|
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | You know it winter when this question comes up. You should separate Johnson and Spray because they are two different fish and there are many who think the Johnson fish is legit. I dont care about either one either way. What I believe is that there is a bigger fish out there that can be the undisputed world record. I also believe that if and when it is killed and verified that half of the jealous so called experts will dispute it. So whats the point of discussing it at all? No matter what fish is listed there be no lees than half of the musky world who will dispute it. Mike |
|
| |
|
| the lie is so big,never those bs record are gona be beated,after all those years,never a commercialy neted fish or a dead floater have pass the 69 lbs mark
keep dreaming  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| pepsiboy - 1/16/2011 2:57 PM
the lie is so big,never those bs record are gona be beated,after all those years,never a commercialy neted fish or a dead floater have pass the 69 lbs mark
keep dreaming :)
Sure pboy, THAT never happened...
Attachments
----------------
 malo.jpg (79KB - 228 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| "THAT" didn't happen...it had a 5 1/2 pound northern pike "stuffed" in it before weighing! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 200
Location: Minnesota | TimG - 1/16/2011 7:38 AM
Spray = No.
I agree with this. Spray's fish doesn't look anything near its reported dimensions. Take a look at the picture. That's maybe a 50-53" fish, tops.
Johnson's fish looks legit. I've seen the mount a few times and not noticed anything fishy (haha) about it. |
|
| |
|
| There is one common characteristic shared by the Johnson mount and all the Spray mounts, noticeably small heads.
Reminds me of the scene in the movie "Beatlejuice" when the witch doctor sprinkles magic dust and the head of the safari hunter and his head shrinks down to the size of an orange... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 222
| What do think? 69 lber on left and 50 lber on right. Don't think so.
Attachments
----------------
larry2.jpg (46KB - 373 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| Well... 19 pounds of lead sinkers would sure do the trick! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | I like this one 50 by 29 . 61 pounds found dying in december.
But wait they cant exceed more than half of their length in girth hmm I wonder who said that? Mike
http://www.fishingfury.com/20110107/incredible-new-brunswick-muskie... |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | "do you think the world record muskies caught by Cal Johnson and Louis Spray were as large as stated?"
No, of course not, and it is probably closer to 99.9% don't believe. I can understand 11% wanting to "retain" these records, what is silly to me is that 11% actually "believe".
Common sense dictates that Johnson could not have caught a 33" girth fish in July, and a part-timer like Spray could not have been able to catch 3 WRs in 10 years. A post-spawn July muskie simply could not possess a 33 ½" girth, and a known bootlegger and hooligan like Spray could not have been able to predict (publicly) he would break the record later on that month.
In my mind, the only thing left to question is if Spray actually received a new car like Johnson when he falsified the record for the second time in 1949.
|
|
| |
|
| That New Brunswick musky doesn't come close to the formula weight and it doesn't look all that heavy to me either. It's certainly a big fish, just that something isn't adding up. That also got me thinking about Spray, 3 records in his lifetime? Consider his lifetime as 1 event, what are the odds? Sounds a lot like the Lawton's, Hartman's and Haver to me with lots of false entries. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Jerry Newman - 1/18/2011 12:41 PM
"Common sense dictates that Johnson could not have caught a 33" girth fish in July, and a part-timer like Spray could not have been able to catch 3 WRs in 10 years. A post-spawn July muskie simply could not possess a 33 ½" girth, and a known bootlegger and hooligan like Spray could not have been able to predict (publicly ) he would break the record later on that month."
You can make an outlandish claim like this, but making the claim doesn't prove it.
I am surprised you even make a bizzarre bologna sandwhich like this. Your statements are not even related in a cause and effect manner. |
|
| |
|
| firstsixfeet,
Johnson's muskie couldn't of had a 33.5" girth regardless of when it was caught. The side width (depth) of the fish is not great enough relative to the length of the fish to support this claim. Even if this fish was perfectly round the girth would fall over 2" short of 33.5" even if the fish was 60.25" long. The fish would have to be wider than it is deep to possess a 33.5" girth which you know yourself isn't possible.
You want cause and effect, there you have it. |
|
| |
|
| This thread is becoming completely ridiculous.
For most of you here, if a seventy pound muskie fell out of the sky and hit you square in the face breaking your nose you would all stand around quarreling that it could not possibly be a seventy pound muskie and be completely oblivious that your nose is broken. |
|
| |
|
| A 70 pound misky would have to fall out of the sky.....there sure aren't any in our lakes or rivers!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| Guest - 1/18/2011 4:20 PM
This thread is becoming completely ridiculous.
For most of you here, if a seventy pound muskie fell out of the sky and hit you square in the face breaking your nose you would all stand around quarreling that it could not possibly be a seventy pound muskie and be completely oblivious that your nose is broken.
If that were to happen it would be the first 70# muskie known to exist.  |
|
| |
|
| I just think that all of the people saying that there is no way there can be a 70 lb fish are naive. Look at the amount of fish that we're hearing about that are caught that are really starting to challenge and exceed that 60 lb benchmark. Most of these fish are being caught in areas where people are fishing for them. If I were a 70 lb musky I would probably be a couple miles off shore in one of the Great Lakes chasing around schools or salmon or trout. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| C'mon Now - 1/18/2011 5:02 PM
I just think that all of the people saying that there is no way there can be a 70 lb fish are naive. Look at the amount of fish that we're hearing about that are caught that are really starting to challenge and exceed that 60 lb benchmark. Most of these fish are being caught in areas where people are fishing for them. If I were a 70 lb musky I would probably be a couple miles off shore in one of the Great Lakes chasing around schools or salmon or trout.
I'd suspect that they are ALL being caught in areas where people are fishing for them.
Just sayin'...
It's not a stretch to believe a late fall muskie full of eggs could weigh 70# after a good meal. But the one they are calling 69# - 11oz.? No way. Not that fish, and not where it was supposedly caught.
You need a large body of water, significant sources of fatty pelagic forage, the right genetics, and the perfect timing of a fish that is not only full of eggs late in the fall, but has just consumed a rather substantial meal to make 70# happen. Such a fish would typically be inhabiting areas that would make it nearly impossible for us to catch them, and eating fish that are significantly larger that what a typical lure looks like. To top it off, it would also have to have a full belly to make 70#, which means it probably wouldn't eat.
Edited by esoxaddict 1/18/2011 5:30 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Let's get this thread back on track, the question is not if 70 lbs. exist.
The question is do you think the world record muskies caught by Cal Johnson and Louis Spray were as large as stated?
|
|
| |
|
| The answer from anyone with half a brain is still NO.
The Hayward area is the laughing stock of muskie fishing, clinging to these tired old lies doesn't help. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | By the sounds of it I think Addict has a world record fish he is holding out on us. He knows an awful lot about what it takes to create a 70 pound fish....I'm betting it is in his bathtub, since this fish is in an area that is near impossible to catch. I haven't seen many fish coming from Addict's bathtub. Quit holding out EA, lets see the pics! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| Sorry to burst your bubble, Mike. But the only thing that ever comes out of my bathtub is me, and you SURE don't want to see pictures of that! Well, okay, maybe you DO?? Well, either way - you ain't gettin 'em!!
But since you're the resident biologist.. Other than lead or sand or one foot on the scale, what do YOU think it takes to grow a 70# muskie??
Edited by esoxaddict 1/18/2011 6:12 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| esoxaddict - 1/18/2011 5:25 PM C'mon Now - 1/18/2011 5:02 PM
You need a large body of water, significant sources of fatty pelagic forage, the right genetics, and the perfect timing of a fish that is not only full of eggs late in the fall, but has just consumed a rather substantial meal to make 70# happen. Such a fish would typically be inhabiting areas that would make it nearly impossible for us to catch them, and eating fish that are significantly larger that what a typical lure looks like. To top it off, it would also have to have a full belly to make 70#, which means it probably wouldn't eat.
Where do you guys come up with all these "facts". You and one of the many guests and Newman all have these paramaters for a record fish but absolutely no basis for them in fact.
Let me point out a few things.
#1 A record fish may very well have a genetic or pituitary disorder inclining it to be heavy, not required, but a possibility.
#2 It WILL be a fluke in any water, and it WILL NOT have a peer group.
#3 It may be a fish that never spawns. And in my experience, fat fish tend to be fat every day, not just in late fall.
#4 Diet can be varied as long as it is rich, plentiful, and easy to obtain. I don't think there is any "pelagic" rule.
#5 There may be a full belly requirment to reach the weight but it could be comprised of 2-3 recent meals, of unastounding size.
#6 It is wrong to treat probabilities as if they were cast in stone, for a fish that is way off the probability chart, and yet it seems to be the norm. |
|
| |
|
| Let's try to have some fun with this one because these records are laughable.
#1 A record fish may very well have a genetic or pituitary disorder inclining it to be heavy, not required, but a possibility.
>>>The genetic defect possibility is statistically possible but only happened with king Lou's fish.
#2 It WILL be a fluke in any water, and it WILL NOT have a peer group.
>>>It will never happen again because king Lou selfishly caught and killed the entire peer group. No wonder we have not seen hide nor hair of a 50lber in Hayward since then.
#3 It may be a fish that never spawns. And in my experience, fat fish tend to be fat every day, not just in late fall.
>>>and these fish don't even have to look fat to be fat either.
#4 Diet can be varied as long as it is rich, plentiful, and easy to obtain. I don't think there is any "pelagic" rule.
>>>The plentiful, easy to obtain diet can also be found in your garage. Scientifically speaking, winking at her body-I mean your buddy-rules.
#5 There may be a full belly requirment to reach the weight but it could be comprised of 2-3 recent meals, of unastounding size.
>>>It's astounding that they found nothing in the belly of these 2 records. WOW, how much would they have weighed if they had two or three recent meals?
#6 It is wrong to treat probabilities as if they were cast in stone, for a fish that is way off the probability chart, and yet it seems to be the norm.
>>>What about weighted down with stones, that seems to be all th falls within the probability chart.
This was hastily written in jest, hope it provided a chuckle or two?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Ten anon posters on this page, and not one post worth reading amongst em.
No stones, no smarts, no service guys.
|
|
| |
|
| firstsixfeet do you believe there is some yeti and martian near your city? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 67
| First off lets keep this respectfull , I see some valid points from both sides , that being said i don't believe that there has been a 69 lb fish caught yet , that is just going by the pictures and info available today , but i do believe it will happen in the next couple of years ,here on the Larry with the invasion of round gobies all spieces of fish seem to be increasing in size , smallmouth that used to avg 2-3 lbs are now avg 4-5 lbs , walleye on the bay of Quinte that were avg 10-12 lbs are now avg 14-16 lbs and guess what all are full of Gobies , it would only make sense that Muskies will show the same increase in wieght gain ,in fact i believe it has already show this with the numbers of large fish being caught in the last two years , our chapter is awaiting the results from Dr J Casselman on a 51 in that unfortunatly did not survive a release , it will be interesting to see what the stomach contents were and the average size of the forage , when this information is released i will post the results
|
|
| |
|
| firstsixfeet,
What you are claiming is the same as saying 2 + 2 = 4 has absolutely no basis for being a fact.
(1) A genetic or pituitary disorder can be ruled out because as I pointed out earlier, Johnson's fish would have to be deeper than it is wide to possess a 33.5" girth which it isn't.
(2) Johnson's fish is NOT a fluke. It's proportions show nothing unusual.
(3) Whether Johnson's fish ever spawned or not is irrelevant because as stated above, it's proportions show nothing unusual.
(4) The diet Johnson's fish had is also irrelevant for the same reason as above.
(5) The belly on Johnson's fish was reported to be completely empty by the taxidermist that mounted it.
(6) "It is wrong to treat probabilities as if they were cast in stone, for a fish that is way off the probability chart, and yet it seems to be the norm." What is wrong is you confusing facts with probabilities.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1202
Location: Money, PA | World Record Legitimacy = The fish which were "Legitimately" weighed and registered...BOTTOM LINE! End of story.
These debates ONLY seem to occur in "DREAM LAND" |
|
| |
|
| World Record Legitimacy = The fish were NOT "Legitimately" weighed and registered...BOTTOM LINE! End of story.
These beliefs ONLY seem to occur in "DREAM LAND". |
|
| |
