The Spoonpluggers Forum

Why does Terry O'Malley say the contact point on structure is not the deepest break into the deepest water ?

Because it's the sharpest break into the deepest water in most cases, not the deepest break. See the green book, Chptr 6, Contact Points:

The type of lake, or reservoir, and the bottom conditions would determine which type is more important, BUT, if you were a fisherman who fished a variety of lakes and reservoirs, you would probably wind up looking for the "Sharper Break" in combination with a "Finger", or a "Hump". In other words, you would look for the 'finger' on a structure, with the 'sharper break' into deep water. Normally you would look for the LONGEST 'finger', with the SHARPEST break, into the DEEPEST water. This would give you the added feature "End of Bar".

On a 'hump', you would look for the "sharpest break" into the deepest water.

You do have to be careful and take every example in context. For example, in the Structure Situations booklet, there is an example on wide sweeping bars that mentions, "The "contact point" is the "break" that breaks the deepest (15') into the deepest water (30')." But, that is specific to that example, and that particular contact point is also the sharpest break into the deepest water, so it fits both guidelines.

Yes I know that, but what I'm referring to is what Don Dickson has said on video as well as Terry O on video . Don states that the contact point will always be the deepest break to the deepest water. Terry O states that it is not the deepest break to the deepest water but rather the sharpest break.

Different interpretations by different Spoonpluggers based on their experience, perhaps.

It's all tied to which one breaks into the deepest water in the area, not which one breaks at the deepest depth, for me.

Terry O on contact points and which finger produces : "It doesn't have to be the deepest break on the bar, and it very seldom is..."

https://youtu.be/ioprnbzYcCo?t=1069

I suppose you could have a situation with multiple breaks/fingers that all break into the deepest water in the area, in which case, then the deepest break might be the contact point, but it might not if it's also not the steepest break. In that case you'd just have to check them all out and see which one produces best and let the fish tell you.

Regardless, I side with Terry on this one. I start with the deepest water in the area, then look for the sharpest break I can find into it. In many cases there could be multiple breaks as Terry mentioned, some even deeper, or what Buck has written about the path not always being in a straight line, but sometimes it's a jagged path with multiple breaks. If you've mapped a structure well, you'll end up marking all possibilities, and if you properly fish them all, you'll soon enough find which one seems to be the contact point (and breaks/breaklines) the fish use the most.

Strange
Don always taught me that it was the longest,narrowest sharpest, steepest break INTO the deepest water available.
Might be splitting hairs here, I don't know.

Yeah, I think we're splitting hairs. I rewatched some old Dickson videos and he did say the deepest break into the deepest water. If two or more are equally deep, then the sharper one is better. If two or more are both equally deep and sharp, then the longer one is the better one. I'm guessing 9 times out of 10, and the thing both guys agree with, is the one reaching the deepest water. Probably rare to have multiple fingers on the same structure, and all of them reaching the deepest water. And if you ever did find that situation, it should be a simple matter of just checking them all out and letting the fish tell you which one they are using. Don says once you know, you know - they hit the same one all the time.

Buck says if you want to catch fish consistently you may have to go to him for he may not come to you. He also states you may have to wait at the contact point for him. So this is were the big ? comes in where do I wait. If I have a structure that has a finger that is breaking the deepest to the deepest water and also on this same structure one that is breaking fastest to the deepest water where do I wait. According to Terry if I do what Don says and sit at the deepest break I will go fishless . According to Don if I do what Terry says I might have a chance to catch a fish if once they hit the deepest break and the weather and water is such and the breakline leads them to the fastest break I may catch some fish .

When the 2 best spoonplugging educators can't agree on what the contact point is its a pretty big deal.

Champ
I know Don personally. I do not think he is going against Terry on this.
He says above the Sharpest as one of his descriptions above.
I never really interpreted the contact point any differently, except in what Brian just stated after watching Don's video.
All I can say is he always taught me that it was the deepest, with the sharpest break into the deepest water in the area. Chase K said the same to me and showed me that even a 1 foot difference in depth can make a difference.
If I have 2 fingers, both breaking at 27 feet and I cant tell the difference in the sharpness and one is breaking into 30 feet and the other into 31,in the same hole of water, rest assured the contact point is at the 31 finger. Deepest water is the deciding factor here, UNTIL the fish tell me diffent.
Now say I have the same 2 fingers ,both at 27, but one has a definite sharper break into the 30 foot, my interpretation tells me this one is the contact point, unless the fish say diffent.
Don and Tommy, and Chase all agree on this one, and I bet Terry does to.
Rest assured Buck tells the same somewhere in the material. Just have to glean it out.

Remember the "star" hump that Tommy F. found in the Lake of the Woods. Don took his group of students to this hump and they mapped it. This structure had 5 fingers is the shape of a star. All 5 were identical in length, width an they all broke at the same depth in the deepest water surrounding this hump which happened to be the same depth all the way around the hump. The student in the boat with Don pointed out that one of the fingers broke a little sharper than the other 4 into the deepest water. Don and his students did not fish this star structure before they broke for lunch. But one student skipped lunch and went back out to the one finger that broke a little sharper than the other four and he caught his first ten pound walleye.

CHAMP wrote: ↑Thu Sep 23, 2021 4:58 am
When the 2 best spoonplugging educators can't agree on what the contact point is its a pretty big deal.

I don’t see it as a big deal because they are basically talking about two different situations that make it sound like they are differing when they aren’t.

In Terry’s example there are 4 fingers, but only one breaks into the deepest water. His point is that it doesn’t matter how deep it is when it breaks, whether it breaks deeper or shallower than the other three, because it is the only one breaking into the deepest water, and therefor it will always be the contact point (see Steve’s comment and example).

Don is talking more hypothetical, viewing the situation from a fishes point of view, trying to identify the last identifiable break/drop-off leading into the deepest water, which in reverse would be the one fish move on first if they moved at all, hence it being the contact point. The deepest water part hasn’t changed, so in essence, they’re both right given the exact examples each one uses, and are really saying the same thing.

Steve Craig wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 5:07 pm Strange
Don always taught me that it was the longest,narrowest sharpest, steepest break INTO the deepest water available.
Might be splitting hairs here, I don't know.

This one sounds like the types of discussions i seen and heard with my Trap shooting buds and field trial competitors and friends,
Glad I'm not a piss willy. I think I'll go fishing.

Hal

I’m of the opinion that these are terms confused by word-play. The thing that’s interesting to note is that Dickson’s introduction to ‘deep’ water mapping included features having multiple breaks/breaklines at varying depths. O’malley’s Maps, for the most part, were primarily of natural lakes showing breaklines/breaks occurring on one primary breakline. However, In both cases, proper interpretation was achieved by following the same proven fishing fact that has become a staple where “interpretation” is concerned - the sharpest, deepest break/breakline into the deepest water in the areas is where we’d wait for the fish to move. This has been certified, whether it’s the third break/breakline outlining the feature, or just the one and only primary break/breakline.

Aside: When I was putting pencil to paper on the lakes I fished, any confusion about terms (and believe me,they did exist) such as we have here, were quickly swept away even through the sloppy drawings I came away with.

I think they are both using(and the material) generic terms. Both of their examples would be fishing water and must be checked. Neither of their statements would put you on the contact point 100% of the time.

CHAMP wrote: ↑Thu Sep 23, 2021 4:58 am Buck says if you want to catch fish consistently you may have to go to him for he may not come to you. He also states you may have to wait at the contact point for him. So this is were the big ?....

I've wasted a few good days worth supposing the contact point "had to be" this or that feature, and camping on top of it. "Going to him" probably never meant committing hours to any unproven deep spot, even when the guidelines seem to point to it. Final interpretation comes from fish contact.

From Don's Daily Guide:

Now your mapping job is complete, and you're ready to interpret the structure. As we interpret a structure, we're trying to determine the exact spot where the fish will be. Earlier, I referred to that spot as the "contact point." The contact point will always be the longest, narrowest, sharpest, (most rapid drop) deepest break into the deepest water. But all of these unusual features won’t always come together, so we must interpret them as
to their relative importance. For instance, the longest feature won’t always be the deepest. The narrowest won’t always be the sharpest, etc., so I’ve listed them in order of importance:

1. The deepest water (because it’s the home of the fish).
2. The deepest break (which is the first thing the fish see when movement occurs).
3. The sharpest break (which is the most recognizable to the fish).
4. The narrowest break (meaning the most ridge-like).
5. The longest break (the one that reaches the greatest distance out into the lake).

If you've done a good job of mapping, you've got a good picture with all of the depths marked in, and you've found all of the features and determined the exact size and shape, it should be a relatively simple task to interpret where the contact point will be.