|
|
| I have read the entire and very long thread on the O'Brien fish as well as all past world record posts both here and on the other sites. One thing that continues to escape me is why almost everyone is so quick to dismiss the Lawton fish. It seems fairly obvious to me that John Dettloff engineered the Lawton disqualification to get his buddy Louie back on top and further manipulated the National Fresh Water Fishing Hall of Fame to keep him there despite the fact that he and the Hall board failed to use the same criteria on Spray's record as he had used on Lawton's fish.
Also, I read the whole story of the Lawton fish in the MF archives and feel that a very strong case was made to totally discredit Dettloff's Lawton investigation and, as was posted on the O'Brien thread, not even Mr. Dettloff could find a problem with Lawton's 65 pound 13 ounce fish from 1959. "IF" Lawtons 1957 fish wasn't as big as claimed, and that is seemingly yet to be satisfactorily proven, why then isn't anyone supporting the 65-13?
I probably will start a furor with this thread, but I just can't understand why so many are so willing to sweep the Lawton fish that was on top before Dettloff started his crusade to get and keep Spray on top, under the rug. I'd like to see some fair and serious debate about this issue. If you are not interested, don't post. Clowns not welcome. Are we willy-nilly tossing aside historical records while failing to support the real top dog?
George Langdon |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| I'll take a shot at this......I think Dettloff made a good case against Lawton's 69-15. I think that fish was bogus. I think that because of an obvious fraud that was perpetrated by Lawton AND Hartman back in that time none of Art Lawton's [or Ruth's] fish should be considered. Len Hartman also made a good case to NOT consider any of his fish OR Lawton's fish caught from that era on the St. Lawrence when he confessed to "loading" his fish.
Yeah, I think Dettloff saw an opening to get the Spray fish back on top. That was a good motivation.
I think John Dettloff did a good thing in beginning an investigation and disqualifying Lawton's fish. Unfortunately he neglected to continue his search for the truth.
Hmmmm....I wonder why? 
The WRMA picked up the ball a few years ago and IMO, discredited both the Spray and Johnson fish. As the WMA they also have shown O'Brien to be smaller than claimed.
I don't believe we have a 60lb. fish that can be shown to be beyond question as a world record. We're going to have to move below 60lbs. for a legitimate record......Just me.
DougP 
Edited by fins355 4/22/2011 9:13 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Thank you Doug for your considerate response. If I may, I'd like to challenge a few of your points. You said you thought Dettloff made a good case against Lawton's 69-15. Have you read the rebuttal of that investigation and considered the possibility that the Lawton fish could possibly have been as large as it was said to be?
You say it was an obvious fraud by Lawton, but you offer no proof besides Dettloff's questionable and highly motivated investigation. Yes, Mr. Hartman confessed to loading his and his wife's fish, but he offered zero proof that the Lawtons were doing the same thing, so to assume that they were based on only hearsay is just plain wrong. What do you have to say about that?
I think you gave Mr. Dettloff far too much credit considering what he did to the Lawtons a good thing, but you certainly are correct that he neglected to continue his search for the truth...why should he, he got what he wanted, and now everyone blindly accepts his "work" as gospel. Where is the proof that he was correct?
Why hasn't the WRMA/WMA done photo analysis on at least three of the Lawton fish?
You say you don't believe we have a 60 pound fish that can be shown to be beyond question, but you offer no comment on the Lawton 65-13. Have you looked at the photo of that one? Dettloff couldn't debunk it, so even if you buy his finding on the the 69-15, what about this one. IF one bad (which hasn't been proven), all bad should apply, why is one of Hartman's fish still recognized?
George Langdon |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| George, I should go back and read the rebuttal to Detloff's investigation, it's been awhile. You're speaking of the report by Larry Ramsell, I assume.
I'm not sure Dettloff's proof was questionable. The photo evidence seems pretty conclusive. I need to refresh my memory....
The WRMA/WMA moved on to Spray after the Lawton fish was disqualified, as I think they believed Lawton to be bogus after accepting the Dettloff investigation.
I haven't paid much attention to the 65-13......will do when I can.
You have a good point about Hartman's remaining record. I guess in his defense I would say that it is a more modern record that was well documented.
Also, I mounted that fish for Len so I measured the fish personally @ 54". I did not reweigh it.
I gues I have something of a vested interest in that fish so I will admit to a certain prejudice. LOL!!
However, I guess if info came about to PROVE that fish not eligible for the record book, I would hope to be able to put my bias aside.
Edited by fins355 4/22/2011 9:46 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Doug, you are right about the rebuttal. It can be found complete here:
http://www.larryramsell.com/DOCS/World_Record_Controversies.htm#Art...
Starts about half-way down, but the real meat is 3/4 of the way down. I think you will find that Dettloff's proof was highly questionable!
Perhaps the WRMA moved on too quickly? It's still not too late.
At any rate Doug, I think you will find the 65-13 one heck of a fish.
As for Hartman's remaining record Doug, did you realize that fish was claimed by Hartman to be two different fish with two different weights? Sad but true. Length is immaterial as the two weights were very close, within a couple of pounds. I'm sure you did a great job mounting it. His record weight for that fish is the lesser claimed, so I guess no harm, no foul. But if he lied about his other records, should that one stand?
George Langdon |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| I'll take a look at LR's report ASAP.
Could you tell us your primary reason for thinking JD's evidence on Lawton to be suspect?
Yes I heard Hartman claimed that fish 2x....I'm not a big fan of doing that! LOL!!
Still, I think the weight and lenght were properly verified.
Lenght IS important in record book application/affadavit IF it is found to be significantly shorter than what is claimed.
I'll have to look into the 65-13, I guess..... |
|
| |
|
| Doug my primary reason is that I believe the rebuttal completely blows Dettloff's photo analysis out of the water. His methods were sloppy and two examples in the rebuttal show that Lawton's fish may have been a big as claimed. And then there are the witnesses and their affidavits and re-affirmation affidavits and Dettloff's imporper handling of the Dunn affidavits and the ignoring of the Martin affidavit, and more.
I agree length is important for records, but weight is the ultimate authority. I have no problem with this Hartman record standing, but this isn't about Hartman now is it?
George Langdon |
|
| |
|
| Out of fairness John Dettloff's entire Lawton investigation should also be shown here before debating this issue. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 567
| You can't question JD's work --He's an "expert" . yes thats sarcasm towards other self or appointed "experts" in the field of muskie disqualification.
Can someone remember the exact details of Gene Burucki's 57 pounder ? there seems to be some question about can these fish really reach 60 pounds -- there was some delay before weighing Burucki's fish, HATE to bring up the topic of weight loss after a fish dies but I was thinking there was a serious delay in weighing that fish. It could have been a 60. MD |
|
| |
|
Posts: 280
| That brings into question Art Barefoot's fish @ 59-11 after being in a freezer for 18 [?] days b4 being weighed.
If the Barefoot fish lost as much as O'Brien's it would have weighed 68-11....[lol!]
|
|
| |
|
| ManitouDan,
Gene Burucki's muskie weighed 56 lbs. 11 oz. 3 days after being frozen. I wouldn't call 3 days a serious delay.
|
|
| |
|
| My take on Art Lawton's 65-13 is that the fish in the photo ia a considerable distance in front of Mr. Lawton. Projective geometry tells me that fish is nowhere near the length claimed and IF it weighed 65-13 it was "loaded". |
|
| |
|
| JD, it is my understanding from reading everything I could find on this subject, that Dettloff's 91 page report is Copyright and has never been pubilshed to the public. However, I believe in the rebuttal cited above, there is a point-counterpoint using the information from Dettloff's investigation and it is my opinion that his investigation was indeed made to look as amatuerish as it was, not to mention biased. Additionally, it is pointed out the many occasions where Mr. Dettloff used a method to find fault with Lawton's fish and then he and the NFWFHF board failed miserably to use the very same criteria when examining the Spray fish. One can only conclude that Dettloff had the Hall board in his pocket and they all wanted the Hayward hero upheld. Absolute and undeniable bias indeed. He got what he wanted.
George Langdon |
|
| |
|
| JD, while you are indeed correct that Lawton's 65-13 is in front of him, it is absolutely right next to his body, not "...a considerable distance in front of..." and it is easy to compare the length of the fish with Lawton's 68 inch height. It is not hard to believe that this fish was 62 1/2 inches long.
What proof, if any, can you offer that it was "loaded"? I believe we all know the answer, but I'm sure you will have something to add.
George Langdon |
|
| |
|
| Curious,
I agree that the Lawton and Spray fish were not held to the same standard, however, what I'm saying is that John Dettloff's investigation was enough to convince me that he proved his point about Lawton. And without people seeing the entire content of his investigation this debate shouldn't be taking place.
|
|
| |
|
| Well JD, if Dettloff's investigation convinced you, you obviously haven't read the rebuttal cited above. By the way, if you have it, perhaps you could post it in the article section for all to see and then you wouldn't feel bad about this debate.
George Langdon |
|
| |
|
| Curious,
You are entitled to your opinion about Lawton's 65-13 being held right next to his body but I totally disagree.
I have read the rebuttal above and it hasn't changed my opinion in the least regarding the size of Lawton's fish. You have your opinions and I have mine so lets just leave it at that.
|
|
| |
|
| That's fine JD, whatever you wish, but you haven't explained how if Dettloff had no problem with Lawton's 65-13, that you disagree with that. Or does JD stand for John Dettloff and you are trying to cover your tracks?
George Langdon |
|
| |
|
| Curious,
I don't feel I have anything left to explain. How John Dettloff felt about Lawton's 65-13 is of no concern to me. I'm telling you my own opinion of this fish as well as the other fish caught by the Lawton's. |
|
| |
|
| Early last week I still considered the O'Brien fish to be legit, quess what I now believe that I was wrong, it is what it is. I don't agree with Mr. Ramsell on everything he writes or says, but relating to that Canadian fish yes he was very correct. With regards to the Lawton fish I have what I think may be the latest compendium by L.Ramsell. One of the photos shows Lawton holding a 60lb plus fish that is supposed to go 61 inches or something like that. I think the fish was rated as the 13th largest. My point being is if that fish went 54inches long and 4olbs it still might be a stretch. Lawtons caught some good fish, real good fish just like Len Hartman. But they were never that big. I ordered Dettloff's book Topwater Tactics a few years back and spoke to him for awhile and asked him some very honest questions. He told me when he received the photo from the Lawtons of the record fish it already had 49lbs written on the back of it. I believe him, I don't think that the Spray fish is a record, any more than the Lawton fish. After talking to Mr. Dettloff I think that he really believes Spray's fish was 69lbs and just like you or me or any one else on this forum, he is entitled to his opinion. I found him to be very polite and at no point did he throw any digs or cheap shots at any of the other more noted muskie personalities of the day. As I said that was just my experience from one conversation. |
|
| |
|
| I don't think Len should have been allowed to register any record fish based on his previous indiscretions. Case in point, he tried to get more mileage out of the one Doug mounted by claiming it was too different fish as I recall.
I'll take a shot at this Lawton question now. I don't think it matters if Detlof didn't have a problem with the 65, why would he once he got what he wanted and the WR went down? I agree that Detlof's intentions were super slippery, but that doesn't change the content of his investigation. If you're going to cite the 65lb, then you also have to cite Ruth's 68lb, and Arts lower 60. As a matter of fact, put pictures of all their 60lb claims and dates up here and let the chips fall where they may.
To me, their claim of 6-60lb fish (and how many 50lbers?) in the span of about 6-8 years (off the top of my head) should speak volumes. Not only that, all their fish were supposedly caught only fishing weekends, and then only in something like the September/October time frame. When Hartman's claims were still considered valid, they kind of supported each other. But when Len confessed Lawton's claims were no longer supported. Len even indicted Art as I recall, why would a guy do that unless he was just being truthful. Not only that, nobody else was catching 50lb fish on the river, let alone 60lbers.
Didn't Art Claim he only had one or two pictures of that fish at the time, then Detlof was able to uncover basically a whole roll in his investigation. Why would Art lie about not having any more pictures of his WR unless he has something to hide? I don't need any fancy science to tell me the Lawton script reads like Spray with there multiple 60lbers when nobody else could even catch one. At some point in time common sense should be used to identify BS as obvious as this.
I'm out, fair enough? |
|
| |
|
| To accept Lawton's 65lb and put blinders on for the one Canadian angler cited (I agree 100% on his evaluation ) is removing common sense from the equation. In a nutshell, in order to accept one of Lawton's fish, you must accept them all. Keep in mind that Mr. and Mrs. were fishing in the same boat, almost as one person. Although the Mrs. herself may not have been privy to the exaggerations, that does not change the fact that her 68lb claim absolutely defies belief. In my opinion, Mrs. Lawton and O'Brien may not have known their fish did not weigh or measure as claimed too. Entirely possible! |
|
| |
|
| from Canadian Angler, "After talking to Mr. Dettloff I think that he really believes Spray's fish was 69lbs and just like you or me or any one else on this forum, he is entitled to his opinion. I found him to be very polite and at no point did he throw any digs or cheap shots at any of the other more noted muskie personalities of the day. As I said that was just my experience from one conversation."
Yes CA, Mr. Dettloff is entitled to his "opinion", but that doesn't make it so. I think you need to read in the rebuttal the other side of the story regarding the Dettloff "Smoking Gun" photo that you refer to. No, he didn't have to throw any cheap shots when you talked to him, he had already done that at the Lawton witnesses in his lame investigation. That he got his way apparently makes him bullet proof. I found my information in MF archives at,
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/pdf/mf_050108.pdf (Lawton rebuttal May 1, 2008) |
|
| |
|
| I think you're all nuts... Not one of the fish argued about surpass 60 lbs - plain as day. . . I scratch my head at why the controversey even exists - NONE of the mentioned fish should be in the running for a world record. Take a long look at those boys fish and then look at recents caught by Sondag, Clark, Hammernick, the list goes on.. Half of the fish Ramsell puts in his rants on his website are little more than 48 inches and maybe 40 pounds at best. The closest to 55 lbs that I can tell is the O'brian fish. |
|
| |
|
| I wholeheartedly agree with "seriously"! Before this thread goes any further look at O'Brien's 55lb fish and then look at Lawton's fish (any of them) and honestly say that they look a minimum of 10% bigger than O'Brien's. |
|
| |
|
| Guest,
You hit the nail on the head. Common sense should prevail. |
|
| |
|
| And while the O'brien fish is said to be 65lbs, I don't see it looking much bigger then Dale McNares fish... With todays stocking efforts, modern equipment, increased number of musky anglers and the overall quality of the musky anglers we have out there these days, does anyone REALLY believe those guys, like Lawton and his wife, caught that many MONSTER's? Google search 65 or even 70 pound fish and look at the images... Tell me their muskies look anywhere near 70lbs. Look at the length of some 57 - 59 inch muskies.. And to think there are really people out there who believe any of the argued about records are pushing 55... amazes me! |
|
| |
|
| Why should "common sense" prevail here when so many seem so quick to dismiss the scientific work produced by the WRMA and WMA? How many really post here without having read much of anything except some of the drivel posted by many anonymous posters here? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1247
Location: On the Niagara River in Buffalo, NY | IGFA set aside the Lawton muskie,they have not totaly tossed it out yet! The WMA needs to go back and look at it,if your going to disqualify the rest of the old big muskies,look at them all.Personaly I believed in the Williamson muskie,but certified scale was not used,so its out to.
Capt. Larry D. Jones |
|
| |
|
Location: SE Wisconsin | Williamsons 61 pounder... and somehow those ancients are suppose to add up to nearly 70 lbs?
Edited by Sam Ubl 4/22/2011 2:57 PM
(muskie_williamson_l.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
 muskie_williamson_l.jpg (124KB - 1000 downloads)
3muskierecords.jpg (54KB - 1090 downloads)
|
|
| |
