|
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Joe spends 20 hours fishing a body of water over the weekend and posts his results on Muskiefirst. If that’s all we know about Joe, which makes him a better fisherman in your eyes?
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | I'd go with 2 34" fish. If he was able to get two of them he was obviously fishing in the correct spot where active fish were at. If he continues to do this someday he will contact a 50".
Mike |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Neither. Joe is muskie fishing, obviously knows what to do to get a lure in front of the fish, and was fortunate enough to be rewarded with a pin up or two. Fish where there are lots of 50's, and you will catch 50's now and again. Fish where there are few, and you probably won't. To me, a muskie is a muskie, no matter the size. Yes, I'm after the biggest fish in the lake, but if she won't surrender, I'm sure hoping a couple 34's might. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | loaded question....there are so many variables on what makes "joe" a good musky fishermen...I would say consistency on many different bodies of water catching fish of all sizes is what makes "joe" a good fishermen...anyone can go out and stumble upon 2, 34's in a day...it's not hard...now catching a 50" ? well that all depends..Like Steve said, maybe he did that on some 200 acre pot hole in northern WI..still a great accomplishment but does that make "joe" a good fishermen? can he do it again and again?
Did he get the 50" on known waters with lots of 50"s with a guide? so many variables on what makes "joe" a good fishermen..but one thing I think that seperates the good from the avg. is consistency...some have it..some don't...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 199
Location: Nebraska | Speaking strictly on my limited experience. This year I caught 8 muskies between 32 and 44, I was no where near big fish. For our regular group, there was a 46 (his only one in 10 days) a 49 (one of two). I feel that I am a better fisherman than the others in our group. Sure, they happen onto a big fish here or there, but they do not CONSISTENTLY put fish in the boat, thoughout the whole weater pattern. I was blanked on four days of 10. They were blanked on 8 or 9 of 10. This happens most years that we go up there. I will usually catch 2-3 times more than the next closest, but I am sitting 6th in largest (44 to their 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 50.5) Most of the time they caught their biggest as the only fish of the year, or maybe biggest of two. Last year was the same, 8 fish, 6 over 36. None of which was the biggest, but the next person only had 3. Not trying to brag. One can't brag when he fishes only10 days a year on one trip. But the question was who do you think is best. I vote for the 2 34's. Besides, we don't know if Joe caught it walleye fishing. Chances are not if he caught two. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8865
| That's not enough information to make a decision in my opinion. 20 hours, two 34's... On some lakes that would be considered an accomplishment. On others that would be considered "what you could expect before lunch"
And the 50? On some lakes that's a pretty common occurrence. On others it's a fish of biblical proportions.
Personally I'd rather catch the 50. But if it was two 42's? I'd really have to think about it. How fat did you say that 50 is??
 |
|
| |
|
| Joe is a good musky fisherman if he catches a musky once in awhile. If Joe consistently catches more and bigger muskies than everyone else then he is a great fisherman. Joe will only get better if he continues to learn about the mighty musky, and continually assembles insights and acquires confidence from patterns that keep producing successful results. Joe will only become great if he explores new waters and figures out how to succeed under various circumstances and facing various conditions. Joe must continute to work hard, because it isn't fun to talk about on websites or seminars but musky fishing comes down to plain hard work. Just fish, and just fish smart to accelerate your learning curve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 194
| I really don't care. Joe should be the judge of Joe's ability. Who is anyone else to tell Joe how good a fisherman he is either way. I know I'd feel a whole lot better about myself if I caught a 50" vs. a couple 34". Catching any muskie is never an easy thing, but let's face it, 50" Muskies are much more difficult to catch, IMO. They take more dedication and skill. That doesn't mean that folks won't get lucky from time to time and land a 50" as their first fish. I recently met a guy who said he caught a 50" fish within his first 5 casts chasing muskies. I think that would qualify as luck, but, I wouldn't know for sure without seing him fish. I just don't think it really matters. Boy, did I use a lot of words to say nothing. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Hi,
I'm with Mr. Worrall on this one. I have seen some really good sticks have some very tough streaks and would love to stick a couple of 34's. The one thing is anytime you're on the water you're becoming a better fisherman. The big girls will come if you're fishing waters with 50's. Its the things you learn when you catch the 34's that put the 50's in the boat. My choice would be the two smaller fish.
Dave |
|
| |
|
Location: Northern Wisconsin | a musky is a musky. you should be happy to catch any size. i would still go with the 50 though.
i have caught enough 30's i need some 45+. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 723
| are we talking bout JoMusky? What makes him a better fisherman? THE HAIR FOR SURE!  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 7117
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | Here's my take on what makes Joe a better, or worse fisherman. Since no one but Joe should care about Joe's numbers, what really counts is what Joe gives back to the musky community.
Does Joe take newer muskie fisherman out to help them with their learning curve?
Does Joe share information on lake patterns?
Does Joe work to actively teach muskie and other species fisherman about the benefits of catch and release?
Does Joe work to positively impact the muskie community as a whole?
I guess here's MY take on all of it: you can catch a zillion 50" fish, and boat fish just by looking at the lake while sitting in your truck, but if you never pass on the positive aspects of the sport, and further the cause of great muskie fishing for all, then this Joe isnt much of a muskie fisherman. Guys who fish good (numbers of size) waters alot seem to catch a lot of good fish. OBVIOUSLY there are tactics, levels of attention to conditions/structure/fish moods, that make it such that one muskie angler catches more fish than another, but being a good muskie fisherman SHOULD be about more than catching more or better fish than the next guy.
There seems to be a movement in different circles to horde information, to horde locations of where the "hot bite is", but really does that contribute to the whole? It helps those individuals in the short term, but by placing themselves OUTSIDE of the community, only furthering their own causes, they're not contributing to the whole. They probably catch their fish on their waters at as good or even better paces than some others, but while others are helping the community in terms of education, stocking effots, etc., those who are hiding that info are just taking from the community.
Great muskie fishing HAS TO BE ABOUT MORE THAN BOATING GREAT FISH. If Joe boats great fish, but doesnt help others and help the cause then he's not much of a muskie fisherman in my estimation. But, if he helps the whole, regardless of his fish numbers and size, then he is. |
|
| |
|
| i don't think this question shouldn't be interpreted as suggesting that one person is better than another, or that therefore someone is "bad".
i also think this question isn't intended to be about "what makes Joe a good person?" over a season or over the course of a fishing career, but rather, during a SHORT period of time (ie., a tournament) should the "winner" be based on numbers or size?
here's a good example: for the Vermilion MMTT my partner and i hadn't pre-fished, and i hadn't been on Big V this year before the tournament.
we had a good general idea of what we wanted to do: hit some unmarked humps, then fish shorelines around a certain island complex that received very little fishing pressure. this resulted in us raising many follows (not just the lazy, sitting on the rocks fish). we went away thinking, "we had some shots" but couldn't trigger the fish.
we fished hard, we fished skillfully, but not skillfully enough as we didn't do the exact "right" thing to trigger the fish because we hadn't invested enough time to figure out what that was going to be.
the eventual winners spent the entire tournament working the exact same island complex as us, catching three large fish, including 2 over 50". they were dialed in on a specific pattern and they fished differently than we did, gaining different results. they were throwing small bucktails over the same spots we were throwing large spinnerbaits and topwater.
because of this, they were better than us, and better than the rest of the tourney field.
lets' say, just for the sake of argument, that my partner and i had boated one of the 50" fish that we saw. we would have felt pretty dang good about this, and pretty dang good about ourselves. we were in the right area, and a big fish cooperated.
however, it wouldn't have even put us in the top 10. why not? because there were so many teams who were fishing better!
imho, the Vermilion MMTT was an ideal tournament because it required both size and numbers to win. there is no way you could argue that it was simply "luck" that won the tournament with results like that. it was skill that determined the better fishermen that weekend.
however, the reality of muskie fishing means that most tournaments are not like that, and many are won based on very limited results. in this case, luck plays a larger factor. one big fish? two medium sized fish?
again for example, my partner and i placed 6th in a tournament earlier this year with a single fish. i think we made a good decision to fish where we did since no one else was there and we optimized the fish/boat ratio in our favor. 1" longer would have put us in 5th, 2" longer meant 4th, 4" longer meant 3rd. which team was "better"? none. with fish in the 36"-40" range, it was luck that one fish was bigger than the other.
however, the winning team that day caught both the biggest fish and doubled. hmmm...skill? they also made and placed in the trail's championship. definitely skill demonstrated over the long term.
long story short, i think the best results are those which emphasize ability to catch both numbers of fish and better sized fish over the longest possible period of time. a league (such as Rhinelander, Madison, or Matchfishing here on MuskieFirst) or the season-long "top gun" standings of the various tournament trails are the best measure of consistent skill over time.
for short-term events, i'd like to see tournaments that were expanded to run 3 full days of Friday-Sunday rather than the more common 1 or 1 1/2 days Saturday and Sunday morning.
failing that, i like the Muskies Inc style scoring (like we use in Matchfishing as well) which has a minimum size to start earning points, rather than total inches.
there are lots of people who never fish competitively, who give and give and give to the fishing community, and are GOOD PEOPLE. in fact, i believe many of them are better people, and probably often better fishermen than many tournament or competitive fishing winners.
but for those of use who are going to step in the ring during a tournament, i like scoring systems that emphasize production over time. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| HI,
Mike and Andrew that is very well stated. Catching fish is the icing on the cake.
Dave |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | The question seems to be if its better to catch more small Muskies or fewer large ones.
That seems like a personal preference thing and everyone will have a different opinion.
For me, a day with one 45 incher is better than five 30 somethings. And one 50 is better than a hundred 30 somethings. I forget the 30 somethings soon after they are caught (often before I get off the water), but the +40s I remember and the really big fish keep me awake at night. I still can't get an upper 50 inch fish that I almost had last year out of my mind. Just one more foot and it would have been in the net. 
For me, the small ones are fun and OK if thats all that is in a lake, but big fish are what I'm after. I certainly didn't buy the new boat, new rods, and all the new lures to catch three footers. I can catch those with my Northern Pike rod, 14 lb mono, and an inexpensive Bass sized spinner bait.
To each his own. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 31
Location: Hoges Store, VA | My opinion, that no one asked for, is that persistence catches fish.......luck determines the size....sure, everyone wants to catch "the big one".....sorta like Bill Gardener, you put in the time, eventually you'll catch a big one.....to me, that was the whole point of "Time on the Water", the last line that said "and once I caught a big one". |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1636
| Kazmuskie - 9/26/2006 4:57 PM
I really don't care. Joe should be the judge of Joe's ability. Who is anyone else to tell Joe how good a fisherman he is either way. I know I'd feel a whole lot better about myself if I caught a 50" vs. a couple 34". Catching any muskie is never an easy thing, but let's face it, 50" Muskies are much more difficult to catch, IMO. They take more dedication and skill. That doesn't mean that folks won't get lucky from time to time and land a 50" as their first fish. I recently met a guy who said he caught a 50" fish within his first 5 casts chasing muskies. I think that would qualify as luck, but, I wouldn't know for sure without seing him fish. I just don't think it really matters. Boy, did I use a lot of words to say nothing.
I agree. The biggest factor, in my opinion, is time spent on the water. I know plenty of GREAT fisherman that just can't spend as much time on the water as others so they do not get the amount of fish some get. I know they are great fisherman and so do they.
Not to mention some bodies of water just have more fish than others. Take webster for instance. A guy that fishes webster regularly opposed to a guy fishing a lake with a lot less fish... The guy fishing webster might catch more, but whos to say he is the better fisherman. But then again, whos to say he isnt just because there are more fish?
You still have to know what you are doing, but webster seems like the place for beginners and where people can get lucky. Not so much for size, but for a musky in general. Anyone can go out and cast musky lures and get lucky... That is pretty much what we all do. In my opinion the best fisherman are those who constantly ask themselves questions, pay attention to weather, pay attention to past experiences, plan ways to work an area, get the job done when it comes to getting the fish in the net, etc. But then again, an average JOE can catch a 50 inch muskie, but whos to say it was pure luck because it was his first muskie. He could be an accomplished bass or walleye fisherman... that knowledge and experience helps a ton and you can use it muskie fishing, I do.
Wow I too just typed a lot to say pretty much nothing.
Edited by Reelwise 9/27/2006 10:14 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 7117
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | And, to redirect my answer towards what LAMBEAU thinks I should.....
If you're in a tournament, and you win, you're the better fisherman for that tournament. In THAT tournament, if you win with two 34s, versus a 50, then you were a better fisherman. If you lay your money down for that tournament, knowing the rules for THAT tournamen, then Joe needs to fish it to win it, otherwise why are you fishing a tournament? Very few muskie fisherman would rather have two 34"ers, versus a 50"er. But very few tournament fisherman would rather have a 50"er and 2nd or 3rd place, than those two 34s and first place. You're fishing a TOURNAMENT to WIN THE TOURNAMENT, right?
Or am I still answering the wrong question? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | One other thing: One has to take into account how much time an individual fisherman has both for fishing and contributing to the sport. Many have lots of time on their hands. Perhaps they are single with no kids or their kids are grown or whatever, but they have a lot of time to get on the water and lots of time to contribute. Then there are those, who for various reasons, that have very limited time on the water and very limited time to contribute. They are often people married with small children or they have to drive a significant distance to the nearest Muskie lake or Muskies Inc chapter.
One can't really compare two fishermen when one has a lot of time and one has little. The one with more time should be able tio catch more and larger fish and contribute more while the one with very limited time will most likely catch far fewer fish and may have a hard time just getting to a few Muskies Inc meetings a year.
The amount of time people have for their hobbies will change for most during their lifetime. There will be periods of plenty and periods of little. That is life. Deal with it.
And furthermore, for some to get up on their high-horse and say all should be fishing x amount or contributing so much is neither helpful nor realistic. It only shows that some forget that others are in a different place in their life and just don't have the time right now.
Some day I'll have more time to fish and contribute, but until then I'm just going to do what I can. 
Good day all. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1636
| Herb_b - 9/27/2006 10:07 AM
Some day I'll have more time to fish and contribute, but until then I'm just going to do what I can.
And thats all you can do. In a perfect world we all could fish everyday. What a beautiful world that would be But then again, as much as we may say it, as much as we may want it to be, fishing isn't life...even if you are a guide.
Edited by Reelwise 9/27/2006 10:33 AM
|
|
| |
|
| BIG Fish hang out with BIG fish....Joe isn't a "better" fisherman if he catches two 34"ers vs. a 50"er...he happens to catch those fish because he is fishing in the zone where it seems the smaller fish are. As Worrall mentioned, it is surprising....big fish fisherman fish for BIG fish on big fish spots, where there are 50"ers!! Yes, small fish will inhabit BIG fish areas...but more often then not, if you're fishing for big fish, the big fish will come, in the big fish spots...on a regular basis.
KEY: Find out where the BIG fish spots are, on a regular basis...then fish for BIG Fish!
Did I just ramble on about nothing too??
Just my 2 cents worth!
Donnie
Edited by Donnie3737 9/27/2006 10:42 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | I seriously doubt Andrew is saying anything more than do what you can. I have a hard time picturing a person less high on a horse. Maybe riding along on little burrow spreading goodwill among the musky fishing masses.
That being said, I certainly do like his theory. As I stumble along toward becoming a musky fisherman, I could care less whether I'll ever be better or worse than anyone else. I'm going to keep doing it because it's fun and less stressful than golfing, a sport where I always tried to be better than most people. I also think the fish are pretty, and their sharp teeth are scary.
Like Blanche DuBois, I've always relied on the kindness of strangers.
Kevin
P.I. Pre-fishing Photographer |
|
| |
|
| P.I. Pre-fishing Photographer
please make sure to take lots of pictures of sunrise/sunsets, colorful leaves, other people and boats, the occasional pretty fish, and any burro-riding goodwill-spreaders we happen to encounter!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1636
| Donnie3737 - 9/27/2006 10:41 AM
BIG Fish hang out with BIG fish....Joe isn't a "better" fisherman if he catches two 34"ers vs. a 50"er...he happens to catch those fish because he is fishing in the zone where it seems the smaller fish are.
This makes sense and on certain bodies of water it is obvious where the bigger fish will be. However, big fish will also be found in the same areas as the smaller ones at certain times of the year. So if your a fisherman that doesn't get to get out much, what would you rather do...
a. target mainly big fish and (possibly) catch less
or
b. target smaller fish, catch more, and have a chance at a big fish?
Im a believer in with the more fish you catch the more you learn. I target muskies, not big or small and I'm not dissapointed in sizes I have caught this year averaging 40" in Illinois. And to be honest, I would not know as much as I do without fishing with other people and getting out in general experiencing things myself. I have yet to catch a 50 incher. Do I consider myself less of a fisherman because of it? No way. Do I consider someone who has caught a 50 incher a better fisherman who hasnt? Nope.
Edited by Reelwise 9/27/2006 10:58 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | Consider it done. I'm in it for the relaxation, beauty, companionship, and the occasional fish.
Kevin
The Plan does not include stress. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8865
| I'm at a weird place in my "evolution" when it comes to big fish vs numbers.
Sometimes I'd rather catch a few small fish instead of a big fish.
Sometimes I'd rather not bother with the small fish and would rather chase big fish even if it means I may not catch anything today.
Sometimes I just want to fish
Still other times I might want to throw a certain bait even if it's not the best choice at the moment, like I'd rather not catch a fish on lure X right now than catch a fish on lure Y... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 40
Location: NEW LENOX | Went out to day didn't catch any!!!!!! But I did see a rainbow at 6:30 in the morning, enjoyed a nice cigar in the afternoon. So I think I'm the better fisherman. Who cares I could be Working!!!
Remember turn your passion into your buisness and you'll never work a day in your life, but many a passion have been killed by work. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1185
Location: Wishin I Was Fishin' | Are talking about me?
Just kidding.
I think 1 - 50" is much more valuable then 2 or even 3 - 34" fish. That is why I perfer a contest format which gives 34 points for a 34" and 1 point for every 1/4" over 34. Should a tournament be won by a guy with 2 - 34" fish or 1 - 50" fish?
OK the question was better fisherman. I feel 50" are manny times more harder to catch the to double on 2 low 30" fish. That is why a 50" fish is the trophy mark for most. |
|
| |
|
| It is all the same, there are just more 34's than 50's...That is why people catch more 50's in lakes that have more 50's...One is not harder to catch than the other...just percentages.... |
|
| |
|
| there are just more 34's than 50's...One is not harder to catch than the other.
imho, the bigger the fish, the harder it is to catch.
even if we ignore the debate on whether or not big fish are harder to fool into biting, at a bare minimum smaller fish are much easier to land successfully after hookup.
after getting hit, i've lost my share of large fish, but it's very rare for me to lose a small fish. |
|
| |
