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!!!

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.