Who deserves a Green Jacket?

[Utah David]

In the vernacular of the world of fishing rods, we often have three terms that get bantered about: Designer, Maker, and Builder. In this thread I really don't want to get into where the line should be drawn as to who is a Designer, who is a Maker and who is a Builder. I'll just simply state that for my purposes here, a Designer draws the plans for the blank, a Maker makes the blank, and the Builder "assembles" all the components onto a blank completing the rod. So an individual can participate (and be) in one, two, or all three of those disciplines. But regardless of the discipline(s) chosen, I believe very few individuals will rise to a level in their art/craft that they would be considered a Master by the general populace of the angling community.


What a "Master" is, and what differentiates them from the "Apprentice" is what I'm exploring in this thread. Is it based on the actual number of rods? (So what about the production Builders/Makers doing hundreds of rods a year?) Is it the amount of time they've been doing their craft? Is it the quality of the work alone, and if so, can an individual be a Master and a neophyte at the same time? Perhaps it is the level of public acceptance/recognition of their work that makes a Master? (So a large Marketing Department is a real advantage?) Or maybe it's the combination of exceptional skill/workmanship in all three disciplines. (So if you are exceptional in two but lacking in one... no Green Jacket for you?)


When I hear/read others refer to a Master, they generally don't "qualify" that designation. They simply state that the individual is "a Master". Granted, it is usually within the context of a discussion, so the term is applied to the topic at hand. But when it comes to fly rods, there is potentially a lot of overlap between the various disciplines, and things can get foggy pretty quickly.


As an example... If Tom Morgan were to be designated a Master, would he be a Master Rod Designer, but not a Master Builder, or Master Maker because he doesn't actually "make" or "build" the rods? Or would he just be referred to as a Master in the general context of fly rods regardless of that fact, and no "qualifier" is necessary?


Please note that I am not suggesting or implying anything in relation to Tom Morgan. I just believe he is highly respected in the angling community, and he exemplifies some of the issues associated with "designating" someone as something. So he makes for a great example.


What I really want to know is: What do you consider to be the benchmark(s) an individual must meet to be considered a Master, and if that "Master" designation should indeed have a qualifier?


---David

[Betty Hiner]

"You can be what ever you want to be."
Swamp Witch Extraordinair <waving her maaa-vallos broom in the air>

[Greg F]

well I think fame has a lot to do with it, but it shouldn't.

[lastchance]

I found that in the world of fly fishing, usually just calling yourself a master is all that's needed. And, if you write a book, you're an expert and know everything. Me, I'm a 58 year-old learner and hope to learn until the day I die. JMHO

[Kaboom1]

I found that in the world of fly fishing, usually just calling yourself a master is all that's needed. And, if you write a book, you're an expert and know everything. Me, I'm a 58 year-old learner and hope to learn until the day I die. JMHO

Plus one on that learning thing!!

Brad

[Uncle Jesse]

Green jackets are award for knock balls into holes with the least amount of effort and the highest amount of skill and luck for 3 days. Any number of people have a good 3 days' effort in their life, are you not really ask who deserves to be in the Fly Rod Hall of Fame? HOF members generally contribute over a long period of time and in most sports include the field and the pitchers and the hitters and the quarterbacks and the running back, and the tackles, etc. Is not that really your question?