Freeze your bASS aftermath

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jordan Doucet on February 22, 2009 at 10:40pm

It was great to meet you yesterday and others as well. The tournament was very well run as it has been the last few years and the food was a great bonus. Here are my thoughts on the 3 fish limit.
The main draw for this tournament is the money of course. $1,000 guarenteed big fish is a solid payout, not to mention 80% payback which comes to $2,800 payout in this years case for placing. When this type of money is on the line and of course bragging rights, people will spend time on the water to figure out what is going on to better their chances tourney day. When the limit is taken down to three fish, the extra time and effort on the water people have put in is all but thrown out the window and it turns into a game of luck.

Personally, I've spent alot of time on the water the last few years dialing in these fish for the late winter early spring pattern. This year was no different, with many many hours on the water preparing for to kickoff the season with a great tournament. This year my partner Chris Rider and I brought 13 fish to the boat and had 1 come unbuttoned (wouldn't have helped our limit btw). Had it been a 5 fish limit, we definately would have placed higher than 6th (8.80lbs), since I know a few others in the top five who didn't get 5 fish. Now I guess my question is this, Is it fair to have a team like Chris and I, who under normal 5 fish circumstances would have been in the money due to our extensive research and time on the water prepping for this tournament to be robbed of that by limiting us to 3 fish?
I understand it was stated before the tournament and it is all in fun, but with big money up for grabs is it fair to do this? Does this tournament turn into a "raffle" between 15 team who catch 3 fish? Did participation go up substantially, if at all because of this? These are questions you'll need to address for next years tournament.

Thanks again guys for doing this tournament. I want to stress that I am not bagging on what you guys have done with this tournament, because I love the idea of an early tournament and I think it was great, but I would like to see the limit changed next year. Just my two cents. I'd love to hear more feedback.

-Jordan

Permalink Reply by Jordan Doucet on February 23, 2009 at 12:26pm

Hi Brian,
I can understand the mortality rate being higher with fish being toted around in the livewell all day. Our fish came from about 35 feet so all made it and were released safely however I know that others caught fish as deep as 60. I can see that side as well.

Like I said before I enjoy what you guys do with this tournament, but I wanted to let you know where I was coming from as well.

Permalink Reply by troy kelly on February 23, 2009 at 4:28pm

since this was the first year i've fished this my experiece is slightly limited. I for one would like to see a five fish limit becuase like jordan says it handicaps teams that put the time on the water locating fish for the tourney. From my understanding it was reduced because of mortality concerns, and thats understandable. My feeling is that fish were most likely not much shallower than they were in years past. Maybe the reduced mortality is based on people gaining experience in fizzing these fish. Seems like more and more folks are out fishing in the winter and that has to help with fish dying from improper fizzing and such. Here is my proposal for future freeze your BASS blast, maybe rotate each year between washington and sammamish.

I would like to say that i had a great time at this tournament much like everyone else, and whether any changes are made to the format or not I dont doubt I will be particiapting next year.

troy

Permalink Reply by Ronald Hobbs, Jr. on February 23, 2009 at 4:48pm

I agree with Jon whole heartedly, I love the idea of a three fish limit, I was probably a big proponent in getting it to be a 3 fish limit. I am not trying to bolster but we caught 15 fish and lost 2. My partner and I left 2 different spots that were red hot on fire, just because the quality was not there. I think out of all of the people fishing I would have been the most benefitted by a 5 fish limit, since are smallest was just over 3 and we balanced beamed 4 other fish that were the same exact weight.

Jordan
So out of the top 5 who "Robbed" you of doing better? The winners, Cooper & Johnson most certaintly deserved it(they caught 10+ fish as well), Wolsky and I (2nd & past winners) would like to think we deserved it(10+ fish), Abbott & Flowers (3rd & past top 5 finishers) deserved it(5+fish) , Sessler & Enyart (4th) deserved it, he use to fish Feb. on Sammamish all the time he is pretty much the father of the tournament, Hatch & Johnson (5th & past winner)deserved it (5+ fish), You (6th past top 5 finisher) deserved it (10+ fish), Delay & Bess (7th place past winner) deserved it (5+fish), big fish was McHenry & Cox and I have seen there names many times before winning or finishing in the top 5 at this lake.

So basically you are saying that the top 5 guys were a fluke this year, and they don't put there time in, I beg to differ.

By the looks of it I personally don't think your complaint is justified or that the three fish limit "Robbed" you of anything. No matter if it is 5 fish or three fish you still have to catch the largest. All of the guys in the top 5 are great fishermen all of them have won tournaments or made top 5's before on this lake! Like Jon said quality over quantity should always be the main focus no matter if it is 3 or 5 fish. Kind of like okay the guy who only got 5 bites doesn't deserve to win a normal tournament because other people got more than 5 bites.

The placings are not a fluke or luck, it was all about making the right calls at the right times like every other tournament. These are just my feelings on the subject, and I hope I didn't offend anyone too badly.

Most importantly this tournament is suppose to be for fun and for everyone to enjoy and maybe cash in a check. From club guys to serious tournament guys, for me I could've placed 6th and been happy because we did everything we could and had fun doing it.

BTW we caught most of our larger ones in 48+ feet of water, deeper than the years before, and they all survived and were all healthy, I think people are learning better how to take of their deep caught fish, from fighting the fish to fizzing their fish!

Permalink Reply by Marc Marcantonio on February 23, 2009 at 5:01pm

Hey, since you all asked a few questions here I will go ahead and respond with my thoughts on the tournament and of the 3 fish limit. I really enjoyed the tournament, and everyone who helped put this together and administer the tournament are to be really congratulated on a professional and well-run event. By "professional" I mean the tournament was a class act put on by unselfish and disciplined club members who advertised a product and produced as advertised.

To my friend Jordan, there is a lot of truth in what you said, but since you asked I will offer my point of view in hopes it will provide a perspective with some value. Because this is a local tournament whose goals were geared more towards fellowship than proving who is the best stick, I think the 3 fish limit does a better job at accomplishing that goal. I also think the 3-fish limit helps with the perception of mortality concerns whether or not scientifically they can be proven. Yes, luck can play a bigger factor in the overall results with a 3 bass limit, but I would contend that the better sticks and the guys who practiced hard and often still had an advantage that likely showed in the final results. Mike and I did weigh a limit, and we culled, but we didn't deserve to win because we weighed one fish that needed to be culled by a bigger bass.

In years past during the winter, Jr. and I would catch 5 bass limits that weighed between 18 and 20 pounds, close to a four pound average. I remember one of those events in which we caught only 5 bass (no culls) and weighed 19 pounds. In that same tournament there were other guys targeting shallower bass that culled more than 3 limits of bass, yet only weighed 12 pounds. If in those events we had a 3 fish limit, we would have weighed more than 13 pounds for our 3 heaviest fish. I don't remember the winning weight this Saturday, but I believe it was much less than that. So my point is, in those events we still would have won regardless if it was a 3 fish or 5 fish limit. We practiced and learned where to fish for bigger fish; instead of focusing numbers we focused on quality.

Over the years I have adapted my strategy to the particular lake and the bass that are present. I try to determine from my tournament records and fishing logs what the winning weight on a particular lake and time of year should be to win. Sammamish is quite capable of requiring a 4 pound fish average to win, any month of the year. Some events there I have won with over 22 pounds for 5 bass. None of us caught a 4 pound average on Saturday, so I consider the fish to have beaten me more than the winning team beating me. I didn't get the job done.

I didn't get to practice this year for this event, but I certainly have probably logged more fishing days in the winter on Sammamish than 99% of the other competitors, so I could say I have paid my dues and worked hard and deserved to finish higher. At least one team weighed more than me and they only had two fish. There was a time when I would have chalked up their higher finish to "luck" instead of skill, but I have since learned that I can't make that assumption. They may have found a big fish spot and technique, and stuck with it in hopes of getting 3 quality bites over 15 lesser-quality bites. It paid off for them in catching two bass that weighed more than my culled limit, and maybe they deserved to finish higher. Just something to consider, not just for this event but for any tournament any of us decide to enter. Sometimes it pays to fish for 5 quality bites, and sometimes it is better to go for quantity and increase total weight with that method. In many lakes and rivers you MUST fish differently for big bass than you do for numbers of bass, and there are other times when you can catch the biggest bass just fishing the numbers. If anyone ever figures out a reliable decision-making process then I will quit tournament fishing because everyone else would be fishing for 2nd place at best.

As far as this tournament goes, because it is winter and many people aren't sure their boat will run properly, or that they will enjoy the weather, or that the fish will cooperate, it is a better bet that the number of participants will grow each year if the limit is a 3 fish limit over a higher number. The perception that they can win some money with a single cast or as few as 3 casts will help get people signed up. I would still bet my money on the guys that do their homework and have better skills, but it is nice to have a few tournaments that others can try wtihout a big financial investment. This introduces new people into competitive events and makes it easier to justify fishing a winter event.

Put yourself in the position of half of the field who never caught a single bass. Why should they invest their entry fee next year if they think they have to be able to catch 10 or 15 bass to earn a check? In ever tournament I have in my records for Feb. or March it is often that half the field or more never weighs a single bass. If only the guys who regularly catch 5 or more bass in February enter the Freeze Your Bass Blast, then we only need a dozen doughnuts for next year's event, and the prize money won't be worth our time.

Now if this was part of a circuit, with year end standings, then I would be opposed to a limit less than 5.

I'm running too long on this post, and have to get back to work, but I will also say that I don't think there were more shallow fish this year vs. deep fish...just people fishing more for shallow fish. There are always shallow fish and deep fish in Feb and Mar on Sammamish...it is a tough decision which fish to target. All of our fish came from 47 feet on Saturday.

ciao,
Marc

Permalink Reply by S Hwang on February 23, 2009 at 5:27pm

Just an outsider's observation: whats the point of touting the 3-fish limit as a mortality-reducing measure when it is simultaneously advertised to attract more and more anglers to fish the event? Granted much of the field never catches a fish, but still...

who won the bucket? ;)

Permalink Reply by Ronald Hobbs, Jr. on February 23, 2009 at 5:37pm

The main purpose of the three fish was to attract more people into fishing the event. Brian just stated that it was thought that it might also lower the mortality as well, but that wan't the main focus of the 3 fish limit.

Billy Smith won the bucket he was all smiles ;)

Seung Hwang said:

Just an outsider's observation: whats the point of touting the 3-fish limit as a mortality-reducing measure when it is simultaneously advertised to attract more and more anglers to fish the event? Granted much of the field never catches a fish, but still...

who won the bucket? ;)

Permalink Reply by Brian Walters on February 23, 2009 at 5:49pm

Great tournament, great people, great fun. Thanks for doing it again guys and gals. I will be back for a 3 fish or 5 fish limit but no matter what it is good to get out and fish and you guys that did well, good job and hope to see you again next year.

Brian Walters

Permalink Reply by Jordan Doucet on February 23, 2009 at 6:54pm

Hi Ron,
I think I may have come across the wrong way with the verbage I used. I certainly congratulate those that did well, and I can see both sides of the coin. I, like you would have benefited from the 5 fish limit if you couldn't tell, with numerous fish thrown back just under 3lbs, and I was trying to get the point across a little. Certainly some awesome sticks up there that definately have logged some time and proved themselves in the past.

I will be back again next year regardless, because you guys have done a great job with the tournament. I certainly don't want to be a poor loser, because that is not my goal, my goal is to try to convey my side of the coin and I know others who feel the same who didn't catch a fish at all. Just feedback, sorry to those that finished higher, I didn't mean to come across that way. No hard feelings guys :)

-J

Permalink Reply by Eric DeLay on February 23, 2009 at 7:58pm

Great tournament. I agree with Jordan that I would prefer a 5 fish limit over 3 but I don't think it changed the results all that much this year. I actually changed my game plan to target larger fish first thing in the morning. I started on spots where I had caught over 4lb fish in practice but hadn't caught very many fish there. We only had one small fish at 10am and were playing catch up the rest of the day, mostly fishing spots behind other guys. In a five fish tourney I always go for a limit first then try to upgrade. In retrospect I should have played the numbers game and culled my way up an ounce at a time. Either way though I will fish it next year. I really appreciate the effort put into giving us an opportunity to compete in February. Thanks guys.

Permalink Reply by C-RIDE on February 23, 2009 at 8:56pm

I understand why the 3 fish limit was made. It was to cut down on the number of dead fish counted. It gives Bass fishman and a club a bad name! All though it does change the end result of who the winners are. If you made it a 1,2,3,4 or five fish limit the winners would most likely be different. It also increases the chances of the team with the Big bass to win the whole thing. The 3 fish limit is no different than doing a one fish limit. There is a reason why tournaments are fished with a 5 fish limit. It shows that an angler can catch more than just a couple fish, catch quality fish and take car of the ones he has in his livewell. I would have rather seen a greater penalty for dead fish. Its kind of like taking the Indy 500 and making it 300 miles instead of 500 miles because there are a lot of crashes on that track. Probably gonna have a different winner at 300 miles vs 500 miles. Anyways, the weather was the major mortality factor last year. As far as i could tell the % was much much lower this year.
I don't know! Some of us take Bass fishing very serious. We live and breath it 24/7. So we get all pissed when changes are made. I know I didn't like the call for 3 fish before the tourney even started. I put lots of time in and was very confident that I could catch a 5 fish limit. That was going to be my strength at this tourney. My plan was to catch my 5 fish as fast as possible and then go hog hunting. And we got our 5 fish in less than an hour. Just didn't get that one fish that would have put us over the top. But thats how it goes and The guys that did place in the top deserve every bit of it! They are all great fisherman and I'm just glad we could hang with them and give em a run for the money! We did learn something from this tournament. The tournament changed but we didn't change our normal tactics. I probably would have went hog hunting all day if I had to do it again.

Jordan Doucet said:

It was great to meet you yesterday and others as well. The tournament was very well run as it has been the last few years and the food was a great bonus. Here are my thoughts on the 3 fish limit.
The main draw for this tournament is the money of course. $1,000 guarenteed big fish is a solid payout, not to mention 80% payback which comes to $2,800 payout in this years case for placing. When this type of money is on the line and of course bragging rights, people will spend time on the water to figure out what is going on to better their chances tourney day. When the limit is taken down to three fish, the extra time and effort on the water people have put in is all but thrown out the window and it turns into a game of luck.

Personally, I've spent alot of time on the water the last few years dialing in these fish for the late winter early spring pattern. This year was no different, with many many hours on the water preparing for to kickoff the season with a great tournament. This year my partner Chris Rider and I brought 13 fish to the boat and had 1 come unbuttoned (wouldn't have helped our limit btw). Had it been a 5 fish limit, we definately would have placed higher than 6th (8.80lbs), since I know a few others in the top five who didn't get 5 fish. Now I guess my question is this, Is it fair to have a team like Chris and I, who under normal 5 fish circumstances would have been in the money due to our extensive research and time on the water prepping for this tournament to be robbed of that by limiting us to 3 fish?
I understand it was stated before the tournament and it is all in fun, but with big money up for grabs is it fair to do this? Does this tournament turn into a "raffle" between 15 team who catch 3 fish? Did participation go up substantially, if at all because of this? These are questions you'll need to address for next years tournament.

Thanks again guys for doing this tournament. I want to stress that I am not bagging on what you guys have done with this tournament, because I love the idea of an early tournament and I think it was great, but I would like to see the limit changed next year. Just my two cents. I'd love to hear more feedback.

-Jordan

Permalink Reply by Abbottola on February 24, 2009 at 12:19am

At the meetings I fought for the 5 fish limit because I thought it took away from the guys that put so much time and effort into practice. Although I came around, not because of the mortality debates, but the competition factor. This wasn't a circuit or qualifying tournament but a fun-fish for the weekend warrior. One cast and you can walk home with a $1000, how great is that? Plus looking back on ABA archives, and the previous 2 years of this tournament. The final results are usually between 2-3 guys, didn't anyone find it more exciting to have 2-3 times the participants eligable to take home a check.
Don't know what anyone else noticed, but barely anyone left the boat ramp after weigh-ins. It looked as if 90% of the anglers stuck around for awards, and most of them stuck around for the GIANT raffle. With just 28 boats in the tournament, I had a chance to visit and BS with more guys after that tournament than most NW Bass or ABA's.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page