Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^& (Post 877321)

49" and 82 lbs?? That don't make sense.

Originally Posted by piemma (Post 877296)

Personally, I believe it's the real deal and the guy has a history of big fish so why would he lie?

Originally Posted by iamskippy (Post 877322)

either does being 5'8" and 300 pounds but its possible. :rotf2:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 877327)

Wow, this thread really is bringing out the worst in people :rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:

-spence

Originally Posted by WoodyCT (Post 877316)

Larry-You wouldn't have to do that. You are a known entity whose credibility is above reproach.

When such a prized record falls guys will always cast a suspicious eye, especially when the details are as ... Interesting ...as they are here: 1) The guy won't seek the IGFA record, 2) The fish is short for its weight, 3) The fish is entered in, and will likely win, a major contest, 4) Said contest does not require the fish be cut open to see if it has been loaded, 5) The fish was caught in Connecticut, 6) By a relative unknown...

Being a skeptic does not make one a jealous a$$hole as some would like to believe.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by spence (Post 877325)

Yea, Field and Stream article says he's caught 3 60's in the past year.

-spence

Originally Posted by Clogston29 (Post 877337)

I'm happy for the guy and happy it fell too a real fisherman. I really thought the record would end up going to some guy out drinking beers who decided to throw out a chunk and see what happened - "johny grab the rod" scenario. This guys resume speaks for itself. Would like to see fish examined though, if nothing else to eliminate rumors.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Mike P (Post 877339)

Actually, it was four 60s and a 58. And those are just the fish he entered in the Cup. You're only allowed to have your 3 best fish stay on the board. He might have caught others that he either released, or that were entered and displaced. Also, according to the F&S article, he released one that he estimated to be well over 70 a few years back.

F&S appears to have talked to the guy personally (and probably paid for the rights to an "exclusive"), whereas OTW got their info yesterday from a CT beat writer who talked to other "credible sources" who may not have been all that credible. So, I put more stock in today's F&S article. The guy did go to the hospital, that's true, but it wasn't for a panic attack. He apparently took a fall out on the water and hurt his ribs, and went to have them checked out. This is from his own mouth. He left a couple of mob scenes to have a chance to catch his breath. He already stated what tackle he used--a heavy 6-1/2' St Croix tuna rod, a Quantum Cabo reel, and 50# Berkley Gorilla Braid. I fully expect him to submit the paperwork, based on his statement that "he'd be an ass" if he didn't. He didn't have to do that yesterday, and he doesn't have to do that today, or tomorrow or for almost another month. There's nothing more that he has to do.

If the guy fishes from a tin boat, he caught the fish inshore. He's not running out to federal waters south of the Block to poach in the EEZ in a #^&#^&#^&#^&ing tin boat. The redness on the fish is pretty normal. The fish lays in a box, and the blood pools in the low points of the body where it comes into contact with the box. It's what's called post-mortem lividity, and it's perfectly normal---it's not net rash. I have quite a few pictures of bass less than half that size with the same redness. There's nothing suspicious in my mind at this point. OTW did everyone an extreme dis-service yesterday by spreading some wild rumors, IMO.

As far as the 54" thing goes---anyone want to take a stab at the length of McReynolds' fish? I'll save you the trouble of looking it up--it was 53-1/2" long, but it had something like a 35" girth.

Originally Posted by CowHunter (Post 877347)

I am willing to bet that the field and stream article was done over the phone. Who took the pics???? Just look at the article, they have GM with what 4-5 different outfits. Im sorry, but no way is a 49-50 inch fish going to be 81.88lbs, if it was it would be wide all the way like a tuna, solid not like that. I spoke with Jim Fee yesterday while he was on the way down to see the fish and havent heard from him since. Why all the quietness. I just dont understand why create controversey? WHO SAW The fish? Leave the fish at a legit tackle shop for a day, Let whoever wants to inspect the fish, rewiegh on a certified scale, do length to girth measurements. Dispell all rumors! Why create problems for yourself? Alot of guys on this board sell fish, Ive had hundreds of pounds of fish with little or no ice for hours in mid summer off gayhead / nomans during the day and they dont look like some of his fish. Why do all the pics of fish look worse than any fish Ive seen in a supermarket??? If he never wanted the publicity then why even wiegh the fish in???
I wish I submitted this 65" fish I got mounted, i just didnt want the publicity...

Originally Posted by westhavendave (Post 877351)

If you are not joking, you are seriously delusional. I don't think Field and Stream would put the magazines reputation on the line by not vetting the veracity of the anglers claim, before they did the article. Go kill some more bass.:wall:

Originally Posted by CowHunter (Post 877347)

I am willing to bet that the field and stream article was done over the phone. Who took the pics???? Just look at the article, they have GM with what 4-5 different outfits. Im sorry, but no way is a 49-50 inch fish going to be 81.88lbs, if it was it would be wide all the way like a tuna, solid not like that. I spoke with Jim Fee yesterday while he was on the way down to see the fish and havent heard from him since. Why all the quietness. I just dont understand why create controversey? WHO SAW The fish? Leave the fish at a legit tackle shop for a day, Let whoever wants to inspect the fish, rewiegh on a certified scale, do length to girth measurements. Dispell all rumors! Why create problems for yourself? Alot of guys on this board sell fish, Ive had hundreds of pounds of fish with little or no ice for hours in mid summer off gayhead / nomans during the day and they dont look like some of his fish. Why do all the pics of fish look worse than any fish Ive seen in a supermarket??? If he never wanted the publicity then why even wiegh the fish in???
I wish I submitted this 65" fish I got mounted, i just didnt want the publicity...

Originally Posted by CowHunter (Post 877355)

I did an article for field and stream this year, they wrote what I said...

I, nor a single person I know would even think of questioning Pete Vican's state record 77LBer. The man did it legit 100 percent like anybody I spoke with did. Yes we all wish we caught a slob like that and every single person I know was happy for him.
Guess speaking with good friends that fish the same water as GM have seen his previous fish just adds to suspicion... Why all the controversy on GM??? Every Single person I spoke with thinks this is BS...

Originally Posted by CowHunter (Post 877347)

Ive had hundreds of pounds of fish with little or no ice for hours in mid summer off gayhead / nomans during the day

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND (Post 877365)

glad I don't buy bass :yak5:

Originally Posted by Slipknot (Post 877361)

Do you think it is BS also?

Nice catch there on that fish.

not everybody is a pro
and also not everyone takes photos that make fish look large

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 877382)

I was out in that area wens. night and had a big fish break me off. I lost the leader.

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 877382)

I was out in that area wens. night and had a big fish break me off. I lost the leader.

Originally Posted by JohnR (Post 877390)

Sea story? Or no sheet?

You should describe the leader / hook to G.M. and see if it looks the same ;)

Originally Posted by CowHunter (Post 877376)

After seeing the pics on FS I dont believe it for a sec. Im entitled to my opinion and that fish is a big fish, 50-55lbs tops.... Ill give that. EVERYBODY I know who consistantly catch big fish dont believe it. We all want the record to be broken, would be awesome to see! There is no need for photagraphy tricks, etc... There are pictures on FS where the fish is laid out or held against the body where I say no way.... Most guys I know throw a fish on the deck and can guess the wieght, coming within a pound or of the actual wieght. Im guessing alot of guys who thing this fish is 81lbs have not seen many bass and never a 40, 50 or 60 for that matter. Agian just my opinion...

Remember all the controversey on the WR Fluke?? Look, I had friends that saw AL Mcreynolds fish, it was laid out at the tackle shop for all to see... There was no question the size of that fish, none.. Nobody wants to see legitamate record holders cheated, I think thats what most feel....


I guess I am also privy to more info which I cannot post on here... Look back at the posts and look who was the first to say that it was Greg Meyerson?

His actions have not been normal at all through this whole thing and I bet nobody here would have acted the same...

Originally Posted by Mike P (Post 877405)

I hope you realize that by these accusations, you're also accusing Jack Katzenbach, the owner of the weigh station, with being in cahoots with this guy in perpetrating this hoax, and possibly for attesting to all of his "questionable" fish. You're saying none of his fish, for which weigh slips were submitted in a major tournament, are legit, so you're saying that one or more weighmasters are committing fraud in cahoots with a cheating angler.

Those are pretty strong accusations, Kenny. I hope for your sake, and the sake of your reputation in the angling world, you're in a position to back them up with proof.