Team9nine

Finally got back out again after nearly 2 weeks of down time. Sadly, two lakes nearby are currently closed, limiting my options. Bluebird day, but a high of 80 and light and variable winds. Only bites I could buy were on A-rig today. Cloudy and nearly 20 degrees cooler tomorrow if I get one more chance to go this week.

I could probably come up with some calculation, but this might give you a starting point…really just have to test.

I agree it’s all interesting, but most of the top guys the first couple days blew up the FFS score that first period so they could spend time looking, searching and trying to establish a non FFS pattern. In many cases when they hit a fish or two in an area, they’d leave them and go looking again. Many didn’t seem to care whether they caught much knowing they could rely on that first FFS period the next day. There was also the big reset on Day 3. So in my eyes, the fact that FFS accounted for 80% of all the catches those first two days is a very misleading stat. It shows how much some of these guys are relying on it as part of an overall strategy, but the lack of non-FFS catches in comparison isn’t really representative of its true impact. The final Top 5 finishing guys were not the best 5 scopers by weight, but instead were the best 5 non-FFS weight accumulators.

The Day 1-3 averages skew the data and aren’t a fair representation, IMO, due to unintended consequences and strategy. The early days were 4:1 or 5:1 in favor of FFS - very disproportionate. Courtesy of their “A.I.” guy? 😉 😁 Always an interesting read…

It’s early, but just ran the stats adjusted for most variables, and the answer after the first event is just over 2.5X better. In other words, for every 10 pounds caught without FFS, the Top 10 guys caught 25-1/2 pounds with it in the same amount of time (per period). Interestingly, the average bass weight between FFS caught fish and non FFS caught fish was nearly identical (less than 1/10 of a pound). That one surprised me.

It probably varies from water to water as to which of those factors listed plays the more important role in big fish decline, and in many cases, it is likely some combination of all of them, but he ain't wrong, generally speaking. It is definitely a factor.

Haven’t found a picture of one (SmartWire) packaged. They later made a Ti-1 titanium spinnerbait, but that was well into the 2000s, so probably not the one you’re looking for.

Blue Fox made a nickel titanium alloy spinnerbait called SmartWire introduced in 1999/2000. It featured "a rugged design, super-elastic frame, silicone skirts and a design that makes it easy to change blades and beads." The Black Flash spinnerbaits shown match your package description, but came out a few years earlier in 1993. I don’t believe they were titanium, but they could have carried the packaging over.

Yeah, but looks like all the big NC bass died off along with the shad due to the Arctic blast 😆 Same thing here in SC, based on my one bite yesterday…🤗 Things should start popping next week with a good push of above normal temps forecasted - at least I’m hoping that’s the case.

Keith Poche

Ned rig and small blade baits cover 90% of my winter pond bass fishing. Add in a small suspending jerkbait and a little hair jig and you've probably covered darn near 100%. If you can find even a small patch of open water, there are bass to be had. Wide open water opens up all kind of options.

Just browsed through the 1979 Top 50 AOY Bassmaster list as well as the Top 25 All-time money winners to that point. TX, AR and MO anglers took nearly 50% (22 of 50) of the spots. GA, KY, TN and OK took another 24%. AL had just 2 anglers in the Top 50. NC was top state in All-time winnings. East TN has had a lot of pro anglers move there, especially around the Chick. It’s probably #2 behind AL. The other states, not sure why. TX and FL have routinely been top destination states for people like retirees and remote workers, but neither seems to draw the bass anglers in much. I think they’re still too far isolated (on the perimeter) when looking at overall tour scheduling, especially now that the ‘northern swing’ seems to be a permanent thing. The west will never see the major tours roll that way again to any degree, IMO. I’m also thinking a lot of the big Ozark impoundments that used to play heavily on tour have also fallen out of favor to some degree. Just guessing, though…

Guess my only qualm might be semantics - not “produces,” but which state do most professional anglers ‘move to’. AL has lots of transports from other areas of the country because of their centralized location relative to most tour stop locations, and great year round fisheries. I’ll have to see if I can find some of the old stats from the tour before ‘moving to fish professionally’ became a thing. I was thinking that TX, OK, MO, AR, FL, AL, and TN were always strong - probably GA and NC, too.

Lowe 1652MT Marine grade plywood decking with aluminum L-bracket framing and SS screws/bolts. Outdoor carpeting. Carpeted floors and bow with storage access. 24V TM at bow plus depthfinder. Dual battery charger. 9.9 tiller engine. Dual graphs at helm. Slotted tackle storage with 12V plug serves as deck extension. Control panel for lights, bilge, livewell w/recirc.

Back in the old days, when we first got into Carolina rigging, either pumpkin/chartreuse tail or straight pumpkin with the tail dipped manually was about all anyone threw. Probably the most popular color might have been black with yellow dots - I believe it was a Mister Twister color pattern. To this day, the only color lizard I still carry with me and throw is Moccasin Blue…it’s been that good to me.

Bigger is always better, but... Running a 93sv now, upped from my 73sv. If you go 9, make sure to get a newer UHD2 unit, not one of the older UHD units - but the 10" screen is nice

In the bass fishing world, they’re most frequently referred to as ‘mentors’ - guys who took an up-and-comer ‘under their wing’ and showed/taught them everything they know. Also acting as a sounding board to try and help them along the way. If you look for it, you’ll find a lot of current pros mention a name or two of guys who served that role in their early careers.

Another good example you posted. Let’s just take a Norman Front Runner, put a small lip on it and then bling it up and sell it for 5X what the originals cost 😄

Sometimes you have strong year classes of bass that move through the system. My friend lived on an old 38 acre former gravel pit that had been flooded and turned into a housing addition. The bass fishing was great for years, with numerous 3-6 pound bass routinely caught. And then, within a year or two, the big bass all but disappeared. Still plenty of little bass to be caught, but almost never a fish over 3 lbs. You can have a good year class of northern bass live for 10-15 years in some cases, all topping out around that same high end size, but eventually they all die, often around that same max age. The other thought that comes to mind is some type of change in the food base. To get big requires appropriate sized food available in numbers at all critical life stages of a bass’s life. In small waters, this seems to be especially critical, and often limiting, at around the 3 pound stage. Paul Roberts has some good old posts on this subject you could dig through, but something in the food chain might have crashed, suddenly limiting the ability of bass to make that next critical leap in growth. It could easily go unnoticed, too. And then, never discount even a few homeowners doing something to change the biological makeup of a given lake by their actions. If you’re not on a body of water constantly, it’s easy to miss a short term kill or die-off that would likely go unreported for a variety of reasons.

I have photo documented catching the same 5 pound bass (give or take depending on time and condition) from a small pond 14 times between March 2020 and July 2023. Likely a few big fish I lost there over the years was the same one, too - wouldn't surprise me. No telling how many times someone else might have caught her, either. Your comment about not as many big fish in some waters as we think is interesting and probably not far off. The smaller the body of water, I would think the less likely it can support any kind of numbers of big fish. Some of these little waters might only house one or two dominant fish in them.

Thanks. I've downloaded all their reports over the years and studied them, along with data from a half dozen other states. I'll double check the link and see if I need to add any of the recent reports as it's been several years since I last compiled the data. As you mention, it is very interesting info, and surprisingly consistent across most states. Much of the older data encompassed years where certain states or waters were affected by the LMBV, and provides an interesting look at how much the big fish suffered in those waters, as well as how long or how well they recovered. It also is a great determiner of which lakes truly put out big fish more consistently, and proves, to some degree, the adage, "location, location, location."

Lots of possible ways to tackle this question, but I'll do it from a different angle. Big fish, and the percentage of big fish, is relative depending upon where you live and the waters you have access to, as well as the way you fish, etc. For my local lakes, I was able to gather the data from a local bass circuit that fishes most of the same waters that I do every month. They had data going back nearly 8 years and encompassing 98 tournaments, with total effort of over 16,000 man-hours during those events. I then looked at all the bass over 4 pounds they weighed in and calculated how long it took to catch a big bass (4 pounds or greater) from these lakes. In this regard, the data for the club came back as follows; About 104 hours to catch a bass 4 pounds or greater; About 207 hours to catch a bass 5 pounds or greater; About 489 hours to catch a bass 6 pounds or greater; and About 1,615 hours to catch a bass 7 pounds or greater They have not weighed a single bass 8 pounds or larger during that entire period. They exist in our waters, but they are simply unicorns. In a previous post, I mentioned I had adopted a "bigger bass" strategy this year to try and increase the quality of the fish I catch. From my catch records this year, I was able to determine that I fished about 130 days, and spent an average of 4 hours per trip equaling 520 man-hours of effort. From there, I was able to determine my catch rate for those same class of fish. My numbers came back as follows; About 25 hours to catch a bass over 4 pounds (~1 every 6 trips) About 47 hours to catch a bass over 5 pounds (~1 every 12 trips) About 173 hours to catch a bass over 6 pounds (~1 every 43 trips) About 260 hours to catch a bass over 7 pounds (~1 every 65 trips) So while I don't know exactly what percentage of my fish were "big," I do know that I caught "big fish" at a rate about 4 times better than the local bass tournament anglers, many of them having fished these waters for years and years. Considering this was my first year of ever fishing these waters, I consider my strategy and effort a success to this point. I also now realize that expecting to catch any bass over 8 pounds on my waters is simply unrealistic. It could happen, but I could also win the lottery, too. The odds seem to be about the same

Jerry Rhoton was the guy who designed the Lil’ Tubby crankbait. It had a replaceable/changeable soft plastic tail. He was from Oklahoma, and a good friend of Jimmy Houston. He passed away back in 2020 at the age of 81. I always thought that bait was cool, but think I may have only ever owned one of them, and don’t believe I ever even fished with it.

Last trips before the Arctic blast. Hitched a ride with a friend for about 90 min Fri, then put in 3 hours today in steady 20 mph winds gusting to 35 as the high pressure system barrels in. Was 57 when I launched, but just 45 when I left a few hours later. Cooling off fast. Avoided a blank both trips though - got 3 or 4 Fri and 2 today. Water 43-44. That’s it for at least a week.