[Birds Nest]

Just an early evening ponder... Was the 50's and 60's fishing much better that today ? If so why ? Were the "Greats" of the day better than todays ? Can you even compare the 2 times ?

Just interested to hear you views... ;-)

 

[Stewart Bloor]

No good asking me, I'm a mere youth. I look so young, that if I went into a pub they probably wouldn't serve me....
But seriously, as with all things, the older we get, looking back creates a certain sense of nostalgia. Things often weren't 'better', maybe .different.
But we need some of the Golden Oldies of the Forum to answer that one. So over to you...Greyhound Marsden...Brummie Williams...

 

[Alan Cooper]

I still can't admit to myself that I'm getting old but I was certainly around from the very early 60's. I'm afraid I can't help being nostalgic for those days. from Walker's column in the Angling Times through to club outings in the very early hours through to my home made buzzers (disparaged by a very snooty Jim Gibbinson on one occasion - I distinctly recall. I was earning very little at the time and they did the job) - I remember it all and do feel they were golden days. However, the gear is far better nowadays. No doubt about that at all even if I still love split cane rods.

 

[GrahamM]

In my view the 'greats' of yesteryear were neither better nor worse than the 'greats' of today. A good angler, whether sea, game or coarse, specialist, pleasure or match, is a good angler.

Any of the good anglers who turn their hand from one type of angling to another make the transition effortlessly and catch more than most.

It's a case of having that 'feel' for it; that instinct for catching fish that some anglers have and some haven't.

The best anglers are usually untidy with their tackle, don't care a great deal about it, but know exactly what to do to catch a fish from a certain swim, even swims they have never seen before.

There has been talk of such anglers having a sixth sense about these things, which I don't know if it's true or not, but such anglers certainly seem to be more in tune with what is required to put fish on the bank.

Perhaps that hunting instinct from thousands of years ago is stronger in the 'great' anglers than in the rest of us.

 

[Ron Clay]

I think what was really exciting about that period was the pioneering aspect. Not only that, for me at any rate was the formation of the early specimen groups. I was involved with the formation of the Northern Specimen Group which had names like Tag Barnes, Ray Webb, **** Clegg, John Neville and others in it.
By the fromation of these groups we were able to meet some of the greatest angers of the day, eg: **** Walker, Fred J. Taylor, Stoney and many others. It was just a lovely period to have lived through.
In those days you had to be early at the newsagent to get your Angling Times. I always turned straight to **** Walkers piece without even looking at the front page.
What marvellous memories.

 

[Philip Inzani]

OK to stir it up a bit...I think the modern guys are better!

Competition is greater and therefore anglers are forced to improve to be succsessful. Tackle improvements is only part of it.

 

[Ron Clay]

When you say "better", in what way?
I get the impression that many of today's big fish anglers are only good at fishing for ONE species. For example many of today's top carp anglers would not be able to recognise the difference beween a rudd and a roach.

 

[Philip Inzani]

Ron, I totally agree with you. In fact I very nearly put in my post that I consider match men today to be the best anglers by far when compared to the specimen boys. I think they have a real understanding of how the various fish species will behave in different situations.
OK so what exactly is "better"? Well I considered this before I posted as I thought someone might ask that. ?bit of a long winded explanation coming up I am afraid??

Think about it like this. The first point is that access to info is far better today.....internet, videos, numerous publications etc etc so knowledge can be gained far quicker. The Follow on from this is that I dont think you can doubt that the more info is shared the more likely that advances will be made. The result is that the angler today has a much better access to info and ideas on which to then hone his skills. Sure the guys back then may have known the odd old rue to "winkle out" a bonus fish or two but please dont tell me that they had access to as much info and alternative ideas as the guys today who are bouncing ideas off each other globally?..how did the guys share info back then ? Select groups or down the pub after their clubs weekend fish-in! (I am exaggerating a little but hopefully you get my gist)

Right so hopefully I have explained why I think the access to info is better today but just because you have access to loads of ideas does not mean you are going to be better does it ? You still have to learn and apply those skills dont you ?

Well in terms of the skills themselves as I mentioned I think you have to look at the incentives to learn those skills, the incentives to become a better angler.
As I mentioned the rewards today are far greater...large cash prizes in match and specimen fishing. Livings can now (just about) be made from tackle consultancy; writing articles or books, starring in videos etc etc. With this increase in rewards comes competition...people now HAVE to improve their skills or they fall by the way side. What was the incentive to improve back then ? To look good in front of your mates or win a couple of bob in the weekend sweepstake!?. Again I exaggerate but its not exactly the same sort of pressures is it ?

I may not be explaining what I mean very well so let me finish by using Athletics as an example of what I am trying to say ?? Put say a sprinter of today alongside a sprinter of the 50's give them the same shoes and who will win a race? Sure the equipment has got better but so has the Athletes themselves. Angling is going to be more complex than that but I think the end result will be the same.

 

[Ron Clay]

Philip,
You are right in what you say of course. But there is something that worries me. "people now HAVE to improve their skills or they fall by the wayside". Fall by the wayside? No angling is not like this I hope. Not everyone is desperate to get their name into print or do fishing videos or become profesionals. Angling is not like that at all. In my life I have written thousands of articles and contributed to several books, mainly in South Africa and mainly about fly fishing. I never did it to become famous or make lots of money. It was something about being able to communicate with more anglers than my circle of friends. And it was all about trying to help someone maybe to catch a fish or two when you have learned so.
I dont't like the term "fall by the wayside" at all. To me the definition of a successful angler is not one that seeks to impress others, but rather catches fish that pleases himself.

 

[Philip Inzani]

Ron, yes I understand where you are coming from and this is a very common argument that fishing is basically a gentle sport that we do to get away from everyday pressures at work or home not to add to them, in short it is something to be enjoyed it should be fun?.am I right ?
I do agree with this BUT the big difference is that money is creeping into the sport and so the goalposts are changing. I am not talking the everyday guy say like you or I who basically just goes out to catch a few fish, I am talking the guys who now have to try and make a living (or at least part of his living) out of it. Imagine going to a world championships and telling say Bob Nudd not to take it seriously?..I think we may end up with 16 meters of carbon shoved somewhere painful!!! I think if fishing was paying your mortgage or feeding your wife and kids then you would have a very different perspective on it dont you think ?

Now is this all correct and is this the way things should be going ? Well that a different question and personally I think you and I will be in agreement that this is a sad state of affairs but I am not going to criticise the guys who do it. We do our thing and they do theirs I dont think we are in any position to judge.

 

[Ron Clay]

I would hate to be one of the Bob Nudds of this world! Angling is my passion, not my job. I make my money as an engineer in industry. I spend my spare time fishing (I am widowed by the way). **** Walker, one of the greatest anglers who ever lived worked for his family business right up to the point when he died in 1985. He only ever fished on weekends, a few evenings in summer and had 1 weeks holiday a year.

 

[GrahamM]

I think there are some sweeping statements being made.

I earn my living from fishing and the only difference that makes is that I enjoy my job as much as my sport.

 

[Ron Clay]

Sorry Graham, there is no insults intended here. I know you enjoy your fishing and your work. Its just that some people in this business that I have met appear not to.

 

[GrahamM]

That's okay Ron, I just wanted to point out that not everyone who earns their living from fishing is just a desperate angler who will stop at nothing to maintain a reputation or keep a medals cabinet topped up.

I actually enjoy my fishing more since I began earning my living from it, and I surely can't be the only professional angler that applies to.

 

[Philip Inzani]

OH dear I know I am a sucker for punishment! I know I am being deliberately one-sided and perhaps a bit blunt (who me?!) but do you agree that (many) of the well known anglers today are under more pressure than their counterparts of the 50's? Its a "YES" or "NO" question!

Tell me a well known angler who was not a successful angler ? I think 95% have been successful and publicised that successes. Maybe some are now in a happy position that because they have already been there, done that, and have won the respect and following of the public, but what about someone new ? Surely the best way to make a break is to be successful ? Is there not a pressure associated with that ?

 

[Ron Clay]

I could name a well known angler who is a plonker but I won't, I don't want to be sued.
I'm sure Graham can name a couple as well.

 

[GrahamM]

Yes, to the first part.

Yes, I can tell you several names of well known anglers who are not successful anglers. But I won't because I can't prove it.

The best way to make a 'break' - and I take it you mean break into being an angling 'celebrity', is to be successful enough to make editors want to publish your writings, and TV and video producers want to make programmes and videos featuring you. If you're very, very successful they'll ghost write the written stuff for you if you can't manage it yourself.

Another way, if you are an excellent writer, is to lie and cheat about the fish you catch in the early days in order to gain a reputation that will allow you to start writing about fishing in the first place.

 

[Philip Inzani]

OK so I think we all agree that you do need to be seen to be successful...whether you are doing it honestly or not is another matter.

So going full circle back to the original question, if the pressure and incentives to succeed are greater today dont you think the likelihood is that the anglers will be generally better as well?

 

[GrahamM]

Yes, but the good anglers of yesteryear would have been good anglers today.

They would have adapted to whatever was required. That's what made them good.

 

[Ron Clay]

Right Graham, Philip - How would each of you define success in angling? If you are a spezzi-hunter, does the size of the fish you catch make you into a brilliant angler? Obviously if you are a match angler, it's to do with the number of matches you have won.

What is the definition of a great angler in today's values?