In reply to Post #6
Can't see it very well but the one in my pic is my favourite capture. Only 17lb but an old, dark fully from a Manchester park lake. I had bigger fish from there but nothing that looked like that one.

Well for me it's all about size. Big and pretty is preferred but I'd take big and ugly over small and pretty

In reply to Post #17
What about carp though Steve?

In reply to Post #13
As you said, not the best looking or proportioned carp, but a large one for the fens.

In reply to Post #1
Depends on the time of year I guess, on some venues in the winter you welcome a liner lol

In reply to Post #18
They just the same... Big and pretty is preferred but I'd take big and ugly over small and pretty

Having run a water for six years now, I can assure you that the vast majority of anglers are more interested in the size of the fish over their looks or how nice the surroundings are.
First question most people ask is "what's the biggest in there?". Not all, but most.
I can now fully understand why many owners stock a big fish or three when starting out.

In reply to Post #22
I tend to ask what the stocks like and be met with numbers. I'd rather hear about healthy weight gains, scale patterns, characters etc.

My very good French mate, Philippe Lagabbe, has caught some glorious carp over the years...and he never weighs them! He says the practice is elitist and demeaning. I wouldn't go that far, but he has a point.

Philippe describes it thus: Imagine you have gone out on the raz with your mates and after a few beers ended up in a nice club where the girls are all gorgeous but mostly aloof and unobtainable. So you get chatting to one of these fabulous looking ice maidens, and you ask her what she likes for breakfast and to your astonishment she tells you a, "Full English" and asks you to cook it for her. After an amazing night of bedroom gymnastics you cook her the requested breakfast, and just before you kiss her au revoir you say: "Just jump up onto these scales for us, would you, angel?"

Nuff said?

In reply to Post #24
as long as you ask them to jump on the scales after the jobs done and not before then i don't see the problem

In reply to Post #25
Looks are definitely the driver for me. Then the place that they reside, and I like a challenge! I still love a fatty when they roll over the cord 😂

Not all about looks either for me, as long as there is something special about them. Old, tricky, a looker, massive.... take your pick.

In reply to Post #27
I'm similar, don't mind if they are big or small as long as they are not boring. Some big old girls are so fat and ugly that you have to like them. Dodgy backs, chewed tails, missing eyes are all good with me over a big pale simmo.

In reply to Post #10
"I think there's 3 factors, that are of different importance to different people. And there's no right or wrong in my opinion

1) weight
2) looks
3) difficulty"

-------------------------------------------------------

I think there's a fourth and fifth one there too, and those are methodology and an anomaly. One of my targets this year was one pale pig within a sea of smaller commons. I was not interested in its weight or it's looks, it was just the fact it was different to everything else, and I could fish for it on my terms. If I had to bait and wait, I wouldn't have been interested. However to know I could catch the biggest in the pond from under my feet was the icing on the cake.

In reply to Post #29
You targeted a pale pig because it was swimming with small commons?
I struggle to understand that tbh.

Edit: bluebeat, agree, I love a battered old character