• You need to be a registered member of Barbel Fishing World to post on these forums. Some of the forums are hidden from non-members. Please refer to the instructions on the ‘Register’ page for details of how to join the new incarnation of BFW...

Can Man Live by Braid Alone.......

Oh right, so if i dont catch on a particular seesion but others do i am a lesser angler, funny that i have always thought that if i dont catch its down to me (swim choice, bait, method weather conditions etc) now i know its because i am a lesser angler :eek:
 
Gentlemen stop it. Your just taking what Richard said and blowing out of proportion. I don't think he genuinely means 'lesser' but as far as the percentages are concerned who are you to doubt that is the case? I know that for every decent angler i meet I have to wade through at least half a dozen who have little clue as how to even tie a loop knot. Who sit there and constantly **** and moan about EE's or otters because they assume that is what all anglers do, whilst sipping a can of stella and slackening of their baitrunner's so that they are damn sure the fish finds a snag before they have picked up the rod. Is that not the 90%? If not 90% then damn close to it as far as I have seen. He's paying you lot a compliment by suggesting your in the 10%, I don't see what the issue your making is about.
 
Everyone knows that 99% of all statistics are made up on the spur of the moment.

Personally I would put the figure at closer to 80/20, a troll through the match results in the weeklys will confirm that, the same names seem to frame week after week regardless of venue or draw.
 
Nothing Stephen. No one is suggesting there is anything 'Wrong' with catching very little or nothing. All that has been deduced is that some anglers catch a larger proportion of fish than others. Not whether or not they were 'wrong' in doing so.
 
Roman Vann said:
Gentlemen stop it. Your just taking what Richard said and blowing out of proportion. I don't think he genuinely means 'lesser' but as far as the percentages are concerned who are you to doubt that is the case? I know that for every decent angler i meet I have to wade through at least half a dozen who have little clue as how to even tie a loop knot. Who sit there and constantly **** and moan about EE's or otters because they assume that is what all anglers do, whilst sipping a can of stella and slackening of their baitrunner's so that they are damn sure the fish finds a snag before they have picked up the rod. Is that not the 90%? If not 90% then damn close to it as far as I have seen. He's paying you lot a compliment by suggesting your in the 10%, I don't see what the issue your making is about.
Click to expand...

I dont know where you fish but i dont meet any of these types on the bank, it doesnt matter to me whether a person is a good or lesser angler what matters to me is their attitude towards their fishing and their surroundings,
 
Roman Vann said:
Nothing Stephen. No one is suggesting there is anything 'Wrong' with catching very little or nothing. All that has been deduced is that some anglers catch a larger proportion of fish than others. Not whether or not they were 'wrong' in doing so.
Click to expand...

I think the issue here Roman is the suggestion that folk not in that top 10% (however that may be determined) are inferior/lesser anglers and left to their own devices, without proper guidance from the elite, will get themselves in a terrible muddle and damage all the fish they catch (which isn't many). It just comes across as a little overbearing and judgemental and it may just come down to tone. If we were in a pub, a few people might respond with a quick, "hang on a minute old chap, that's a bit strong and a terrible generalisation- oops, sorry about that- I was never very good at darts, hope you get it removed OK". We definitely shouldn't let this drag on though.
 
When I said that 10% of the anglers catch 90% of the fish I was merely quoting an often used phrase rather than meaning that I believed it to be a literal truth. I also sometimes say that “too many cooks spoil the broth†when in truth I have no idea how many cooks it takes to produce an optimum broth, nor do I have any idea what the final product tasted like.

Of course there are lesser anglers, as there are lesser participants in any sport or pastime. By whatever means you measure success (in running it would be time to complete the event) take the top 10% and the other 90% are by definition less good at it. Simples. I think the problem here is the good old Ego Monster rearing his ugly head again with some people thinking I mean that they are lesser human beings than others. Now this may actually be the case, as I don’t personally know them, but I prefer to think not. However if the cap fits please feel free to wear it.

In fact I come from the viewpoint that most of the people who post on this site are likely to fall into the 10% category. Now I have a suspicion that there will be people reading this who feel that judging an angler purely on the amount or size of fish that they catch is not taking into account the bigger picture. They might argue that a person who has a deep love of the countryside and who just goes fishing as an add on to the overall experience is every bit as good an angler as the one who catches lots of big fish. However I maintain that the only way we can measure a person’s angling ability is by the number of fish he catches. If we do not do this then we are in danger of having people posting on the internet about all aspects of angling and influencing newcomers to the sport, when all the time they are sitting at home staring at a computer screen catching virtual fish in their heads.....in effect they would just be cyber anglers. Perish the thought.

Richard
 
Richard Hamlyn said:
When I said that 10% of the anglers catch 90% of the fish I was merely quoting an often used phrase rather than meaning that I believed it to be a literal truth. I also sometimes say that “too many cooks spoil the broth” when in truth I have no idea how many cooks it takes to produce an optimum broth, nor do I have any idea what the final product tasted like.

Of course there are lesser anglers, as there are lesser participants in any sport or pastime. By whatever means you measure success (in running it would be time to complete the event) take the top 10% and the other 90% are by definition less good at it. Simples. I think the problem here is the good old Ego Monster rearing his ugly head again with some people thinking I mean that they are lesser human beings than others. Now this may actually be the case, as I don’t personally know them, but I prefer to think not. However if the cap fits please feel free to wear it.

In fact I come from the viewpoint that most of the people who post on this site are likely to fall into the 10% category. Now I have a suspicion that there will be people reading this who feel that judging an angler purely on the amount or size of fish that they catch is not taking into account the bigger picture. They might argue that a person who has a deep love of the countryside and who just goes fishing as an add on to the overall experience is every bit as good an angler as the one who catches lots of big fish. However I maintain that the only way we can measure a person’s angling ability is by the number of fish he catches. If we do not do this then we are in danger of having people posting on the internet about all aspects of angling and influencing newcomers to the sport, when all the time they are sitting at home staring at a computer screen catching virtual fish in their heads.....in effect they would just be cyber anglers. Perish the thought.

Richard
Click to expand...

Richard, I really hope this is some elaborate pi** take. Are you seriously suggesting that the measure of an anglers ability is simply the number of fish he catches? I mean, isn't this great sport/pastime/hobby of ours just a tiny bit more complex than that, perhaps not as one dimensional as who wins a race or throws something the farthest? What about size of fish, the rarity of a fish. What about a 60lb carp versus a 19lb barbel (in a straight fight my money would be on the fatty carp by the way) versus a 3lb roach and so on. What about watercraft or respect/ knowledge of the enviornment. And, how on earth can you possibly conclude that the majority of people on this forum (yes, it's a forum-a place to debate and share ideas) are in your 10% category- how many of them have you actually met? Plus, are you proposing that only people who meet a certain angling standard are allowed to post on the Internet? I am not entirely sure that's how life works.
 
Last edited:
Hmmn, food for thought here, "10% of anglers catch 90% of the fish", maybe that has some relationship that maybe only 10% of anglers use braided mainline for all their fishing!! Richard may have been onto something after all ;)

Oh, and for the record, I have never never been referred to as Lesser in any way :eek:

I would take it as a massive compliment by the way :cool:
 
Howard Cooke said:
Richard, I really hope this is some elaborate pi** take. Are you seriously suggesting that the measure of an anglers ability is simply the number of fish he catches? I mean, isn't this great sport/pastime/hobby of ours just a tiny bit more complex than that, perhaps not as one dimensional as who wins a race or throws something the farthest? What about size of fish, the rarity of a fish. What about a 60lb carp versus a 19lb barbel (in a straight fight my money would be on the fatty carp by the way) versus a 3lb roach and so on. What about watercraft or respect/ knowledge of the enviornment. And, how on earth can you possibly conclude that the majority of people on this forum (yes, it's a forum-a place to debate and share ideas) are in your 10% category- how many of them have you actually met? Plus, are you proposing that only people who meet a certain angling standard are allowed to post on the Internet? I am not entirely sure that's how life works.
Click to expand...

I can absolutely assure you that I am not taking the mickey and I would prefer it if you did not allude to swear words, as it says in the site rules that younger people visit and it sets a bad example.

I also notice that some of responses I seem to attract at the moment are in the nature of a personal slur. I try to discuss issues rather than people and nothing I post is personal and I would ask other to do the same. This also applies to Paul Boote who is not even posting on here anymore (as far as I can see) so is unable to defend himself.

Anyway back to your question “do I seriously think we should measure an anglers ability on the size of the fish they catchâ€â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦yes I do. Having a deep love of nature and respect for the environment are laudable qualities indeed but they do not mean by default that they make a good angler. A runner may have a detailed knowledge of his sport and spend all his free time looking after the running track and helping youngsters and be an all-round good egg, but if he does not win races then he is not a very good athlete.

Richard
 
Richard Hamlyn said:
I can absolutely assure you that I am not taking the mickey and I would prefer it if you did not allude to swear words, as it says in the site rules that younger people visit and it sets a bad example.

I also notice that some of responses I seem to attract at the moment are in the nature of a personal slur. I try to discuss issues rather than people and nothing I post is personal and I would ask other to do the same. This also applies to Paul Boote who is not even posting on here anymore (as far as I can see) so is unable to defend himself.

Anyway back to your question “do I seriously think we should measure an anglers ability on the size of the fish they catchâ€â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦yes I do. Having a deep love of nature and respect for the environment are laudable qualities indeed but they do not mean by default that they make a good angler. A runner may have a detailed knowledge of his sport and spend all his free time looking after the running track and helping youngsters and be an all-round good egg, but if he does not win races then he is not a very good athlete.

Richard
Click to expand...

Tricky one this . Bigger the fish , better the angler ? From where I view things it is often the case that the biggest fish fall to the anglers who put in the most time , that does not automatically mean they are the best anglers . Unfortunately some anglers define themselves and their importance and status by the size of the fish they catch , now that is sad , but unfortunately true .It's abit like the debate I got in to with a name angler on my local club forum who was taking the stance that specialist anglers were somehow more' serious ' than the much maligned ' pleasure ' angler . I took the view that the serious pleasure angler was the best one to be . Anyway , I reckon braids rubbish ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top