does anyone know what was in the stomach of Al McReynolds world record striped bass :huh:

54" with a 34" girth
78 1/2 lbs

the fish was landed a day after a noreaster by the way ;)

Edit!

a part of a float from the commercial net that it was caught in?

a part of a float from the commercial net that it was caught in?
Ouch...

I hope you're more kind when I land my 80 Sunday evening. For the record...I don't even know any Comms :)

-spence

Ouch...

I hope you're more kind when I land my 80 Sunday evening. For the record...I don't even know any Comms :)

-spence

Hey Buddy,

I hope you do catch a big mutha :wavey:

Ok, just so we're clear...a BIG fish is more than 10 pounds right?

But to be serious. If I snag a mass of mussles over 8 ounces I'm waking up my wife. A really nice mass of weed? Calling ProJo...

-spence

The non believers never stop:sleeps:

McReynolds fish WAS given to him. I believe that from the bottom of my heart. Too many variables that just dont make sense.

If you don't know for sure...don't speculate. Give the guy a break and let it be.....only Al McReynolds, the guy he was with and THE fish really know so let it go! Which is what I will do should I ever catch a fish like that...let it go! So I don't have to listen to a bunch of finger pointers for 20 years plus!:rolleyes:

I don't know if he really caught it or not....but I will give him the benefit of the doubt.....who am I or you to question it?:huh:

If you believe he caught it great; but I have my doubts and believe he did NOT catch it. Leave it at that.

People with a free mind and choice to free speech :huh:

ok, back to the subject.....does anybody know what was in the stomach since the girth is abnormally large

If you don't know for sure...don't speculate. Give the guy a break and let it be.....only Al McReynolds, the guy he was with and THE fish really know so let it go! Which is what I will do should I ever catch a fish like that...let it go! So I don't have to listen to a bunch of finger pointers for 20 years plus!:rolleyes:

I don't know if he really caught it or not....but I will give him the benefit of the doubt.....who am I or you to question it?:huh:

People are just jealous because they didnt catch the record fish.

ok, back to the subject.....does anybody know what was in the stomach since the girth is abnormally large


It weighed in at 78-1/2 lbs., was 53" long and its girth was measured at 34 - 1/2". It took him over 4 hours not the previously reported hour and 40 minutes to land this monster. Als previous best to this point was 39 lbs. Al also caught a 15.9 pound weak fish immediately before he hooked into his world record beast- Stripers247.com
Its got a 15.9 lb weakfish stuffed into its belly.:hihi:

:topic:
Tony Stetzko's striped bass for example 73 pounds 60 inches. Charles Church another 73 lber 60 or 61 inches in length.

Al McReynolds 53 inches, 34 1/2 inch girth? It just doesnt add up. Any studies that have been made on length to weight research have no signs that point to even the slightest possibility of a 53 inch fish weighing in at 78 1/2 lbs. Of course there are exceptions, but the story doesnt fit either. I think it would be a real shame if the bar was set that high from a bogus fish.

Lure: "Long A" black bomber not magnum (the 4 1/2 Inch).. of course big fish fall to it, but I would say the exception rather than the rule.

Battle: 4 hours to land it!
Out of the package Long A hooks definately would have failed by then. Or worked themselves free.
was also During a stiff nor'easter

check out stripers247.com link world record striper

He caught it, no doubt. There is not one shred of evidence to prove otherwise, never has been.

All the naysayers are just jealous people, happens when guys land 50's let alone world records.

It weighed in at 78-1/2 lbs., was 53" long and its girth was measured at 34 - 1/2". It took him over 4 hours not the previously reported hour and 40 minutes to land this monster. Als previous best to this point was 39 lbs. Al also caught a 15.9 pound weak fish immediately before he hooked into his world record beast- Stripers247.com
Its got a 15.9 lb weakfish stuffed into its belly.:hihi:

:topic:
Tony Stetzko's striped bass for example 73 pounds 60 inches. Charles Church another 73 lber 60 or 61 inches in length.

Al McReynolds 53 inches, 34 1/2 inch girth? It just doesnt add up. Any studies that have been made on length to weight research have no signs that point to even the slightest possibility of a 53 inch fish weighing in at 78 1/2 lbs. Of course there are exceptions, but the story doesnt fit either. I think it would be a real shame if the bar was set that high from a bogus fish.

Lure: "Long A" black bomber not magnum (the 4 1/2 Inch).. of course big fish fall to it, but I would say the exception rather than the rule.

Battle: 4 hours to land it!
Out of the package Long A hooks definately would have failed by then. Or worked themselves free.
was also During a stiff nor'easter

this article says something different....
from http://www.finefishing.com/1saltfish/eastcoast/mcreynolds.htm
It took him one hour and 40 minutes to get his plug back. One hour and 40 minutes is a long time when it's measured out in surging runs in a strong storm surf, and in careful sidesteps on a slippery, storm battered jetty aimed at summer flounder fishermen. Most of all, it's a long time to strain back, arms, hands and wrists against an unseen fish that grew larger in McReynolds' imagination with every minute, every long run and every vibration of the taut line that sang in the wind. Such imagined fish usually shrink at the net or gaff. McReynolds' did not. Erdman had no more jokes, just encouraging words and the offer of help.

why are these facts different? sounds like there is some discrepincies in these "stories".

I usually run into Al around Longport this time of year. When I see him I'll ask him about the stomach contents. It's a shame what how that fish ruined his life. He always says if he was to catch another he would cut the line.

Here is my question , please someone answer this question.
Did Al get tossed out of 2 other derby / contest for cheating ?

He caught it, no doubt. There is not one shred of evidence to prove otherwise, never has been.

All the naysayers are just jealous people, happens when guys land 50's let alone world records.


i agree...there's no PROOF otherwise.....just jealous speculations,

ok, this is some crazy stuff ive just found. those "freak" fish like a few others have talked about, that just don't fit the mold according to the length/girth charts...you gotta check this out..

http://www.arkansasstripers.com/world-record-striped-bass-possibly-caught-lake-ouachita.htm

First of all, to answer the original question--I don't think Al's fish was ever gutted. It went intact to a taxidermist, in all likelihood. It had to be weighed on a certified scale to be accepted as the record, and was probably the single most scrutinized fish in history. If I had to guess, I would say the belly was loaded with the mullet it was feeding on.

Al caught the fish. No doubt about it. If it was caught in a net there would have been unmistakeable marks on it, and as I said, it was probably the most scutinized fish ever. The big problem is that Al is not the sharpest tool in the shed, and is his own worst enemy sometimes. At last count, he's told about 4 different versions of how long he had the fish on the line. I don't believe for a second it was an hour and forty minutes. It probably seemed that long to him, but in actuality, was probably more like 40 minutes. A Penn 710 doesn't hold enough 20# line for a striper to fight for close to 2 hours.

hay isn't that a Geoduck u have there ! Clambelly ?

I think the guy caught the fish. We're not old pals or anything but I have met him before and talked with him at length....

Funny how this thread always goes down this road :bshake: :tooth:

We should start a new thread "If you landed the world record fish, would you tell ?"

I've heard it took him 4 hours and I've heard it took 1 hour. I've heard he caught it on a bomber and that he got it on a Rebel. Also heard he was going to gut it right on the jetty.

I don't care, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. I think he caught it.

What I don't believe is that it "ruined his life". People don't believe you? %$%$%$%$ them and get on with your life. Why should you care if anyone believes you. Only thing that matters is that YOU know.

"Al McReynolds 53 inches, 34 1/2 inch girth? It just doesnt add up."

I saw the skin mount of that fish in a New Jersey tackle shop and it's a freak fish with a belly that hangs wide from just below the gills all the way to the tail. In human terms, there are men and women under six feet tall that they need to take walls down to get them out of their homes.

Did he catch it? I know that Dave DiBenedetto interviewed him at length for the book, On The Run, and despite a lot of loose ends that don't add up, he honestly believes he caught the fish.

Mike I'm curious as to whats the biggest bass you have ever seen while diving?

does anyone know what was in the stomach of Al McReynolds world record striped bass :huh:

54" with a 34" girth
78 1/2 lbs

the fish was landed a day after a noreaster by the way ;)

Jim,
To get BACK TO YOUR QUESTION - If I remember correctly there were schools of mullet in the area the night he took the fish. I have the original article published by The Fisherman mag somewhere in my basement. That article said he was using a Rebel - probably a small windcheater.

Fishing after storms has a long history of being good... or bad.

DZ

Jim,
That article said he was using a Rebel - probably a small windcheater.



saw him speak....he said he got it on a Rebel windcheater......

Last I knew he, Albert Mcreynolds, lived not far from the Viking Club in Braintree. We had him speak at our monthly M.S.B.A. meeting a few years back. I have to believe him after listening to him talk. Catching that fish made hislife a living hell. I heard him say quite a few times he wished he didn't. I think everyone who deosn't think he did should tell him to his face. Or otherwise kiss his:bshake: .

he wrote an article a year or two ago on this in OTW. It was a rebel.
I beleive he caught it.

Having also met the man I took him to be a hustler type which is not unusual for a fisherman. I took him to be not that bright but did not get the feeling he was dishonest. Of course there is a bunch of exaggeration as the years go by but it is my experience that ALL fishermen exaggerate so that is not enough reason for me to doubt his catch.

Another thing I keep in mind on this subject is that all humans and fishers in general do not relay or re tell info accurately. Those that know me know this is a pet peave of my own and I can usually disqualify a great deal of any repor given to me after a few simole questions. My point is that a lot of the discrepencies in his story have come from inaccurate re telling by other fishers. This added to normal eaggeration and this is not enough for me to think him a cheat.

Finally, I have direct experience that when anyone gains a good catch there will always be many to go negative in one way or another.

Bottom line is we all will beleive what we beleive and in the end...those that care enough to go negative about the man need to go fishing and shut up.

The fish hung in Campbell's Marine on Ventnor Ave for years. The things head and belly are huge. At that time of year and that year in South Jersey at night, the spot and mullet are everywhere. I used to travel up and down Stone Harbor looking for schools of bait to liveline to weakfish.
I never caught a striper in the 70's in South Jersey., it was primarily a weakfish and bluefish scene night and day.
However if there were stripers to be had inshore I would say that it was feasting on spot, mullet or sand eels.

Bill

I agree also,
give the juy a break !
Not only did he catch the record fish,
He, his son, and daughter have all caught bigger fish than most anyone here!.
I'm pretty sure they're all members of the 60lb club, how many here can say that!!!

Last I knew he, Albert Mcreynolds, lived not far from the Viking Club in Braintree. We had him speak at our monthly M.S.B.A. meeting a few years back. I have to believe him after listening to him talk. Catching that fish made hislife a living hell. I heard him say quite a few times he wished he didn't. I think everyone who deosn't think he did should tell him to his face. Or otherwise kiss his:bshake: .

I seem to recall Charlie Cintos saying he had the same regrets after catching his fish. Has anyone ever caught a world record fish that hasn't been called a liar and a cheat?

Having also met the man I took him to be a hustler type which is not unusual for a fisherman. I took him to be not that bright but did not get the feeling he was dishonest. Of course there is a bunch of exaggeration as the years go by but it is my experience that ALL fishermen exaggerate so that is not enough reason for me to doubt his catch.

Another thing I keep in mind on this subject is that all humans and fishers in general do not relay or re tell info accurately. Those that know me know this is a pet peave of my own and I can usually disqualify a great deal of any repor given to me after a few simole questions. My point is that a lot of the discrepencies in his story have come from inaccurate re telling by other fishers. This added to normal eaggeration and this is not enough for me to think him a cheat.

Finally, I have direct experience that when anyone gains a good catch there will always be many to go negative in one way or another.

Bottom line is we all will beleive what we beleive and in the end...those that care enough to go negative about the man need to go fishing and shut up.

Nicely put Basic!
Its sad how “Sportsmen” always get around to bashing the leader, the winner, etc. A simple congratulation is just not in the cards. I do believe what was said earlier in this thread, it was more than likely the single most fish scrutinized fish in history! I was on another site, where they were talking about Bill Major and his situation earlier this year... Their were a couple of folks implying, that all winners of tournaments cheat to win!
My comment was what a sad statement!
I don’t know what drives this thinking other than what some one mentioned earlier in this thread, its jealousy! I have made my statements regarding Bill in other post. If he is not knocked off with a larger fish by November 30, he will win the Governors cup for 2006. By looking at the picture of Al’s fish, and the way the belly droops on the fish, If Al wanted to cheat he could have stuffed ten, may be even fifteen pounds of dead fish into it, and made it an 88 pounder. In the picture I would say the fish was eating, and still hungry. He does consider it a curse. If you read what he has written, he clams’ he and his family have received death threats over this catch. May be the threats are also coming from the jealous ones!
Here is another link that may answer some other question. http://www.stripers247.com/NewJerseyworldrecord.htm
Basic, I like the flag you fly under!
Later, L

I could really care less if he caught it or not, the thing that did stick out in my mind is this, striperman36 said that weakfish and blue fish were feeding on mullet and sandeels, well it just sticks out in my mind that a fish that big would be eating weakfish and bluefish it's the food chain. so if it did have a weakfish in it's belly it should have. I give him my humble congrats for landing a fish like that on flounder gear.

He will be going down in history either way... Whether he caught it or not, can be argued both ways. So your always left back at square one, with Al McReynolds still the current IGFA record holder. And that fact will not change, unless of course....

It's bound to be broken eventually. You only need 78 3/4...:D

The way I figure it is he is standing next to the world record fish on the scale and it is an official weight so I guess it counts. I really don't care if he waded in and wrestled it he brought it to the scale. I also think the record will be broken but by a fresh water fish.

It's bound to be broken eventually. You only need 78 3/4...:D

Actually, I think you'd need 79-1/2 to break the record. Somewhere in the IGFA rules, I think there's a provision that you have to beat the existing record by a full pound--otherwise, it goes down as a tied record :confused:

Of course, if you catch that 78-3/4 on anything but 20# class line, you'd have a line class record, at least. The 16# record is 69 (Steve Petri) and the 50# record is 76 (Bob Rochetta). No clue on the 30# class record :huh:

Cinto's fish was never accepted as a record, for two reasons--it was caught on wire line, and the rules at the time prohibited using a lure with multiple treble hooks. A few years later, a guy from Fall River named Ed Kirker caught a 72 which tied Church's record. Then, sometime down the road, due to uncertainty over whether Church weighed his fish on an accurate scale, his fish was taken down, and Kirker's stood alone as the record until Rochetta caught a 76 in 1981, a few months before Stetzko got his 73.

Someone said the measurements do not make sense. Do the math the(girth squared) x (length) divided by (800) = 78.8 ?????

Length/weight charts are what dont add up. The fish exceeds what a typical 53 inch fish should weigh by a significant amount. Noone argues that it doesnt weigh 78 1/2. Its got a big ol' belly on it. Guess hes lucky that he caught an anomaly, or unlucky according to him.

I've heard it took him 4 hours and I've heard it took 1 hour. I've heard he caught it on a bomber and that he got it on a Rebel. Also heard he was going to gut it right on the jetty.

I don't care, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. I think he caught it.

What I don't believe is that it "ruined his life". People don't believe you? %$%$%$%$ them and get on with your life. Why should you care if anyone believes you. Only thing that matters is that YOU know.

The whole story was published last year in Saltwater magazine. It was a 2 part story and had Al as he told the story to the writer.
There were many reasons the fish ruined his life. He allegedly received $250,000 for catching the fish. People were jealous of the money which today isn't a huge sum but 20 or 30 years ago was a fortune. many of the reasons in this thread also were true then...people didn't believe he really caught the fish. he as shunned by the community, his friends, even his family. It proved to be his undoing.

Someone said the measurements do not make sense. Do the math the(girth squared) x (length) divided by (800) = 78.8 ?????

I have. It works out to almost 82 pounds--which is what the fish probably weighed when Al caught it, seeing as how it wasn't weighed in until hours later ;)

BTW, you use fork length, not overall length, for this formula. And fork length was the universal way to measure bass in 1982.

I dont care what the naysayers say.
when they bring in a 70 off their favorite jetty,
they can say what it was like.
I know that over the last two years I have told a varying recounts of catching my TWO keepers.
And, at each telling I was not lying. I was remembering it and reliving it as close as I could recall.

-m

I believe you did it!!!!!!! Later, L:cheers:
Later, L

I was going to ask if that length was fork length. I know in my grandfathers eyes and a lot of guys who fished back then that fork length was the only legitimate measurement. I went to the fish calculator and put in 54 length 34 girth and it came out to 78lbs. Seems pretty reasonable to me. If 54 is fork length, it could easily be 57 or 58" measured total length.

This may help! The charts that look at this stuff are just that, a "rule" of thumb. Its gust a general guide line. Some one sitting behind a desk gathering data. The information comes in from field people. The information supplied may be accurate; however it’s still just a guide line not gospel. Use people as a guide line. Just because a person is 5 feet tall doesn’t mean that all people 5 feet tall should weigh 120 pounds. Some may weigh, 95, others may weigh 210 pounds. I don’t see my wife’s fish on the chart that I look at. And I would think that their are a few different charts out there. Her fish was 44 inches long and weighed 49-8oz.
Later, L

here's a link to the math

http://www.sportsmans-nook.com/fishcalc.htm

it works out to the ounce...

54.5... 34

Rebel Windcheater it was, not a Bomber Long A. About " A Penn 710 doesn't hold enough 20# line for a striper to fight for close to 2 hours", how much time does that spool hold? You could have a fish at 20 yards in front of you for two hours, the length of line has nothing do do with the length of a fight. You're somehow trying to equate linear distance with measurement of time, and they don't fit.

Honestly who cares?

Honestly who cares?

Seriously... thanks for knocking some sense into us...

(I seriously doubt any striper could fight for 2 hours)

Seriously... thanks for knocking some sense into us...

(I seriously doubt any striper could fight for 2 hours)

haha:hihi:

A bass isn't going to sit still at 20 yards for 2 hours. Regardless of whether it's 8 lbs or 80 lbs.

Bass just don't have the stamina to fight that long. 20# mono won't hold up to the back and forth over a spinning reel's line roller and the rod's guides for that long. The only way a bass is going to take 4 hours to land is 1) it's a monster and 2) it's foul hooked, in which case it'll likely spool a 710. That's why it doesn't hold enough line for a 4 hour fight.

And you know what? There are few fishermen who have the strength and stamina to fight any fish for 2 hours, let alone 4. Especially standing up (not in a fighting chair or wearing a harness) on a jetty.

Look at the pictures of Al back then. Does he look like the fittest physical specimen you ever saw? ;)

I believe in my heart that Al truly caught that fish, and caught it fair and square. But I don't believe for a second that he fought it for 4 hours, or even an hour and forty minutes. His perception of time was affected by the circumstances of having what he knew was the fish of his lifetime on the end of the line. If someone was standing behind him, not personally involved in the fight, I'd be willing to bet it was on for less than an hour.

And among the things that Al has been consistent on over the years is that he caught it on an older style Rebel Windcheater.

. About " A Penn 710 doesn't hold enough 20# line for a striper to fight for close to 2 hours", how much time does that spool hold? You could have a fish at 20 yards in front of you for two hours, the length of line has nothing do do with the length of a fight. You're somehow trying to equate linear distance with measurement of time, and they don't fit.

I lost a fish last fall after fighting it for an hour. It was definately at least an hour as I walked into my spot at 10:40 pm, caught and released 2 real small fish in 3 casts, then caught the "lost fish" on the next cast. So I figure it took no longer then 20 minutes to catch 2 schoolies on 3 casts. So I hooked the fish no later than 11:00 pm and lost the fish at 12:00 AM. I had my cell in my hand when I lost it. It wasn't a case where the fish ran for 45 min... At times I sat on a rock just holding on wth neither me or the fish gaining for probably 15 min at a time. Don't know how big it was and considering the conditions it may not have been that huge. May have even been about dead, but I was never able to get the fish back against a strong current and couldn't move closer. Point is, most fights are much shorter than they feel, but after my experience I can imagine how a world record size fish could take a real long time to land.

I've beaten 50#'s in less than 10 mins and have had 30-40# fish take longer, but there is no striped bass around that is gonna take me 4 hours to land, maybe an hour tops, but no way 4. Al did catch that fish, but I think he took liberties with the fish tale afterwards :)

MikeP summed it up about the line roller and guides eating up that 20# mono over a 4 hour battle, would'nt stand a chance.