Once again I’m going to depart from the norm for this column and discuss the points system used by several saltwater tournament sanctioning bodies.One of the primary reasons for competing in sanctioned saltwater tournaments is to amass enough points to qualify for the year-end championship, shootout, angler-of-the-year award or other appropriate awards.
By all means, anyone should feel free to disagree with anything I present here. Some of it will be presented as facts and some as opinions. Hopefully the differences will be apparent.
In an effort to allow everyone to air their opinions, ask questions, make comments, or otherwise participate in the discussion, we will be accepting your comments and feedback in the Opinions and Responses section of the Reports header on the North Carolina Sportsman Web Site at www.northcarolinasportsman.com. You must use your real name and a legitimate e-mail address. Personal attacks and profanity will not be tolerated. We welcome your comments and note that any particularly interesting or thought provoking ideas may also be featured here in the months ahead. With these ground rules laid out, put your gloves on and let’s dive right in.
Over the past month, I have gotten a few phone calls, some e-mails, seen this batted about on a few internet chat boards and otherwise complimented, maligned and chastised. My subject is the points system used by the different fishing competition organizations.
I first heard a little bit of grumbling last fall when several teams made dramatic last minute turnarounds at the last qualifying tournament to make the field for the Wal-Mart FLW Kingfish Tour Championships, and several of the teams who looked promising prior to that tournament dropped barely out of the top 50 team threshold.
It started again a few weeks ago when a boat qualified in second place in the Florida West Coast Division of the new Wal-Mart FLW Kingfish Series, even though not catching a fish more than 20 pounds in any of the three tournaments in that division. What wasn’t said was they were one of only two teams to catch a fish in every tournament and 21 of the 70 teams in the division didn’t weigh a fish in any tournament.
For many years (actually since 1992 because during their first year, 1991, they used a points system based upon finishing position in the tournaments), the Southern Kingfish Association has sanctioned tournaments across the southeast and Gulf coasts and awarded points based on weights of fish. This became a standard and no one thought much of it until a couple of years ago.
In 2002 the U.S. Anglers Association adopted a points system based upon a team’s finishing position in the tournament rather than weight of fish they had caught. This system didn’t receive a lot of discussion as it was only used in USAA’s Angler of the Year standings and was done to eliminate a size discrepancy between those fish usually caught in South Carolina and North Carolina tournaments.
Whether this size discrepancy was real or imagined is another argument in itself, but the points system was examined by the directors from both states and adopted.
The basis and agreement for this points system was a team’s position in each individual tournament was a better indicator of their ability and would create equality across the playing field for those who won tournaments with smaller fish.
With this system a tournament win would accrue x number of points, regardless if the fish weighed 50 or 15 pounds. The accomplishment was measured against the individual tournament field and conditions.
During the next year, the USAA encountered financial problems and ceased operation, so their points system never underwent close scrutiny.
A similar points system was introduced by FLW Outdoors for their Kingfish Tour in 2005 and added for their Kingfish Series in 2006. For 2005 the number of boats in the Kingfish Tour was limited to 100. The winning boat received 150 points, and the points decreased one point per position, with 100th place receiving 51 points. Any boat that did not weigh a fish received 50 “participation” points.
This system remains in effect for the 2006 Kingfish Series, but the number of possible boats in the Kingfish Tour was increased to 125 for 2006, and the points awarded increased to 200 for a win and decreased a point per position to 76 for 125th place. Boats that didn’t weigh a fish were again awarded 50 participation points.
In the FLW tournament trails, there are no exclusions or “drop fish.” The Kingfish Tour has four tournaments and all count. The Kingfish Series has three tournaments in each region and all count.
The SKA uses a points system that awards a point per pound, corresponding to a team’s largest king in each tournament. If the winning fish weighed 50 pounds it would receive 50 points, and if it weighed 25 pounds, it would receive 25 points. Other placings receive their points based on the weight of their fish, and often there could be several teams awarded less than a single point difference.
In the beginning the SKA chose their Angler of the Year by adding a team’s top-seven fish, regardless of when and where the tournaments were. A few years later, this was amended to require a team to declare in advance their preferred 10 tournaments and their top-seven fish were counted.
This helped some but still gave those fishermen competing mainly in areas with larger fish an advantage that was at least perceived and often weighed out in the standings.
A few years later the Open Division was created, and those fishermen competing for the Angler of the Year award had to travel to different areas and fish the same tournaments. There were 10 tournaments, the teams still received points based on the weight of their fish, and the three lowest scores were dropped at the end of the season.
The Yamaha Pro Tour is the latest evolution in the SKA points system. There are now five independently-run, two-day tournaments, only those competitors qualified and registered as SKA pros are eligible, the teams weigh a single fish each day, the highest two-day aggregate wins the tournament, points are awarded based on the weight of each fish, and the lightest three fish are dropped at the end of the season.
In their regional competition, the SKA has groups of four or five tournaments and a team’s three heaviest fish (one fish per tournament) are scored at a point per pound, and the rankings established accordingly. At the year’s end, the top-20 boats of 24 feet and longer and the top-15 boats of 23 feet and less are invited to a national championship tournament.
The difference comes down to what you believe is a better indicator of which fisherman is better. Would heavier fish or higher finishes be more appropriate? Both seem equitable, but unfortunately they don’t always go hand-in-hand.
In my opinion, awarding the points based solely on fish weights handicaps those who succeed in venues and times of smaller fish.
Numerous times I have overheard fishermen I consider serious tournament fishermen discussing not participating in certain tournaments because the tournament’s history was of producing smaller fish, and they thought their money could be better utilized elsewhere. If all tournament wins and placings received equal series points, this discussion would never take place.
Many fishermen like to compare king mackerel tournament fishing to NASCAR, and I’ll use it to make this point — let’s equate speed to fish weight for this comparison: if we use the fastest speed (fish weight) to award points, then a win at Talladega, Daytona or Atlanta would be worth more than a win at Martinsville, Richmond or Bristol.
It’s no doubt that in a weight-for-points system, a win at Venice, Key West or Hatteras, which typically produce lots of large fish, is worth more than a win at Swansboro, Myrtle Beach or Brunswick, which don’t typically produce many large fish.
NASCAR doesn’t see it this way, and I don’t believe king mackerel associations should either. Many times the fishermen who win a tournament with a 28-pound fish have actually worked harder and endured more than the fishermen who won a tournament with the largest of two dozen fish over 50 pounds, yet in a series using weight-for-points, they would be 22 to 32 points behind.
If you care to weight the value of tournament wins, do it by the number of entries. I think most fishermen would agree that while a win is a win, a win in a tournament with over 500 boats should be worth more than a win in a tournament with 300 boats, which should be worth more than a win in a tournament with only 100 boats.
I don’t have a formula for this, but I’m certain that some of our more mathematically-inclined readers could formulate several ideas for discussion.
While I’m on this rave, another thing I don’t care for is “drop fish.” I believe a better fisherman should be consistent all along, not just for three of five or seven of 10. These are grading on 60 percent and 70 percent, respectively, which was barely passing when I was in school.
What other sport allows competitors to make their lowest scores disappear? I guess there might be some, but NASCAR counts every race, baseball, football, basketball and hockey count every game and golf counts every stroke on every hole.
In gymnastics and some sports where judges score participants subjectively, they disallow the lowest score but also disallow the highest score. Would anyone be willing to have their highest finish or heaviest fish dropped? I don’t think so, and I believe every tournament should count and count equally. I guess that is why I prefer points-for-placing scoring.
Now, back to what brought this on — in the case of the FLW West Florida Series, the second-place boat earned that position by virtue of a third in the first tournament, a 33rd in the second tournament and a 19th in the third tournament.
The fish weights were 12 pounds, 12 pounds and 16 pounds. Could this be so? Yes, these fishermen caught one of only three fish in the first tournament, and that 97-point lead was enough to stay ahead as others faltered.
Some people questioned whether this was good or bad. Well, they didn’t catch any huge fish, but they caught two of those fish in very bad conditions and should be proud.
Doing well isn’t just about succeeding when times are good but being able to dig in and succeeding when times are tough.
None of the complainers seemed to take exception to the boat that finished first. They won the first tournament, were 24th in the second tournament and 22nd in the third tournament. Their largest king weighed 20 pounds and change, followed by kings of 17 and 14 pounds. These folks should also be proud.
In fact, these were the only two boats that caught kings in all three of the FLW West Florida Series tournaments. The other boat that landed a king in the first tournament drew a blank at one of the later tournaments and finished the series in 16th place, still a fine accomplishment as they will be headed to the Series Championship in Orange Beach, Ala.
Please understand I’m not saying the points-for-weight system is wrong. I’m saying I believe the points-for-placings system would be better.
I’m also saying I would like to see consistency rewarded by counting all tournaments in a series. Even in a points-for-weight system, I believe a fisherman who catches five 25-pound fish is probably a better fisherman that one who catches four 30-pound fish and draws a blank at one tournament.
These are my opinions. Who agrees or disagrees?
Come to our forum and discuss this and any other topics of interest to you. Our web address is www.northcarolinasportsman.com. The Opinions and Responses Forum is in the Reports section. We welcome your comments. This is your opportunity to use our web site and North Carolina Sportsman Magazine to get your opinions and ideas heard.
Make the most of it. Fire away at the issues, but no profanity or personal attacks.
Be the first to comment