Taking things to the next level.

[Tennessee Boy]

12 minutes ago, Spankey said:

Time is the big issue. Time on the water is what makes them good. I don't believe its because they are that much smarter. A lot more repetition and scenarios are in their heads. 

I couldn't agree more!  I intentionally limit the techniques I use in my fishing because I don't have time to perfect more techniques.  I'm looking forward to expanding my techniques when I retire, knowing I'll be able to put in the time on the water that's required.  

[Catt]

Y'all over complicating it ?

 

I don't care if ya fish every day or once a week ya gotta understand your body of water, the food source, & how those two relate to each other morning, noon, & night with each passing season.

 

Y'all can spend all the time on the water you can but until you understand those 2 you're just fishing!

 

Spending time on the water at the wrong places doing the wrong things only teaches you how to cast.

[Big Rick]

The one thing I've not seen covered here is PRACTICE pitching, skipping, and casting. The biggest fish are LAZY and don't move a lot to eat. It would probably depress us all to know how many big fish watched our bait land a few inches off target and let it go by. Catching the bigger fish is a game of inches. Often times we only get one shot at that perfect cast. Get it right and something magical happens. Get it wrong, see a swirl and wonder how big that fish actually was. Or, miss the target and never know a lifetime bass is there...

 

The thing is, accuracy is a major factor with largemouth. They relate to structure their whole life. So, putting your bait in the exact spot it needs to be, as softly as you can, and work it to the best of your ability, really elevates your chances of hooking the big one of the day. 

 

Set up a target in your drive or yard and cast, pitch, and skip to it from different angles over and over and over until you feel like you got it. Then, put a broom or rake horizontally on a bucket or something to raise it off the ground in front of your target. Casting under the obstacle and yet still reaching the target will really make you a much better angler. 

 

Most times it's not the bait you are throwing that keeps you from catching the biggest fish. It's where the bait is landing that determines whether you catch a big one or not.

[Tennessee Boy]

11 minutes ago, Catt said:

Y'all can spend all the time on the water you can but until you understand those 2 you're just fishing!

 

Spending time on the water at the wrong places doing the wrong things only teaches you how to cast.

I'm certainly not suggesting that all it takes is time on the water and that knowledge plays no role in success.  Reading an article in Bassmaster on a technique you've never used and then using it on Saturday,  then doing the same thing with a different technique the next Saturday is not the key to success IMO.  At least it didn't work for me 30 years ago when I tried it. 

 

17 minutes ago, Catt said:

I don't care if ya fish every day or once a week ya gotta understand your body of water, the food source, & how those two relate to each other morning, noon, & night with each passing season.

I completely agree but how well do you think you can understand the body of water,  the food source, and how they relate without spending time on the water.  Do you think you can learn this from reading?  I'm eager to learn new things,  but to be honest I thought I knew a lot when I was young and the main thing I have learned since is how little I know.  If someone can tell me how to know where to fish and what to throw before I even hit the water I'm open to it.  What I've found in real life it there are plenty of people that will tell you where/how to fish but you got to get out there and figure it out for yourself.  You can learn a lot from reading books and from this forum but the best lessons are taught by the fish themselves.

 

17 minutes ago, Big Rick said:

The one thing I've not seen covered here is PRACTICE pitching, skipping, and casting. The biggest fish are LAZY and don't move a lot to eat. It would probably depress us all to know how many big fish watched our bait land a few inches off target and let it go by. Catching the bigger fish is a game of inches.

Amen,  what you are talking about is the basics.  That putting the lure where it needs to be along with developing that sense of knowing when you get that subtle bite is the blocking and tackling of fishing.  The industry will tell you can master these by buying the right equipment.  I think the key is time on the water (or backyard if necessary).

[geo g]

20 hours ago, rejesterd said:

Bigger bass are older bass, and older bass are smarter predators.  Over time, they become more and more nocturnal.  They mostly feed at night and chill out during the day.  So during the day, you have to trigger them more into biting.  There are exceptions, but that's the main idea.  You have to trigger them with fast flashy/wobbly/erratic moving baits, or with very slow-moving baits of a particular color that works for that waterway.  So part of it is trial and error in experimenting with color and somewhat with presentation.  

 

At the same time, recognize that bigger fish will still instinctively stage up on places that will allow food to come to them more easily during the day.  They're not in full hunting mode, but they'll still eat things if it's not too much effort for them.  That means they're mostly out where the current is, or under docks/pads hiding in the shadows. 

Big bass are not smarter then smaller ones.  Smaller ones are just way more prominent in all bodies of water by sheer numbers.  Big bass have a brain the size of a small pea.  They do not learn behaviors like a bear, wolf, or large cats, with a mother that has to teach them these behaviors.  No mother bass teaches them anything.  Their brain has no section capable of learning.  They react to stimuli they encounter in their environment, this is programed through millions of years of existence.  In the animal kingdom they are dumb compared to other living organisms, but they will respond to certain stimuli they encounter in their environment.  Skilled Fisherman key in on these programed behaviors, and raise their odds at catching.

[Catt]

22 minutes ago, Tennessee Boy said:

I completely agree but how well do you think you can understand the body of water,  the food source, and how they relate without spending time on the water.  Do you think you can learn this from reading?  I'm eager to learn new things,  but to be honest I thought I knew a lot when I was young and the main thing I have learned since is how little I know.  If someone can tell me how to know where to fish and what to throw before I even hit the water I'm open to it.  What I've found in real life it there are plenty of people that will tell you where/how to fish but you got to get out there and figure it out for yourself.  You can learn a lot from reading books and from this forum but the best lessons are taught by the fish themselves.

 

You can learn a body of water from topographical map study.

 

You can learn the food sources & their seasonal movements by reading information from your regional biologists.

 

With this basic information I now know where to spend my time on the water.

 

The more time you spend on the water in the correct locations the better understanding you'll have of the two.

 

Now it becomes a process of elimination and duplication.

 

Eliminate patterns and waters that are non-productive

 

Duplicate patterns and waters that are productive

 

It's that dang simple ?

[Alan Reed]

It seems there are two different thoughts on this subject I hope I am not over simplifying these to much:

 

1. It is an art, a mystical unexplainable difference in what makes any angler better than another at catching bigger fish consistently. 

 

2. It is scientific method that says study and understand the waters, how fish move seasonally, what they eat and then you will find catch the bigger fish.

 

Is that a fair assessment of what has been said?

 

 

[Tennessee Boy]

@Catt I think we agree but I'm going to argue with you just for the fun of it. ?

 

When I think about the difference between the best fishermen and myself,  I think about Jason Lambert's 100 lb FLW win on Kentucky Lake in May.  This was on my favorite lake so I payed close attention.

 

What did Jason know?  

He knew to fish ledges on Kentucky Lake....Duh

He caught his fish on the most obvious spots on the map.  These were major community holes.  Any serious bass fisherman who has a basic understanding of what structure is would want to fish these spots.  His knowledge of the lake was no better than mine or any serious angler.

 

I carefully watched all of the live coverage and the show he did the day after the tournament.  I was very impress with how well he could read his electronics.  I could tell that boat position was much more important to him than it typically is to me.  Other than those two things,  I don't know that he does anything different from what I do when fishing ledges on Kentucky Lake.  He caught large fish quickly on community holes using common lures that are very popular on the lake.  Maybe he has a secret that he's not telling but I'm not convinced that his superiority is in his knowledge of fishing, bass behavior,  or the lake.  One thing I am sure of, he is superior.

 

When we hit the water, I think most of us view it as a process of solving a puzzle, trying to figure out the right pattern to maximize our chances.  This is a mental challenge but it is made possible by our ability to catch fish.  Imagine a two man tournament between a fishery biologist who is recognized for his expertise on largemouth bass but has never been fishing a day in his life and a guy who can't read but has fished 200 days a year for most of his life.  Who would you pick to win?

 

 

9 minutes ago, Alan Reed said:

It seems there are two different thoughts on this subject I hope I am not over simplifying these to much:

 

1. It is an art, a mystical unexplainable difference in what makes any angler better than another at catching bigger fish consistently. 

 

2. It is scientific method that says study and understand the waters, how fish move seasonally, what they eat and then you will find catch the bigger fish.

 

Is that a fair assessment of what has been said?

 

 

Yes,  I think you're assessment is accurate.  I don't think anyone would argue that it's purely one or the other.  

 

THANKS FOR STARTING A VERY INTERESTING THREAD!

[Catt]

12 minutes ago, Tennessee Boy said:

What did Jason know?  

 

13 minutes ago, Tennessee Boy said:

.  I could tell that boat position was much more important to him than it typically is to me.

 

He knew what the structure was but more importantly he knew how to fish it effectively!

 

17 minutes ago, Tennessee Boy said:

 Imagine a two man tournament between a fishery biologist who is recognized for his expertise on largemouth bass but has never been fishing a day in his life and a guy who can't read but has fished 200 days a year for most of his life.  Who would you pick to win?

 

Well duh! ?

[Tennessee Boy]

38 minutes ago, Catt said:

He knew what the structure was but more importantly he knew how to fish it effectively!

I'm glad we agree ?.  @Catt I think your earlier K.I.S.S. comment was about as spot on as you can get.  Great discussion.  Thanks.

[Team9nine]

56 minutes ago, Alan Reed said:

It seems there are two different thoughts on this subject I hope I am not over simplifying these to much:

 

1. It is an art, a mystical unexplainable difference in what makes any angler better than another at catching bigger fish consistently. 

 

2. It is scientific method that says study and understand the waters, how fish move seasonally, what they eat and then you will find catch the bigger fish.

 

Is that a fair assessment of what has been said?

 

 

Other than a liitle verbiage liberty on the first point  I'd say that covers it. Keeping in mind your original post/question specifically referenced the question from a tournament angler perspective. To that end, I agree with point 2 being the better answer up to the point of tournament competition. At that point, arguably everyone entered pretty much has all the biology/structure stuff covered well enough to say the playing field is pretty level. Yet certain anglers still tend to come out on or near the top more frequently.

 

At that point, point 1 becomes the bigger determiner in my mind. Not that it is anything mystical, but it is very hard to quantify and explain, and is not very likely repeatable.

 

That is the difference between science and art. Science is based on repeatability, art is not. You can buy the exact same equipment the best guys use, the same baits, boats, rods, reels and line. You can read every article they've ever written, or watch every video they've ever made. But you can never duplicate their experience, their history, the way their brain works. It's what makes every one of us unique. No matter how well they try and explain what makes them so good, it becomes a meaningless answer, because the real reason can't ever be duplicated by you or I. All we can do is create our own version of a great angler. Roland did it by creating "pattern fishing." Clunn by "seasonal patterns." Brauer by flipping/pitching. Vandam by pure "power fishing." And on and on. All very great, but all very different.

 

There is no "secret sauce" ingredient to being a great tournament angler. For everyone else who wants to be a better angler, there is point 2 ?

[TOXIC]

Science + Art + Natural Talent = Winning formula.  

[Tennessee Boy]

17 minutes ago, Team9nine said:

All we can do is create our own version of a great angler. Roland did it by creating "pattern fishing." Clunn by "seasonal patterns." Brauer by flipping/pitching. Vandam by pure "power fishing." And on and on. All very great, but all very different.

Your last post was very well stated.  I find it interesting your comments above and the anglers you choose.  Would it be fair to say the Roland and Clunn relied more on point 2 skills and Brauer and Vandam more on point 1?

[rejesterd]

2 hours ago, geo g said:

Big bass are not smarter then smaller ones.  Smaller ones are just way more prominent in all bodies of water by sheer numbers.  Big bass have a brain the size of a small pea.  They do not learn behaviors like a bear, wolf, or large cats, with a mother that has to teach them these behaviors.  No mother bass teaches them anything.  Their brain has no section capable of learning.  They react to stimuli they encounter in their environment, this is programed through millions of years of existence.  In the animal kingdom they are dumb compared to other living organisms, but they will respond to certain stimuli they encounter in their environment.  Skilled Fisherman key in on these programed behaviors, and raise their odds at catching.

They are definitely smarter, and it's been proven in a lab that they can learn.  Look up Keith Jones, director of research at the Berkley Fish Research Center. They react less and less to the same artificial baits over time, because they remember that it isn't real food.  The difference is, fish in the wild don't get fed at regular intervals like they do in a lab, so their instinct to bite and find food often overrides their learned behavior.  But older fish definitely become more and more nocturnal over time because it's simply easier to sneak up on prey in the dark.  That's why most people will catch more big fish from dusk until dawn, and it's why tournament fishing is harder and requires more skill in getting those same big fish (with full bellies during the day) to keep biting.

[greentrout]

3 minutes ago, rejesterd said:

They are definitely smarter, and it's been proven in a lab that they can learn.  Look up Keith Jones, director of research at the Berkley Fish Research Center. They react less and less to the same artificial baits over time, because they remember that it isn't real food.  The difference is, fish in the wild don't get fed at regular intervals like they do in a lab, so their instinct to bite and find food often overrides their learned behavior.  But older fish definitely become more and more nocturnal over time because it's simply easier to sneak up on prey in the dark.  That's why most people will catch more big fish from dusk until dawn, and it's why tournament fishing is harder and requires more skill in getting those same big fish (with full bellies during the day) to keep biting.

Some never will never strike an artificial lure...never...and there is such a thing as superior genes for the bass...

 

good fishing...

[geo g]

1 hour ago, rejesterd said:

They are definitely smarter, and it's been proven in a lab that they can learn.  Look up Keith Jones, director of research at the Berkley Fish Research Center. They react less and less to the same artificial baits over time, because they remember that it isn't real food.  The difference is, fish in the wild don't get fed at regular intervals like they do in a lab, so their instinct to bite and find food often overrides their learned behavior.  But older fish definitely become more and more nocturnal over time because it's simply easier to sneak up on prey in the dark.  That's why most people will catch more big fish from dusk until dawn, and it's why tournament fishing is harder and requires more skill in getting those same big fish (with full bellies during the day) to keep biting.

Remember this guys job is to do what he can to help promote company products.  A bass is not going to remember what happened an hour ago, a day ago, or a week ago.  A bass in the wild on normal size body of water may see a bait once a week, if that.  Brain capacity just is not there to remember much, and not for long.  All instincts., and programed behaviors.  That's my opinion, your welcome to yours.

[Team9nine]

1 hour ago, Tennessee Boy said:

Your last post was very well stated.  I find it interesting your comments above and the anglers you choose.  Would it be fair to say the Roland and Clunn relied more on point 2 skills and Brauer and Vandam more on point 1?

An interesting question, and one I think I would agree with you on. You could certainly make a strong argument that both figured out a part of the biology/behavior pattern before anyone else. A couple others that come to mind in this regard are Shin Fukae (FLW) and Buck Perry (non tournament). 

 

On the other hand, I think the "technique experts" excelled more on nuance and skill/experience than on biology, guys like Ricky Green and Jimmy Houston (sp'baits), Larry Nixon (worm), Zell (Pop-R), Denny, Hank, Biffle and Thomas/Gliebe (flipping). Then there are guys like A-Mart that might be equal parts of both. In reality, all the greats probably have a mix of both, the interesting question might be to what degree/ratio.

[Catt]

3 hours ago, rejesterd said:

They are definitely smarter, and it's been proven in a lab that they can learn.  Look up Keith Jones, director of research at the Berkley Fish Research Center. They react less and less to the same artificial baits over time, because they remember that it isn't real food.  The difference is, fish in the wild don't get fed at regular intervals like they do in a lab, so their instinct to bite and find food often overrides their learned behavior.  But older fish definitely become more and more nocturnal over time because it's simply easier to sneak up on prey in the dark.  That's why most people will catch more big fish from dusk until dawn, and it's why tournament fishing is harder and requires more skill in getting those same big fish (with full bellies during the day) to keep biting.

 

Absolutely false!

 

You have to consider all of Mr Jones research is done in a aquarium!

 

If bass remembered lures would it not stand to reason they would never hit a lure again but yet they do and that is proven every time one is caught on a lure!

 

More big bass are caught in daylight as darkness and that to is well documented!

[A-Jay]

5 hours ago, rejesterd said:

They are definitely smarter, and it's been proven in a lab that they can learn.  Look up Keith Jones, director of research at the Berkley Fish Research Center. They react less and less to the same artificial baits over time, because they remember that it isn't real food.  The difference is, fish in the wild don't get fed at regular intervals like they do in a lab, so their instinct to bite and find food often overrides their learned behavior.  But older fish definitely become more and more nocturnal over time because it's simply easier to sneak up on prey in the dark.  That's why most people will catch more big fish from dusk until dawn, and it's why tournament fishing is harder and requires more skill in getting those same big fish (with full bellies during the day) to keep biting.

 

5 hours ago, greentrout said:

Some never will never strike an artificial lure...never...and there is such a thing as superior genes for the bass...

 

good fishing...

 

1 hour ago, Catt said:

 

Absolutely false!

 

You have to consider all of Mr Jones research is done in a aquarium!

 

If bass remembered lures would it not stand to reason they would never hit a lure again but yet they do and that is proven every time one is caught on a lure!

 

More big bass are caught in daylight as darkness and that to is well documented!

I see I'm not alone on this one @Catt.

 I am also of the opinion that the largest fish are very effective feeders.

Which does not mean lazy; Very Opportunistic perhaps but not lazy.   

Can't imagine any prey simply swimming into a big basses mouth at any point. 

 IMO the #1 reason we as anglers struggle to catch the largest fish is we are not fishing where they are.

When we do - we catch them. 

I say this all the time because I believe it to be true - put an average angler on water that holds above average fish, and Big things happen.

A-Jay

 

 

 

[DINK WHISPERER]

7 hours ago, Catt said:

 

You can learn a body of water from topographical map study.

 

You can learn the food sources & their seasonal movements by reading information from your regional biologists.

 

With this basic information I now know where to spend my time on the water.

 

The more time you spend on the water in the correct locations the better understanding you'll have of the two.

 

Now it becomes a process of elimination and duplication.

 

Eliminate patterns and waters that are non-productive

 

Duplicate patterns and waters that are productive

 

It's that dang simple ?

If it was that dang simple everybody would be catching em?

[Alan Reed]

24 minutes ago, DINK WHISPERER said:

If it was that dang simple everybody would be catching em?

How is it harder?

[greentrout]

How Smart Are Bass?

By Ralph Manns

 

https://www.bassresource.com/fish_biology/smart_bass.html

[Team9nine]

Here's another professional opinion on the subject from a recent BASS Times...all good stuff!

 

[geo g]

1 hour ago, greentrout said:

How Smart Are Bass?

By Ralph Manns

 

https://www.bassresource.com/fish_biology/smart_bass.html

 

 

Great article and it shows both sides of the issue.  I'm right on with Bob Lusk, bass are not smart, memory does not last long, and they are instinctive, and programed to a number of conditions  If you drop a bait close to their strike zone, you stand a good chance at a reaction either from hunger, or anger.  Location, location, location that day, that hour, that minute are key.  There not much learning going on in a bass mind.  Instinct and programed reactions are the key factors, passed on through the genes.  Thank you for this post.

[Catt]

Please refer to "Dotty" out in California, she was caught multiple times & I'm pretty sure everytime was on a jig!

 

The Texas ShareLunker Program was established in 1986, since then 576 bass of 13 lbs or more have been enter into the program.

 

Observational data shows every bass was caught more than once. Now they can not say on what they were caught other than the one when it was entered. Research showed some "wounds" were within a couple months old.