|
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Guest,
Seriously, do you actually ever read the posts before responding?
Larry: 'SEE ABOVE, plus the FACT that even though the IGFA hypocritically "set-aside" the Lawton record due to photograph, they stated with regard to the Johnson fish that weight could not be determined from a phototgraph...have you read all of the above posts?'
Your response:'Nice try but no soap. The IGFA did NOT remove the Lawton record due to an uncertainty. They were CERTAIN that they did not have a photograph of this fish that they felt supported the size of the fish, PERIOD! '
Duh?
|
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Guest - 1/31/2011 12:54 PM I don't know anyone but you who thinks this fish is legitimate. The trouble with guests... I agree with Larry. I also think you need to re-read everything that Larry wrote, and based on this comment I can see that you havent done that yet. From what I've read the point isn't that the Lawton fish is legit, the point is that if the IGFA is going to set aside one fish but not apply the same logic to the next then they are being hypocritical and should put the Lawton fish back as #1. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| Guest - 1/31/2011 11:54 AM
Nice try but no soap. The IGFA did NOT remove the Lawton record due to an uncertainty. They were CERTAIN that they did not have a photograph of this fish that they felt supported the size of the fish, PERIOD!
No, neither organization came right out and said that DCM is corrupt but their actions speak for themselves.
Maybe a poll should be started about the Lawton fish? I don't know anyone but you who thinks this fish is legitimate.
Using that line of thinking... How could they possibly be certain they had a picture of the Spray fish that DID support the measurements, then? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 574
Location: Elk Grove Village, IL & Phillips, WI | No one is saying the Lawton fish is legit, either let them all stand or DQ them all. They should all be held to the same scrutiny. If a photo can DQ one, why not all? |
|
| |
|
| The IGFA did NOT hypocritically set aside Lawton. At the time there was NOTHING hypocritical about their decision. Their hypocrisy was expressed with the Johnson fish which was obviously a poor choice of words on their part.
Why do you think the IGFA removed the Lawton fish? Duh?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Wow. Stop and think...please. You are either absolutely totally and completely missing the point, or are unsuccessfully trying to spin your comments against Larry's and mine...hard to tell which.
The claimed hypocrisy is that they set aside the Lawton fish based on photos, then proclaimed it's not possible to determine the size of a fish by a photo on the Johnson fish.
No one is arguing the Lawton fish was legit. The argument is that the standing FFHOF record is just as ridiculous to leave as a record.
I think you need to read more or stop arguing, but that's me. |
|
| |
|
| Will Schultz,
Being you have been a WRMA member I'm surprised to hear this coming from you. I thought you were only interested in the truth about these fish. Reinstating Lawton will definately not make everything RIGHT in the muskie world. Make no mistake, I've read everything out there about these fish and will be speaking shortly to Jason Schratwieser about the Lawton review. I will do everything in my power to see to it that this fish is NEVER reinstated. Some of the things I've uncovered will amaze you as well as the IGFA. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | CP/CG,
Apparently you are still having interpretation issues .
Do you honestly think anyone here really expects the FFHOF to disallow Dettloff's new career and reinstate the historical records or the IGFA to adjust the record? Everything in your power won't have to be very much.
You are yelling at the wall, dude, please stop. |
|
| |
|
Location: SE Wisconsin | Strong feelings on this topic...
Edited by Sam Ubl 1/31/2011 12:51 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Guest - 1/31/2011 1:33 PM Will Schultz, Being you have been a WRMA member I'm surprised to hear this coming from you. I thought you were only interested in the truth about these fish. Reinstating Lawton will definately not make everything RIGHT in the muskie world. Make no mistake, I've read everything out there about these fish and will be speaking shortly to Jason Schratwieser about the Lawton review. I will do everything in my power to see to it that this fish is NEVER reinstated. Some of the things I've uncovered will amaze you as well as the IGFA. I think everyone knows the truth but that's not the point. The point is that if the IGFA are willing to set aside one record using a photo but then say they are not willing to use a photo, well, which is it? Is it OK or not OK? If it is not OK then they should put the Lawton fish back. If it is OK (keep in mind they set the precedent with Lawton) then they need to reconsider their decision on the Johnson fish. FWIW - I do find it insulting that you post as guest. |
|
| |
|
Location: SE Wisconsin | Well, since everyone has their own opinions that matter very little... Let me say that in my opinion, all three (Lawton fish, Johnson fish and Spray's fish) are no where near the estimated sizes... nearly 70 pounds? c'mon, 57 inchers caught this year by a few look bigger than those fish. Are there any mid-60lb fish that have been verified since color photography?? Here are their pictures... these are not 65-69" fish, nor are they nearly 70lbs.
Attachments
----------------
 thumbnail.jpg (18KB - 448 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Location: SE Wisconsin | Kyle Anderson's 55" 50lber looks bigger than all of the above!
Attachments
----------------
1muskie.jpg (70KB - 2532 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 100 pounds, at least. |
|
| |
|
Location: SE Wisconsin | I was gonna say 90, but I'll side with you on that one, Steve  |
|
| |
|
| "Do you honestly think anyone here expects the FFHOF to disallow Dettloff's new career and reinstate the historical records or the IGFA to adjust the records?"
Didn't I just hear "Never say "never", stranger things have happened."?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Guest Number ?? wrote: "My apologies. I meant to say when Lawton was 'set aside'. As far as I'm concerned this was just a nicer way of saying disqualified."
LR: Lawton was "disqualified" by the NFWFHF and was only "set-aside" by the IGFA and to my knowledge, the IGFA's position remains the same..."Now if Lawton supporters can come up with a new photo they find somewhere, we'll be happy to reconsider" (Then IGFA President Mike Leach quote).
Former "Field & Stream" Fishing Editor Ken Schultz said at the time that in his opinion, ..."that there's not enough evidence to throw the Lawton record out. I don't think they've (Dettloff and/or the IGFA) proved 'Field & Stream' certified the wrong fish..."
And the beat goes on...
Can't change stupid and can't change the facts!
Edited by Larry Ramsell 1/31/2011 2:05 PM
|
|
| |
|
| What difference does the 'opinion' of a former 'Field & Stream fishing editor make?
The statement by Mike Leach CLEARLY points out that he is NOT satisfied with the photo representing Lawton's fish.
You are correct, you can't change the FACTS! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Apparently, C, you don't understand the influence the 'big three' and especially Field and Stream had back then.
'School' him please, Larry.
|
|
| |
|
| Will Schultz,
Being the IGFA 'set the precedent' with Lawton their duty is to remove the Johnson fish, NOT to reinstate Lawton. If they reinstated the Lawton fish all the work done by the WRMA was for nothing.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 73
| I was wondering, now a days when someone catches a fish and it is weighed on a certified scale do they cut the fish open to examine the stomach contents? I just got done reading a book about the fishing Derby held out at Martha's Vineyard every year and I know that for the stripers weighed they cut the fish open. The book is called "The Big One" and its by David Kinney. If any of you want to read a good fishing book, this is definitely one of them. Some of these guys are so secretive and insane that it makes musky fisherman look mild. |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Guest - 1/31/2011 3:01 PM Will Schultz, Being the IGFA 'set the precedent' with Lawton their duty is to remove the Johnson fish, NOT to reinstate Lawton. If they reinstated the Lawton fish all the work done by the WRMA was for nothing. Would it really be for nothing? Wouldn't the IGFA simply look foolish if they reinstated the Lawton fish because they had to live by their own standards? The point is they need to pick their stance and live with it. Sometimes you need to play the lawyer type games to get the correct end result. Oh and yes, I'm still offended that you are posting as "guest". Maybe we should all sign off and post as guest. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Guest Number ?? wrote: "What difference does the 'opinion' of a former 'Field & Stream fishing editor make?"
LR: Field & Stream was the entitly that ESTABLISHED the Lawton World Record in the first place! I believe what their Fishing Editor had to say about the decision was quite germain, since as sworrall pointed out, they were one of the "big three" (outdoor magazines and a HUGE influence in the angling world)!
Guest cont.: "The statement by Mike Leach CLEARLY points out that he is NOT satisfied with the photo representing Lawton's fish."
LR: Correct, and ergo, the current dilema of the IGFA's hypocrisy with regard to their decision on the Johnson fish. They simply cannot have it both ways; you cannot tell "weight" by a photograph, hence Lawton should not have been removed in the first place OR Johnson should have been removed in the second place after the WRMA protest. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32884
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Same guest, Larry, and yes, we know who the guy is. Not uncommon for him to get riled up about this sort of issue, he usually does. Why he's not logging in is anyone's guess, but we do not require he does as long as he remains civil. |
|
| |
|
| sworrall - 1/31/2011 2:10 PM
100 pounds, at least.
of course if you put them all on the same scale |
|
| |
|
| Obviously the IGFA feels that Field & Stream WRONGLY accepted the Lawton fish as a world record.
You already told the IGFA they cannot have it both ways and what was their reply?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Will:
Just reflecting on your WRMA "for nothing" comment with regard to Lawton. Actually, the WRMA did NOTHING with Lawton! I know they think it unnessary, but then I am aware of work with the same program that DCM used (photomodeler) that apparently indicates that the Lawton fish is close to the length claimed!
While I applaud the work the WRMA did, I (and others apparently from previous posts on this board) don't feel that the WRMA has completed their mission, yet. In my mind, that should include a DCM ananlysis of the Lawton fish.
To respond to the post above this one, which was posted while I was making my latest: The IGFA's response to my hypocrisy charge was somewhat normal for them...they chose to not respond. Understandable, what could they say? Still bet if they could go back to the early 90's and have a "do over", they would!!
Edited by Larry Ramsell 1/31/2011 3:07 PM
|
|
| |
|
| I have enjoyed reading most of the 9 pages on this topic. Real easy to end the debate...Ken O'brien, Oct 16, 1988, Georgian Bay, 65 lbs, 58" End of story. This IS the real world record. I think most musky fishermen would agree. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | guest - 1/31/2011 3:08 PM
I have enjoyed reading most of the 9 pages on this topic. Real easy to end the debate...Ken O'brien, Oct 16, 1988, Georgian Bay, 65 lbs, 58" End of story. This IS the real world record. I think most musky fishermen would agree.
wasn't that the garden-hose fish? i get them all confused.
i agree that hundred pounder with the guy in the camo pants looks like the biggest of all of em. that MUST be the real world record |
|
| |
|
| O'brien fish was killed, certified, ect. ect. ect. He was fishing for anything that would bite... Lets face it as musky fishermen...we all stink! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 426
Location: Perryville, MO | And again I ask...What's the beef with the O'Brien fish? Or at least simply, why do I get some goofy link when I click on the report from the WRMA site? |
|
| |
