Clunn On Selling The Sport, Maintaining Integrity

(Editor's note: This is part 2 of a 2-part Q&A with legend Rick Clunn about stronger fields, the state of the sport, and changes he'd like to see. To read part 1, click here.)

BassFan: What do you mean by that "angle," in terms of selling?

Rick Clunn: Our problem is fishing's always been seen as a recreational sport, so when you slide in, on

the totem pole, you're way down as far as priorities go. It doesn't stack up well (against the TV ratings for other sports).

But the social benefits of fishing, from the corporate level on down, are incredible – way better than any other sport out there. We need to address the social benefits that fishing contributes to this society.

For the readers, can you be specific? What's the social benefit of fishing that you think would appeal to corporate America?

Fishing's the last vehicle remaining for the masses to stay sane.

Back in the old days, my dad and everybody talked about going fishing – how if they "don't get away this weekend, they're going to go crazy." That wasn't a cliché, that was a fact. Fishing's the last vehicle for the masses to get away from rush-hour city traffic and all that.

Why do cities grow outward? Because people fight to get to the edges. The insanity is to the middle. The closer you are to the middle, the more insane you become. And if there's no way to escape, we're all going to go insane.

What I'm getting at is, let's get people in there who can sell fishing from a different perspective than how they're trying to sell it right now.

There's great opportunity with the Internet that we've never had before, for example. I think the people at JM (Associates), and your people (at BassFan) recognize that power, but we're still fighting the old school that wants to keep that ratings system sacred.

And with the Majors, (if they're going away) here we go getting rid of a great model, instead of getting rid of rotten salespeople.

So to follow your logic, a qualifying system that included legends would enable BASS or ESPN to better sell the sport to corporate America?

That just makes the model potentially more powerful. We've fished with presidents. I guided for 15 years and had corporations coming to me and saying, "Hey, we'll take every day you've got to entertain our clientele."

This where I get back to the genius of golf in the early days – they went and sold themselves to people who loved what they did. And that's what we don't do. Now they just try to sell it based on those ratings numbers, and it's not going to work.

I fished with presidents who loved this sport, so don't tell me there's not corporations and entrepreneurs who love this thing. Why not sell fishing to them?

Are we ever going to have ratings like NASCAR? No, and I don't care. We can do it in better ways. Fishing's the largest participation sport on the planet, so let's play to our strengths. What I'm saying is, let's change the perception of fishing. Let's look at the real benefits of it. Then find the people who love it in the business world, and who realize the social benefits of it – the conservation side of fishing, of maintaining the sanity of the masses and maintaining a connection to nature, which is ultimately important to everything on this planet.

I just think they've gone about it wrong.

So what would the ideal Major be to you?

Everybody has an opinion, but I really think it should have 25 guys that are true stars – you can't argue with their performance. Then 10-plus or 12-plus from Classics and Anglers of the Year (AOY). You could create a formula for these real credentials like winning multiple BASS events, AOY (titles), Classics fished, so you'd have 20 to 35 guys with no argument.

The next 25 would be based on a minimum of 3 complete years, but I'd prefer 5 complete years. That addresses the argument of guys who say, "We'll never be able to get in."

In the Top 25 in that group, you wouldn't have any flukes, or 1- or 2- or 3-year wonders.

It sounds like a slam, but it only is because it's true from time to time. A lot of these anglers have not defined themselves yet. Time and performance defines you. Nothing else.

But wouldn't any formula like that create additional problems, because how we define success changes almost yearly?

The bar of excellence doesn't stay the same. It's always changing. In other words, in the early days, if you won one BASS tournament, you were considered great. That's not even close to being true anymore.

FLW, for one, doesn't want that bar. They want to establish their own set of rules, and determine who's a star and who's not.

What I probably resented most about what happened with the Majors is how somebody stepped in and erased the rules of how to define a great angler. You've got the right to do what you want, but don't call a donkey a thoroughbred. If you've got a bunch of donkeys, face the fact that that's what you've got.

So what remains for a Rick Clunn to do? Just wait and see if the formats change again, or speak out like you are here?

I'm trying to look for a similar analogy in other sports right now, because you have to think, "Who's the protector (of pro fishing)?"

In other words, in golf, evidently, how it was set up and marketed was protected. So how do you preserve the credibility of fishing? The credibility has been somewhat preserved, whether by the originators and pioneers I don't know.

In other sports, (boxing) is fighting to save a sport that's dying, baseball is fighting the steroid issue, NASCAR's constantly battling somebody having a lower plate than the other guy or something. In every case, there's somebody there who has to maintain the credibility of the sport, otherwise you jeopardize the whole sport.

So I don't think it's wrong to stand up and express what's right or what's wrong with something.

– End of part 2 (of 2) –