Were you paying attention?

[Blue Streak]

Tin

Hackney did randomly cove a lot of water; he covered multiple locations with the same ingredientsa pattern. You can be assured that once he figure out hard bottom was key he wasted no time on soft bottoms.

Nixon did not duplicate locations so therefore regardless of lures selection, that alone was useless.

D4u2s0t

1. if lure selection doesn't matter, once he found the sweet spot why did he keep changing lures.

Because there was not clear cut lure preference; some times you just gotta mix it all up.

2. once you find a good area, should you not take depth into consideration? a buzzbait will work just as well as crawling something off the bottom regardless of depth? sounds to me like he was trying to cover all depths. i know that bass will come some distance to take the bait, but suppose the fish are at 15 feet, wouldn't it make more sense to choose a bait that gets down to 15 feet?

When selecting lures always cover top, middle, & bottom of the water column and try to establish a lure preference.

3. why in some sweet spots will certain baits work and others won't, if lure selection is not important? i can throw certain baits all day in some areas that produce nothing. change it up, and start catching fish.

No one is saying lure selection is unimportant but you can't catch what aint there

Catt how do you know all of this?

[EastMarkME]

All ball bustin aside...great thread. 'Something' has to be first consideration. It is clearer to me now that the first priority is location...everything else comes after.

Seems everyone agrees on that part.

Mark

[Blue Streak]

Yelp there no need to learn structure; ya just gotta buy the right lures

Or you could just fish structure with the right lures where there are not any bass.

[Needemp]

If it were not smallmouth I would agree with Catt. But smallies are a whole different story.

Well Tin, I do disagree with this statement you just made. I went back and re-read your original post (in which I agreed with) and I do not see how your statement applies to smallies and not largies! Largies, although not usually as aggressive as smallies, are aggressive. Maybe I missed something you said, but you through me for a loop!

[Catt]

All of my better fish today came off a hard break. This place had everything current, mixing water and structure. And to sweeten the pot there were mayflies in the overhanging trees. This all looked good but it seemed wherever there was a hard bottom is where the better fish were. Where there was mud, there were short fish.

So it was all lures and the above statement was nothing but interesting information?

Got it, select your lures and then go find a location to match

[Paul Roberts]

If it were not smallmouth I would agree with Catt. But smallies are a whole different story.

Tin, could you elaborate? I'm not disagreeing -possibly the opposite. I'm intrigued. What have you seen?

This might just need to be another thread. Not disagreeing with Catt's premise here either. Just that there are differences between the two species.

[Daniel My Brother]

Obviously, if you aren't on fish....your bait doesn't matter. However, if you are on fish...your bait can have a sizable impact on how well you cultivate from your spot. See the Ultimate Match Fishing match between Boyd Duckett and Kelly Jordan. Prime example. They were out on a hump/dropoff, and Kelly was throwing his fluttter spoon, and boyd was throwing a different spoon. Kelly owned him. It wasn't even close. I don't think you can say the bait doesn't matter; I think the majority of professional anglers would disagree with that. I do agree that your spot takes precedence over your bait, but bait selection isn't far behind.

I guess I remember this episode differently. I thought Jordan positioned the boat so that Duckett couldn't get a cast at the hump/dropoff...which would support what Catt's saying.

But it's been a couple of years since I saw this episode...

[Needemp]

Yelp there no need to learn structure; ya just gotta buy the right lures

So it was all lures and the above statement was nothing but interesting information?

Got it, select your lures and then go find a location to match

"Only by pride cometh contentionProverbs 13:10"

[D4u2s0t]

All of my better fish today came off a hard break. This place had everything current, mixing water and structure. And to sweeten the pot there were mayflies in the overhanging trees. This all looked good but it seemed wherever there was a hard bottom is where the better fish were. Where there was mud, there were short fish.

So it was all lures and the above statement was nothing but interesting information?

Got it, select your lures and then go find a location to match

I don't think that anyone is saying that lure selection is MORE important than structure.  Obviously, if you're not on fish, you can't catch fish.  But if you're in an area that's holding fish, and you know it, NOW lure selection becomes very important.  If lure selection was not important we would not go out with tackle equal to our weights.  (granted the bait monkey is no help there).  But if you've ever fished an area for a while and not caught anything, switched baits and then started catching, that goes to show that lure selection, though secondary to finding fish, is still very important.  If you're throwing topwater plugs, and the fish are at 15 feet, don't expect too many hits.  Just like if the fish are at 2 feet, and you're crawling the bottom at 20 feet, same idea.  Yea, you may get the aggressive fish that comes out for it, but getting the right bait in front of the fish is important.

[Catt]

Is this not exactly what I said?

Ok all you students of structure fishing

Notice it wasn't about the lures; everything worked proving it was location

No Catt the key was in the lures Greg was matching the hatch

No dude the key was All of my better fish today came off a hard break (a break line)

You take away the structure you have nothing

1st Structure

2nd Break Lines

3rd Cover

4th Lure Selection

5th Catch Bass

[D4u2s0t]

Is this not exactly what I said?

Ok all you students of structure fishing

Notice it wasn't about the lures; everything worked proving it was location

No Catt the key was in the lures Greg was matching the hatch

No dude the key was All of my better fish today came off a hard break (a break line)

You take away the structure you have nothing

but the part you're leaving out, and a part that is important, was that it WAS about lures.  If it wasn't, one bait would have been tied on, and there wouldn't have been any need to switch them.  First, is to find the fish.  2nd is to choose an appropriate bait.  Saying that any bait will work just as well once you find the fish is kinda silly.

[Catt]

The use of multiple lures was because the only thing consistent was changing lures; some undoubtedly worked better on one location over another.

The consistent was current, mixing water and hard bottom structure.

[D4u2s0t]

The use of multiple lures was because the only thing consistent was changing lures; some undoubtedly worked better on one location over another.

The consistent was current, mixing water and hard bottom structure.

so if some work better than others in a given location, how is lure selection not important?  i've seen you go so far as to give advice to people about what baits to use, and even recomended certain colors.  if it's not important, why not just say "use whatever you have tied on, it will work just as good as anything else".

[Matt Fly]

Why yes, I was paying close attention.

Enough to know that Greg said any over hanging limbs close to the water with rock meant mayfly hatches.    Those with soft bottoms meant lots of small fish.       Better fish was found in association with hard bottoms.    

The key to winning tournament was location of "SWEET SPOTS".

Greg used 20 rods.    Greg said bass would be hitting the buzz bait for 5 minutes and they wanted that no more.    

Ike was making 3 cast paralleling the banks and switch baits.    Greg was doing the same.    I remember early twitters day one, Ike covered a 100 yards in 5 minutes, with 10 baits.

  Greg put all his eggs in the basket at the classic, went against the grain and went largemouth hunting.    Not this time.

Greg noted, prefishing, that the he saw 2 inch ghost minnows, blue gills, warmouth perch, and crawfish in the areas of mayfly hatches.

   Greg said he didn't know if the smallmouth were rising up to eat the larve or the baitfish was eating the larve.

   The different baits he used, covered the many species feeding in those areas.

That same pattern could be duplicated in thousands of areas to catch small fish, keying in on the "sweet spots", hard bottoms was key to catching keepers.

Gregs choice of baits just mimiced what he saw in practice as to which was feeding on larve.

Knowing the baits wasn't the key to winning the CUP, knowing where to use those baits was.

[Blue Streak]

To be successful you have to get them both right. One is as important as the other. You can waste a lot of time in the wrong place or using the wrong bait. When you get them both right, life is sweet.

[cart7t]

...

Notice it wasn't about the lures; everything worked proving it was location

...

You can't start refining your lure presentation until you've located the fish.  Whether they are on structure or not, finding the fish is the key.  Buck Perry did it by dragging spoon plugs around following breaklines at different depths till he caught one.  After he caught one he stopped and fished the area more thoroughly with different lures until he found the bait that worked best.  If nothing else bit, he moved on.  Of course, had Perry been on a lake that had little bottom structure but lots of cover in shallow water and the fish were located in that shallow cover, he'd probably not have much luck dragging a spoon plug around.  

I'd be far more interested in the thinking processes Hackney used to come upon those areas vs his lure selection and presentation afterwards.  

[Matt Fly]

Greg said he found the areas in practice on sight.   Remember, the rivers were clear during practice, thats when he observed the several different species of bait in the water.

Greg also mentioned throwing a swimbait in the clear water and having success in those areas during practice.

 

   

[cart7t]

Greg said he found the areas in practice on sight. Remember, the rivers were clear during practice, thats when he observed the several different species of bait in the water.

Greg also mentioned throwing a swimbait in the clear water and having success in those areas during practice.

Technically, if you use the definition of structure as given by this site.

Changes in the shape of the bottom of lakes, rivers, or impoundments, especially those that influence fish behavior. This is probably the most misunderstood word in bass fishing. Structure is a feature on the bottom of the lake. Some examples of structure are creeks, humps, depressions, sandbars, roadbeds, ledges, and drop-offs. Some examples that are not structure: a stump, tree, or brush pile (these are cover).

Hackney technically wasn't fishing a different structure than anyone else but rather a change in bottom composition that was causing the better fish to locate to that position to take advantage of the smaller bait fish that were feeding on a mayfly hatch.  It's possible that the hard bottom related to more trees along shore that the mayflys were hatching from but I don't think that I'd call this a tournament win due to structure fishing.  Obviously, location was the key but that's true regardless of any lake, stream or river you fish in.  

In virtually any tournament, the winner almost always comes across a place or places (location) where there are more fish and more larger fish than other places.  

[Catt]

Structure: hard bottom present; did not mention what type of structure other than shore line.

Current: areas between moving current and slower current is a break line

Mixing water: another break line

Cover: over hanging trees which means a shoreline another break; the shadows caused by the over hanging trees form another break line.

Structure fishing 101

[TommyBass]

Is this not exactly what I said?

Ok all you students of structure fishing

Notice it wasn't about the lures; everything worked proving it was location

No Catt the key was in the lures Greg was matching the hatch

No dude the key was All of my better fish today came off a hard break (a break line)

You take away the structure you have nothing

1st Structure

2nd Break Lines

3rd Cover

4th Lure Selection

5th Catch Bass

True that..... Have you guys not ever pulled up to a good spot of fish (whether it be structure, break line, or cover), and caught them on basically anything you threw?  Changing and catching bass on different lures dosn't prove anything other than the bass may have got accustomed to him throwing another one. Ive fished brush piles on drops before, caught a few keeprs on a jig and the bite stop.  Throw right back with something else and immediately get bit... I don't think so much that what I threw mattered, its how I threw it and from what angle. Its not necessarily the lure if you hit it right.  The wrong lure with the right presentation is much better than the right lure with the wrong presentation.  Im not going to say that I have never seen a day where a lure or color seem to matter, but its far lower on the list of my priorities than finding the good fish to begin with.    

[cart7t]

Structure: hard bottom present; did not mention what type of structure other than shore line.

Current: areas between moving current and slower current is a break line

Mixing water: another break line

Cover: over hanging trees which means a shoreline another break; the shadows caused by the over hanging trees form another break line.

Structure fishing 101

:

Looks more like an observant fishermen who saw what he needed to see to key on the fish.  He further narrowed the better areas by trial and error

[Catt]

[Paul Roberts]

Is this not exactly what I said?

Ok all you students of structure fishing

Notice it wasn't about the lures; everything worked proving it was location

No Catt the key was in the lures Greg was matching the hatch

No dude the key was All of my better fish today came off a hard break (a break line)

You take away the structure you have nothing

1st Structure

2nd Break Lines

3rd Cover

4th Lure Selection

5th Catch Bass

True that..... Have you guys not ever pulled up to a good spot of fish (whether it be structure, break line, or cover), and caught them on basically anything you threw? Changing and catching bass on different lures dosn't prove anything other than the bass may have got accustomed to him throwing another one. Ive fished brush piles on drops before, caught a few keeprs on a jig and the bite stop. Throw right back with something else and immediately get bit... I don't think so much that what I threw mattered, its how I threw it and from what angle. Its not necessarily the lure if you hit it right. The wrong lure with the right presentation is much better than the right lure with the wrong presentation. Im not going to say that I have never seen a day where a lure or color seem to matter, but its far lower on the list of my priorities than finding the good fish to begin with.

I think TommyBass has done a bit of fishing.

If Greg was casting those same lures randomly, would he have done as well?

As a long-time fly-fisher my other thought was the kind of mayflies emerging. Mud produces MUCH less food in rivers (and often lakes) than cobble. the more surface area the substrate offers the better. There are burrowing mays, and one species will burrow in silt, others in gravel. But the vast majority of mayflies live on larger substrate though -cobbles and boulders. The hard bottomed areas, whatever they were, likely were the source of the activity along those stretches.

Put those two together: food production concentrating activity and angle of presentation and you've probably got a big chunk of that scenario.

[Mottfia]

Looks to me like the biggest factor is the forage.

The forage seems to dictate location and lures.

Mottfia

[Paul Roberts]

Looks to me like the biggest factor is the forage.

The forage seems to dictate location and lures.

Mottfia

Bluegills, for instance, can be found in dense vegetation, broken veg, wood, open water, shallow or deep. You would choose a diff lure or presentation for each. Water clarity and sky conditions would affect this too.

I think location specifics and conditions dictate method and lure choices first. Then there's finding the proper approach angles. This, with method/lure choice I call "gettin' in". Trying to match forage is really difficult, esp with large prey in stillwater -I'd call that part of fine-tuning.

Just the way I look at it.