|
|
| You know is it so hard to blieve that Louie pulled a fast one????
One Night not all that Many Years apart from when ol Louie got his fish,,,,Orson Well's went on the radio one night and after a couple hours he had half the country beliveing we were being invaded by Space Aliens in machines!!! to the point where somepeople where out in their backyards armed with Doubble barrel shotguns and axe's,,,Now if Orson baby can pull that one off I dont think its to hard to immagine ol Louie duping a few huckelberrys in Hayward wisc |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | sworrall - 1/29/2006 12:27 PM
FSF,
You'll find I stand closer to your view than far away, and wish ALL the records had been left alone. Since Pandora opened the thing, it'll have to go the distance now. We may NEVER know the 'truth', because truth lands squarely in perspective, and perspective originates in opinion, which originates from information provided to each individual. SNIP....
Excellent point Steve. Where does it end? First Lawton, then Spray, then Johnson--and let's not forget the O'Brien fish. Shoot...before long the Williamson fish *may* be the WR!
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| HGN - 1/29/2006 11:30 AM
FSF,
So you agree with Larry that the Lawton record should be reinstated then? Should it have been grandfathered in too? The only thing that you are saying is (in effect) what John Detloff did to GET LOUIE'S fish as the #1, is it so wrong that the WRMA is attempting to finish a job that he started?
Do you really think the FWFHoF treated the WRMA report without bias toward Louie?
Hmmm, lets see,
the answers are...
#1 NO
#2 No, that is not what I am saying at all.
#3 NO. And they should be biased toward protecting old records previously accepted, and not biased toward throwing them out. The hall should always have a "prove it" attitude to any challenges on records they have accepted based on proof requirements of the day. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| LR, I will be interested to see the additional proof, though if it is a complicated mathematics thing...may not get fully comprehended.
I can also very well see your point about hindsight, and I can also see how going in it looked like a worthwhile thing to do. It is a tough question whether challenging historic records really has done musky fishing or musky fisherman a service in the long run.
Once again, let me take the time to thank you for your many detailed works of documentation involving the stories and history of the sport, and the many fish you have gone out of your way to verify, and further detail for us all. I have no qualms about disagreeing with you on some points, but recognize and applaud your efforts as a service to all of us that fish for musky.  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | FSF:
No, zero math involved.
I sincerely wish that the "powers that were" at the time of the Lawton investigation, had stepped back and realized what a "can of worms" was about to be opened. But unfortunately, that didn't happen. I pleaded with the current Hall Executive Board prior to their current decision to reconsider the Hall's position in the matter of past records established by other prior record keeping organizations, as did others before me, including Brad Latvaitis, who also resigned from the Hall recently. It would have been a simple matter to institute an historical records list and begin a "modern day record keeping program." Instead, the Hall chose to continue on their current path.
As you and many have stated, we all are loosers in this, regardless of how it comes out. Dr. John Casselman perhaps said it best at the Symposium, when he stated that the old records are legendary and should be left alone. I concur, even if several of them were or are suspect. However, since the Hall chose its current course, the WRMA has no choice but to continue theirs, and could use financial support. Based on what I currently know, they WILL prevail, so stay tuned. In addition, the WRMA rebuttal isn't the only response that will be given to the Hall's report and decision.
Let me take this opportunity to thank you for your kind words regarding my past work and writing on muskie history. When I wrote the first edition of my "Compendium" my goal was to simply preserve the wonderful history of our great sport in one place before it was lost. I did not look for reasons to discount or discredit historical catches, quite the contrary. I tried in almost every case to find additional supporting facts and information. Unfortunately, in some cases, we were all duped, but that doesn't reduce the addition that those had to the "muskie mystique."
I respect your right to disagree with me on anything regarding our muskie history, but please allow me the advantage of voluminous files, gathered over the past 45 years or so. I do have, especially in the case of the Lawton muskie, a file containing more information, from more sources, than any other extant, much of it "inside information" available only to me in total. At the time of the Lawton investigation, in addition to being Hall Fish Historian and World Records Advisor (after having developed and built the Hall's World Record program and having served for several years as World Records Secretary), I was at the same time a Representative of the International Game Fish Association (IGFA), a position I held for 16 years. It is that huge Lawton file that I have been reviewing, and from which my final review of that situation will materalize. I hope however, that all will please be patient. I do not intend a "rush to judgement." I simply intend to present, again in hindsight, facts supporting what I believe to have been an egregious error in judgement in the disqualification of the Lawton muskie, legitimate or not. I now believe that had I been experienced enough at the time, instead of accepting at face value Mr. Dettloff's investigational report, my (current) findings would have likely been sufficient enough to cause the two record keeping organizations to arrive at a different conclusion than they did.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskie Historian |
|
| |
|
| Thank you for your post Larry! I'll sleep better knowing things are in good hands. YES I will be sending $ in to the WRMA to help get this mess cleaned up.
FSF, I understand where you are coming from better now. The only point I'd like to make is the FWFHoF should not be more biaed for this Louie record than any other. They are clearly and completely biaed because of John Detloff being president.
After all who do those other board member's call their boss? |
|
| |
|
| Well I have posted a few times on this topic elsewhere, might as well say my peace here and be done with it
Truly a fascinating topic. Interesting methodologies and "science" being used to examine the fish. As for what I believe..... yet to be convinced either way. At first I sided with Spray, then with Wrma, now on the "to be convinced either way" list.
Untill someone duplicates the photo(s) in which they can conclusively show either a 54" or 64" fish in the positions and angles that were present in the 1949 photo(s), with technology from that era, I will remain unconvinced either way. No cardboard cutouts, no rulers, no old mounts... a 3D model in either 54" or 64" that can be contorted to duplicate the angles present in the photos. Simple request... and truly amazing that neither those that support or refute the record has attempted to do this. THAT picture, would truly be worth a thousand words, or posts in this case . |
|
| |
|
| 25% think that 35 pound fish was 70 pounds? Give me a break, guess Craig Sandall, John Detloff and Scott Allen have been busy lately.
Let's not forget the claimed 31 1/4 girth too, yeah right ...  |
|
| |
|
| Hey guys,
for those of you who want to listen, Pete Maina expressed his view on the Cutting Edge Outdoors Radio Show. Its week 24.
John Detloff was also on the show a week before Pete. Week 23 will provide John's take on the whole deal....I knows it has been talked about over and over again, just thought you might want to hear the guys behind the whole deal.
Troy
http://mrbluegill.com/smokeysradio.htm |
|
| |
|
| LINK? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32880
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Thanks to Smokey's for the Cutting Edge radio program, listen regularly! |
|
| |
