|
|
Posts: 1276
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | I have purposely made the title of this thread vague. I will explain later. The balance here may or may not be confusing but will come clear in time. NOTE: This thread is approved by Steve Worrall, head Guru of this site.
I am sending a photo to Mr. Worrall to post as my computer won't do it.
What I would like to know from all readers is does anyone recognize either of the anglers in this photo? I will give a bit of time for responses and then we will proceed.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 12/13/2023 3:09 PM
Attachments
----------------
 44 pounder.jpg (146KB - 20 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1195
| I would say Art Oehmcke left Cal Johnson right? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1276
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | NOTE: If you do not care to read any more posts about record muskies, NOW is the time to exit out of this thread!
Not surprising only one response (not a lot of views yet either). Chuckski gave it a good go and was partially correct. The photo, not a great one, which to my knowledge has never been posted on the Internet, does indeed show Cal johnson, but it is he on the left. The man on the right is unidentified. My reason for posting this photo will become clear when the next photo collage I send to Mr. Worrall is posted. I will return later for additional discussion.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 12/14/2023 11:34 AM
Attachments
----------------
unnamedre.jpg (142KB - 20 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1276
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Ok, now that the collage is posted we can move on. The additional photos besides the one first posted, are the 1949 PUBLISHED photos of Johnson's record claim fish. Before I give you any further details on the "new" photo, I would like you to study all four photos and compare them as to fish size. More later. Comments welcome. |
|
| |
|
| I find it hard to compare sizes without knowing anything about the folks in the pictures. Are they 5'6" or 6'4"? Seems like that would be a logical starting point.
Besides, with catch and release being the norm today and legally required on some bodies of water, is there really any way of knowing what is the absolutely biggest fish? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 341
Location: Western U.P. | If I understand this correctly, the 4 pic collage is supposed to be the same fish??? If so, I could make an argument for 4 different fish based on their body shapes, and dorsal/anal fin shapes. The picture distances, camera heights, and angles are different, along with not very good image quality, but you can see differences in each of the fish. The overall body shape of a fish isn't going to change that much depending on a single/double gill hold, or rod thru it's jaw as long as you can get a decent side view. I would need more science, and maybe several beers to convince me that is the same fish. Just my observations. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1276
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | North of 8, my error as I meant to note that Cal was 5' 7" tall.
Cedar, As I DID note in my previous post, pics 1, 2, & 4 were the 1949 published photos of Cal Johnson's claimed world record fish said to be 60.25 long and 33.5 inch girth. I'm asking for comparison's to the new photograph based on Cal's height, the distance of the fish in front of him and length comparisons. |
|
| |
|
| Larry Ramsell - 12/14/2023 4:01 PM
North of 8, my error as I meant to note that Cal was 5' 7" tall.
Cedar, As I DID note in my previous post, pics 1, 2, & 4 were the 1949 published photos of Cal Johnson's claimed world record fish said to be 60.25 long and 33.5 inch girth. I'm asking for comparison's to the new photograph based on Cal's height, the distance of the fish in front of him and length comparisons.
Thank you, that is very helpful. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1187
| The new photo looks like a different fish to me. Mostly the gill plate as it relates to hands that are near. The three published photos look like the gill plate and/or head are a little larger than the new photo. I would estimate the new photo fish to be about a 4 footer, up to 51 or so. None of the fish look anywhere near the purported dimensions. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8721
| Why does it appear that Cal is quite a bit shorter in the published photos?? Look at where the top of is head is in relation to the brim of the other fellow's hat in the first picture. In the second picture he doesn't even come close.
I've made some assumptions here based on where I think the bottom of his shoe is. Can't tell from the picture. But if he was indeed 5'7" the measurements here are probably overstated a bit since the fish is closer to the camera.
Edited by esoxaddict 12/14/2023 6:27 PM
Attachments
----------------
Fish.jpg (77KB - 17 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 490
Location: NW WI | What Larry hasn't spilled the beans on yet is that he's teamed up with Marvel movies to shoot a film in which Larry goes back in time and 1v1 steps into the ring and boxes history's greats like Cal and Louis. Heartwarming and action filled tale of persistenc,truth,and triumph. But there's a Teaser at the end that fast forwards to the present to show a few good pals sitting lakeside on the dock joyfully arguing about whether or not any of filled their gloves with rocks. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1276
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | TCESOX: You may possibly be correct that the new photo is of a different fish. I don't know. What intrigued me more from your post was "None of the fish look near the purported dimensions."
EA: Your computer work was interesting-wish I had those skills. I cannot answer why Cal looks shorter in the published photo's other than the FACT that he is much further behind the fish (I assume using Spray's technique to make the fish look much bigger than it truly is) in some cases even leaning back away from the fish.
BOMBSHELL! According to Cal himself, the fish in the new photo was a 44-pounder! Is it the same fish as in the other photos? You will have to make up your own mind, but Professional, peer reviewed Photogrammetry (allowable in a court of Law) found that the MAXIUM length that fish in the other three photo's could have been was 53.2 inches and was more likely much shorter!!
Moving on to the end of my case, I present the following regarding the IGFA's keeping of the freshwater Muskellunge World Record (and the following doesn't even include the ease of which one could circumvent their rules and claim a new record).
Angling Oracle made the following comments and posted these links in the 72 pound thread. I recommend you read the linked information:
…”We will see what IGFA does. Not sure what to make of them. Interesting reading this:”
https://www.musky.ca/wrma/IGFA_Decision.pdf
…”It's also not as though the IGFA doesn't have paid staff and funds to pay to get controversial records right (although pretty light on dishing out consulting fees considering they are in theory a world record authority):”
https://igfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/2019-Financials.pdf
“I get they are probably a billfish clique, but they better not get this wrong.”
LR: Thanks Oracle. Pretty hard to deal with an organization of elites that has a 22.5-million-dollar bank account. The “decision” pdf that Oracle posted shows just part of the crazy number of record protests IGFA has had since adopting freshwater records from Field & Stream magazine, for just two top record categories, especially with regard to muskies. Sadly, they say one thing regarding the “set-aside” of the Lawton muskellunge record, then don’t follow through with what they say regarding possible reinstatement when a new photo was presented, and then do just the opposite with the Johnson record.
LR: During an exchange of emails with the WRMA, Mr. Jason Schratwieser made the following comment: …”No we do not have staff that are experts in the ‘science’ of photogrammetry. We don’t have doctorial level physicists onboard either, but would still have the justification not to accept laser technology as a method to estimate the weight of a fish. Our records are based on the weight of a fish as recorded by a scale. Period.”
LR: Note: Lawton’s fish WAS weighed on a certified scale and properly witnessed! There is no record of certification of the Johnson scales!! Photogrammetry is an accepted science and peer reviewed in the Johnson case and legal in a court of Law, and it was used only to determine LENGTH, not weight, but weight can be determined to be erroneous if claimed length and girth measurements are found to be GREATLY falsified.
Following are excerpts from an email I wrote to IGFA after the Johnson fiasco on March 13, 2009:
LR: “Jason: Forgive my saying so, but I believe the following two quotes from you regarding the Johnson muskellunge record puts the IGFA in a hypocritical position:
Quote 1: “Our main rationale with your (WRMA-LR) report is we do not believe that you can accurately determine the weight of a three dimensional object, such as a fish, from a two dimensional picture…”
Quote 2: The committee determined that there should not be any change to the All-tackle muskellunge record. This was in turn ratified by our full board of trustees. In short, they did not feel that the fish’s weight could accurately be refuted with the methodology (Professional Photogrammetry-LR) presented in the report…” (but length could!-LR).
LR: If these two quotes are indeed the case, then why was not this same logic applied to the Lawton record (It was weighed on a certified scale and properly witnessed-LR)?
“While indeed you (IGFA-LR) can do as you please, please remember you are “keeping” records for the entire world and not just a “club”. Personally I do not believe you can/should have it both ways…” (using two different criteria for setting one record aside and upholding another-LR).
“I realize you likely are wishing to remain out of the muskellunge record ‘fray’, but right is right. The Lawton record should be reinstated if you truly believe these quotes…”
Note: I did not receive a response to my email!
Edited by Larry Ramsell 12/14/2023 8:52 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 64
| Impossible to prove one way or another. Basing something on 1949 photos without exact measurements of people or fish is never going to be accurate. Fun to debate, but nothing will ever prove it one way or another. With catch and release so prevalent now, we'll never know what the "true" record is. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 309
Location: Selkirk, Manitoba | Larry, in general it seems the historical musky records that were for cash had issues for obvious reasons. Interesting stories for sure.
So the world record from Lawton's New York musky was disqualified based on the investigations of a Wisconsin resort owner/guide /Hayward promoter - and Johnson's fish (a Wisconsin one) became the record? Hmm... Did New York ever have a problem with this, or simply didn't care? I see Lawton's still the NY state record musky.
Seems IGFA leadership at the time baffled a bit and apparently had a hard time walking it back.
I have an issue with their mission statement as well. "The IGFA is a nonprofit organization committed to the conservation of game fish and the promotion of responsible, ethical angling practices through science, education, rule making, record keeping and recognition of outstanding accomplishments in the field of angling."
IGFA line class records for very large fish are simply not ethical fishing practices. 2 pound test for muskies? Never mind that, 2 pound test for marlin, tuna, sturgeon, you name it - and just goes up in increments from there (4, 6, 8 etc). They need to revisit this line-test stuff. Legal, but unethical...
O'Brien's and Lawton's (Seebeerger, Ishi et all - close) fish all demonstrate that 60 pounders can exist. I guess we are still in a holding pattern on this pending 72.
Edited by Angling Oracle 12/16/2023 11:15 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1276
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Oracle: Yes indeed, cash and/or merchandise has likely influenced both record, contest and tournament outcomes not only in the muskie world, but also bass, walleye and salmon over the years just to name a few. The prize of a car in the Spray-Johnson era of the late 1940's would indeed be a worthy target. However, based on my knowledge of those days, I would guess that Spray began things in 1939 and 1940 as a way to generate business for his Hayward Tavern; what coming off the depression of the 30's and the beginning of WWII, tourism in the north was at a low ebb. Johnson likely had a similar motive as things were slow to pick-up after the war, but his was a more altruistic motive as a gesture of an attempted increase of tourism in his beloved Hayward hometown and knowing that he had a short time to live (why else would he "give away" his record mount?). As for Spray, having talked with him multiple times, in 1949, I believe that his motive was pure ego!
And yes, you are correct about the Lawton record disqualification by the Hall of Fame and set-aside by IGFA. In addition, Mr. Dettloff lobbied strongly that the Hall install the Spray fish as the all-tackle record which they did, and also lobbied strongly with the IGFA to install Spray's fish and when that failed he badgered them into listing the Johnson fish despite the fact that it had never undergone world record scrutiny and there was no evidence extant that the scales used were ever certified either before or after the catch.
New York certainly did care and have a problem with Lawton's removal, so much so that the folks in the Clayton, NY area financed a protest with IGFA in February of 2007 and the State record keepers refused to accept the amateur Dettloff investigation and still to this day maintain the Lawton fish as the New York State record!
I have my own thoughts about IGFA's decisions but will bite my tongue for now.
I understand your feelings regarding the light line classes for big fish, but that is a matter for another day.
Yes, most of the giant muskies that you mention that have recently come close to that magic 60-pound mark and Williamson's 61-4 made it just over and this shows just how rare this caliber of fish is. Did the historical record fish of Johnson, Spray and Lawton pushing the 70-pound mark actually weigh that much? All will have to decide on their own and IGFA will have to decide the fate of the claimed 72-2 from Lac Suel. I think most of the responders on this forum have made up their minds! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32800
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | It makes no sense to try to overstate a fish much these days. I don't think we'll see much more of that behavior in the future. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8721
| What would be the point? I'd bet that any of us could post a picture of a fish and ask the size, and if you took an average of the guesses, you,d probably come within an inch of the actual length. |
|
| |
