The Things I Think About

Trips: 59  Hours: 152.0   Bass: 716  No. > 5#: 1

I made a post a while back (see "Of Fishing and Computers") that touched a little on the balance between fishing, science and philosophy. It's been one of my favorite things to study when it comes to tournament anglers and performance. This subject recently came to mind again while watching daily results from the Elite Series tourney on L. Champlain. Rick Clunn had made a big move up the standings to 5th with a second huge sack of smallies. At the time he commented that "What I'm doing is so unique for smallmouth that I don't want to let the world know about it yet." Well, you can guess what happened...He had a bad Day 3 and fell out of the Top-12 final cut (Doh!).

Bass fan recently posted this article ("Thoughts On Cranking Smallies") that detailed what that unique pattern was and what happened on Day 3. If you scroll down to 'Tweaking the System', you'll find this line that really stuck out to me: "If you change line, then you let it influence your technique, and you affect your whole style. A system of things makes you successful, and changing any one thing affects that system."

That comment to me was a perfectly science-based comment. It's the basic Scientific Methodology in action, having only a single random variable to test so that you can attribute the resulting outcome to the specific change. But Rick is also supposed to be the Zen Master when it comes to fishing, taking his fishing to a level one step beyond the simple action/reaction level. This article (Bassmaster Q&A with 4-time champion Rick Clunn) touches on some of that. But even here he later comments "My pleasure is so contained to the science of fishing." So that struggle between the physical and the non-physical.

In this same context you have Shinichi Fukae, who has turned into one heck of a stick on the FLW Tour. Multiple wins, an AOY award and runner-up again this year with over $600,000 in winnings already. Comes out of the blue from Japan, can't speak English, had never been on our waters and basically kicked butt. How does he do it? Based on this article, it would again appear to be a purely scientific appoach that drives the results (Shin's Win).

So these are the things I think about often, and that truly fascinate me about our sport of bass fishing. 

Comments

[Paul Roberts]

Brian,

I don't see the connections with science here, or at least they are very weak.

Clunn has said it himself that he's no scientist. I'd say he's more into pseudo-science.

Shin works very hard, but I wouldn't call it science or scarcely "scientific". Maybe it's "more scientific than others", simply by the fact that he takes detailed notes.

In fishing we simply run roughshod over an enormous number of variables -the vast majority unproven in any truly scientific way. From the gun we are immediately immersed in the dark forest.

Science uses a tiny flashlight to isolate and scrutinize one variable at a time, against a control. No one could win a tournament doing that.

This also explains why anglers may out-sample the biologists in terms of mature fish. Running roughshod over all those contingencies may not be science but it can result in good catches of mature fish. It also requires, and hones, the intellectual capacity of the angler. But it is not necessarily science.

[Big Indiana Bass]

We may have to agree on the "more scientific than others" with this one and leave it at that (LOL). I see science as a much bigger fish.

The discipline of science rests on observation, theory, measurement and experimentation. Experimentation is hardcore science, controlled variables in lab settings, etc. but it is only one part of science. Take the science of meteorology as an example. A whole lot of observation, theory and measurement with much less experimentation. Its documenting lots of existing conditions, plugging those into models, 4 of which say it will rain and 2 of those say it won't, so the forecast is mostly cloudy with a 60% chance of precipitation. A bit simplified of course but not much different than what Shinichi Fukae is doing. Two to three weeks on the water documenting every bass he catches, water, weather, current, lure, etc. day after day and then taking that data and based on expected weather and water conditions (and others I'm sure) using that data to select locations, baits, presentations, etc. largely regardless of personal preferences.

He is the exception though as I would agree most people (if not all others) are doing the roughshod approach. Example, Denny Brauer or Tommy Biffle just looking for conditions and cover that suits a flipping bite obviously doesn't qualify here. Neither does running down a bank throwing a topwater or spinnerbait, etc.

And speaking of the dark forest, what about Jane Goodall? Frequently ranked as one of the top women in science, all she did was literally go into the jungle and document gorilla behavior for 40 years. Very little experimentation there, just lots of observation.

I would agree Clunn is more pseudo-science with his recent approaches, but when he mentioned changing a single variable in your setup (in this case the line) and how that will most likely affect your end result, that is pretty classic science stuff in my mind. I agree he's not a scientist, but I was more trying to point out the apparent ongoing struggle I see from reading the articles that seem to put the more logical approach (roughly science based) at odds with the pseudo-science (holistic) approach. Just an interesting "internal debate" that seems to come out in print that he must struggle with on occasion.

[Paul Roberts]

Yes, Rick's predicament is interesting. Reminds me of my Dad. He's a retired illustrator and is still trying to "find himself" as an artist. He and his artist buddies wax philosophical a lot. One of these guys is a very technically artist that was a National Geo magazine illustrator -phenomenally detailed work.
These artists all appear to be burned out from years of "digging trenches". My Dad would say, "illustration is a hard business. You have to create everyday all the time whether you feel you have it in you or not on that day or hour. Now, I just want to paint."

It always seemed to me that art (things creative) require a whole lot of work, even though we would rather "just have it come".

I just don't think it works that way most of the time. If that is what you are after, you will be chasing ghosts much of the time. I think Shin has the right tact. He may burn out with it, but he'll make money.

From reading about Clunn's Champlain tournament it seems there was another new variable thrown in that I think was most important: Big smallmouths.