The "Golden Era"

[Philip Inzani]

Ron I think its different things to different people. OK thats a cop out so here is what makes a great angler for ME (the "me" part is very important). Its someone who can catch fish in a variety of situations. Plonk them anywhere and they will still catch.

I was going to say its about understanding fish, its about technical ability, its about adapting to different situations, I had it all typed out ready to go but then I thought some more about it and basically I have reached this conclusion. Angling is about catching fish. Its not the ability to trot a float to perfection or cast a dry fly without a ripple or work a lure to exactly mimic a distressed fish, or understanding where on a given day the Chub might be lying or even just going out for a day with some friends and having fun, they are incidentals.
Angling is about catching fish. Full stop. Show me the fish in your net, thats the measure....today, yesterday, always!

?..Ouch!

 

[Ron Clay]

Yes and virtually all those skills you list are possessed by anglers who can put fish in their nets

 

[GrahamM]

"Its someone who can catch fish in a variety of situations. Plonk them anywhere and they will still catch."

I like that.

"Angling is about catching fish. Full stop."

I don't like that!

So angler X has been fishing a lake for half a day and caught a 2lb roach. By design.

And angler Y has been fishing the same lake for 80 days and caught a 3lb roach. Whilst fishing for carp.

In your 'book' Phil, angler Y is best.

Sorry, but you do have to qualify your definitions to some extent.

And yes, I think I know you better than your 'definition' suggested!

 

[Ron Clay]

I will leave this thread with a quotation:

"Happy is the angler who fishes to please himself and not to impress others."

Richard Stuart Walker ca 1975

 

[Philip Inzani]

I have gone away and tried to forget about this thread but I cannot. Birds nest asked the question right at the beginning of the thread "Were the Greats of the day better than todays?" Ron then asked "How would each of you define success in angling" and finally "What is the definition of a great angler in today's values" I have stated what I think?.

1)I believe modern anglers are generally "better" than their counterparts in the 50?s.

2)I have defined why I believe modern anglers are "better" ?..sharing ideas and incentive to succeed is greater today.

3)I have defined what I mean by "better" and what I think is a measure of successes ??.Catching fish is the measure.
- Graham your example of the Roach is the scale NOT the measure. It could be total weight, biggest fish, least time to amass 10 pounds, difficulty of venue etc etc. Do you see the difference ? The measure of an Angler is still the catching of fish, full stop. I stand by that.

So, I gave you my opinion. I have also tried my best to avoid saying something vague like "I dont think we can measure any of this" and I have now been shot down for saying it. I can accept that, I dont know it all. What I cannot except is that neither of you or anyone else for that matter has offered an alternative. Graham has come the nearest to actually offering an opinion with his first post and one a little later on but these where only to the first question. The rest of the posts have been reminisces of days gone by, criticisms of my views and quotes from Walker!

As I see it I am the only one so far who has stuck his neck out and said something concrete!
So over to you guys?leave the thread to die there or offer an alternative view on the questions.

 

[Malcolm Bason]

Just to be awkward - I'm going back to the original 'title' of the thread: "the Golden Era". How do we define "Golden Era"? Surely this must be down to the individuals perspective - for it is he or she's most outstanding and flourishing period?

From this we must assertain by what do we judge? I would err on the side of Phillip here in that all things move on - all things progress, and all things move forward - they have to or they stagnate. This in my opinion can be applied to anything - including angling. In moving forward with the times we take on new challenges, adopt new skills and grow accordingly - again this can be applied to angling. In saying this I believe fishing in general has moved on, fish have become wiser because of contantly being caught and the fishing industry (tackle, bait, etc, etc, etc) has had to rethink and move on too, to account for the 'wisdom-growth' (for want of a better term) of the fish he seek to catch. Anglers have had to move with the times to be successful - so in that sense, I believe anglers of today are better than those of yesteryear. By this I in no way mean to criticise or play down the achievements of the past, but I will say again - we have to move forward! And we have - fishing has - so there has to have been an imp[rovement.

 

[Alan Cooper]

Malcolm is certainly right in terms of his comments re the original theme to the thread. My "golden era" just so happens to coincide with Ron's.

I tend to side with Phillip in the "What makes for a great angler" debate. Right now, with my run of balnks, it is an absolute fact that I am NOT one!

 

[GrahamM]

Philip, this is exactly the same question that always gets asked in boxing and football. Would Joe Louis have beaten Mohammad Ali? Was Stan Matthews a better footballer than George Best? Etc, etc.

They are questions that can't be answered for you can't pitch one against the other, nor can you compare like for like for they were not competing on the same playing field or with the same tackle and (in the case of angling) bait.

I'm not avoiding the question by answering like I am, I'm telling it like it is.

So my answer has to remain what it was, that the best anglers from any era would be the best anglers in any era - given that same playing field, same conditions, etc.