Interesting you say that Fred, I'm sure that Trent fish you photographed for me was caught on a couple of T7 sooty pellets. If I remember rightly not only was it the biggest fish from the fishery that day it was also the biggest caught that year.
Also I have it on good authority that most of the big fish from Adams Mill were caught on tiny hooks and baits, a couple of 4mm pellets on a 12 or even a 14 accounting for plenty of 15Lb+ fish.
While I don't doubt that on it's day a lump of meat will sort out the bigger fish smaller baits also account for a large percentage of the bigger fish caught.
Simple reason for this, as Adams mill got more and more angling pressure, subsiquently more and more bait piled in the one constant was the loose fed pellet size remained at around 6-8mm so it becomes quite logical that this size would be the size that barbel see as a 'natural food source'.
Same thing applies to carp fishing where 12-15mm boilies are piled in on a water, the fish accept that size as 'natural'.
But in answer to your question Craig, big baits doesn't mean big fish, yes you can avoid really small fish by using baits to big too fit in their mouths BUT this doesn't automatically mean a big fish will take, maybe on many occasions it'd just mean you go biteless.
On most rivers I tend to fish for barbel these days; Cherwell, Windrush, Thames and Wey.
The few resident barbel literally never see anglers baits and as such have no pre-conception as to what a natural looking pellet may or may not be.
Barbel are in many respects very similar to chub, in that I wouldn't expect a 4lb chub to consistently take a lump of paste on a size 4 hook on a low river in the middle of summer but on a flooded river I might.
Because the barbel I fish for are not used to anglers, I'm offered greater opportunity to just choose baits that suit conditions, which obviously boosts the chances of takes....
Floods, 21mm halibut pellets, 15-18mm glugged boilies.
Low water, maggots, worms or small bits of luncheon meat.
