With out a doubt it would have to be George Perry's hoax. The George Perry story has always bothered me. It just doesnt add up. According to those maesurments that fish should have weighed over 25lbs. I think that fish could have been a striper. Maybe George knew the diference but maybe the people at the post ofice didnt. Once they told him about the field and stream contest he let them believe it was a large mouth. The facts are there was no pictures and no head or any other remains, and the biggest factor of them all is the numbers simply dont add up.
to put it in perspective Mike Longs fish was 27x27 and weighed 20lbs 12oz.
Jed dickerson's fish was 28 1/2 x 26 3/4 and weighed 21lbs 11oz.
Jeds fish was only 1 1/2 inches longer and 1/2 less in girth than Mikes and it weight a pound more.
Perry's haox was 4inches longer yes 4 INCHES and 2 inches fatter than Jeds but it was only 9oz heavier?
I think His record should be removed and the rightful owner BOb Crupi should be crowned. I know why that false record still stands. Because it gives everybody something to shoot for and its been around for ever but That doesnt make it right. Do the math its that simple.
What do you guys think?

www.mattlures.com

I think they should let the old record fall and give it to the rightfull owner, this record was just set too long ago! Who knows how accurate the scales were back then? No pic's NO PRIZE!

Hey let that Bass go I wanna catch her some day
http://www.calfishing.com/gallery/v/members/tmcustoms/

At the IFGA museum there is a picture of him with his bass. I saw it myself when I went there last year. The picture looks ligit but the fish size looks close to that of Jed's fish.

The biggest bass I have seen in a picture is Paul Duclos's bass. Now he released it and weighed it on a bathroom scale to be around 24 pounds. I don't know the measurements off the top of my head, but I believe that was the record fish. So who knows someday it will fall with all the advancements in technology and SO many people out there fishing for it.

The fact is no one " Really" knows for sure. Just what if it was a Largemouth and it did weight 22.4lbs. What if it didn't? I agree that it does not add up. Also wouldn't Georges fish be a northern strain? Have you ever heard of a northern being that big? Not me. There have been several fish caught in recent years that are claimed to be bigger than 22.4 but have not been certified. I do not belive those stories either. Who knows for sure but I can tell you that the record will fall and it will be under the strongest micorscope. Just as it should be.

Ive always felt Perrys weight was questionable, mostly due to the scales that were used. After Matt laid out the measurements, it definitely seems questionable. However, I think it should stand just because. Plus, if it was removed the new WR owner probably would not feel comfortable with having the record, and the new WR would always be surrounded by scandal and criticism.

And I agree, Duclos's fish looks totally legit, that fish no doubt was absolutely huge. The thing I cant figure out about that though was that Duclos was touted as a trophy hunter, yet he didnt know what the world record weighed. Thats very, very odd.

And we all know that Crupi's fish cant ever be considered for a record since DFG officials never witnessed, in person, that fish to determine it was indeed a largemouth. I know, I know, Crupis fish kinda looks like a smallmouth. Yeah right.

The one thing that has bothered me the most about the w.r. is the fact that the lake ,let alone the state hasnt produced another trophy Bass even close to the fish holding the record right now.Who knows maybe the rumors of weights in the fishes gut were true?I have seen pics of George with some nice fish, but not that nice.
Tight lines,
brian

magmaster, do not take this the wrong way I am not attacking you. You did not see George with his world record bass. It was NEVER photographed. There are picture with his family standing around a replica that fit George's measurements. Ther might even be a pic of him with the replica but it wasnt cast off a real fish, it was carved. He has also caught other big bass and even one a few contests with large bass but nothing even close to his suposed WR. There were only 2 interviews that he personaly did. I am Ok with him eating it and no pictures but the measurments just dont add up.

www.mattlures.com

The fact that several fish have come so close to the record makes me believe that it's legit. That fish was right at the peak weight that a largemouth bass can become. How could that have happened, a coincidence?

I don't belive that fish was a striper. A striper with the lenght of Perry's fish would've only been around 15lbs. Stripers just don't have the girth.

The biggest factor is the numbers not adding up. Could it be possible that the formulas for determining trout fed Cali bass wouldn't have worked on that fish?
Or could the numbers be right and the post office scale was weighing light? Maybe his bass was in fact over 25lbs. Unlikely but possible.

The fact is, none of us will ever know for sure. I just feel that there are theories on either side that can prove or disclaim his catch. Maybe we should have a jury decide :)

bottom line is you catch a 22-6, you can claim it- As far as a northern going 22-4, that fish was caught in Georgia- umm, not a northern strain, probably an epic old gal that had the kind genes! No use trying to disclaim Mr. Perry's fish, it's set in stone- you can have 10 cups of crybaby soup, it doesn't matter- go get yourself a 22-6 then start talking. Call up the guys from Myth Busters and have them prove it wrong, until then be quiet and respect the greatest fishing record ever... }(

Myth busters would be cool! but I can not respect the lie. Bob Crupi caught the largest recorded and properly documented bass ever period!
I like the cry baby soup thing though :-)

www.mattlures.com

Anyone seen an 11-15 smallie lately? I bet not- but it was a different place back in the day, they used to rope 100-200 lb. bluefin out of Avalon in the early 1900's, triple didgit bluefin only a short row away from the island- we're living in a different world, I would bet the farm on Perry's record. If you can explain why the triple digit crewcuts aren't going nuts on schools of chovies on the 14 mile bank, you might be able to explain the 22-4 from Georgia in 1932. ####, I bet there were Seminoles spearing bass in Florida at least that size in 1925. When's the last time you saw an angler with a 550 lb. black sea bass in Long Beach? Please explain this mystery to me

Matt, I hear you- Crupi, Danny K, that kid that got the 21 something on the leadhead trout in 91' at Castaic- lots of talent and stuff, but I still think there were better opportunities back in the day- :D

you gotta love the Crybaby Soup!! }(

I'll take my Soup with Crackers please,And give MR.Perry a fat goose egg for me }( .He should have at least claimed he caught it in Florida it would have seemed more credible to me anyhow.@ least florida has a few bass in the top 20 fish caught.
Word,
Brian

Bassnet;

Arizona's current record, a 16-pound, 7.68-ounce behemoth taken from Canyon Lake in 1997, is believed to be an F-1 that decended from stockings in the early 1970s. And the long-standing world record largemouth of 22 pounds, 4 ounces, caught in Georgia nearly 70 years ago, is also thought to have been a northern-Florida combination. Also here is a picture of the family with the replica.


http://www.calfishing.com/dc/user_files/3822-22-4_record.jpg

Attachment #1, (.jpg file)

You guys calling George Perry's fish a "Lie" is an absolute JOKE. Take another look at the documented Florida vs. California Bass. Girth measurements don't take into account the build or frame of a Bass! Your spoiled from seeing all your Trout fed "Footballs with Fins". Don't tell me it's not possible because there hasn't been another one close to that size caught in Georgia. Take a look at the 15-8 state record from Massachusetts. Nothing else close. Are we to assume that we've got another fraud record. Give me a brake.
Bill Q.

Well I guess we will never know if the Perry fish was the record or not. Right now it stands to be and there is nothing we can do about it. If you ask me we have to let the current record stand and just go out and fish hard and fish longer and fish as often as you can, because in my opinion one of us swimbait trophy hunters here in CA will break that record before 2010. With all the technology going into swimbaits these days its only a matter of time before we have a new KING.

mrcastaic

This is a quote from an article by Doug Hannon;

The current world record emerged from the darkest days of the Great Depression early in the last century. At 69 years old, many see it as forever insurmountable, but I believe that this century will mark the passage to a new world record bass. George Perry's mark, like Roger Bannister's breaking of the 4-minute mile, will never be forgotten, but, because of the many new factors that exist, it will almost certainly be broken. Among these are new resources and improvements in existing resources, genetic and other scientific breakthroughs, and dynamic management priorities rather than single, statewide regulations. Add to this the inevitable increase in public knowledge of the proper techniques, types of lures and presentations, and places to look for record bass, and it becomes a foregone conclusion that by now, if even a miniscule number of such fish existed, one would almost certainly have been caught. I believe we are fast approaching the day when significant numbers of fish of this stature will be swimming in public waters.

For a world record largemouth to be caught it must exist, so I would begin with that premise. Throwing out fraudulent or unverifiable claims it has not been done, so the logical conclusion is that up until today such fish do not exist. It makes more sense then to say that the 22-pound bass caught by Bob Crupi was most probably the biggest largemouth in existence. I completely discount claims to 24-pounders, because, by even elementary statistics, that would require the presence of hundreds of bass in the 22-23 pound range. Yet, by doubling the size of the pre-Florida strain state record, what the catches of Crupi and others do prove is the power that population genetics and the introduction of the Florida genetic strain can have on the eventual size of bass.

Doug Hannon is one of the biggest doubters of perry's record. It was actualy his "Striper theory" and not mine. I know that the record is sacred to many bass fisherman especialy with guys from the south and I completly understand it. I just think there was no proof. I dont mean by todays standards, I mean by any standards. No need for anybody to get upset.

www.mattlures.com

even if it is not really the reord, I think it is great that it is set in stone for many reasons:
-we wouldnt have this fun conversation :-)
-there record wouldnt be as sought after
-The longstanding record adds the the excitement of modern day world record fishing

I think everyone knows its going to be broken soon, so why worry about it when its gunna be #2 once i come out to Cali.(just kidding)


And Bob Cupri- well he probably wants the record really bad, i know i would ...soo its tough to deny him the record

BEN

god bless

Sorry Matt I didn't know that until now. There is a picture at the IFGA museum though. No big deal bro!

Matt,

Assuming that Perry's fish was in fact 32-1/2" in length, what would it's girth have to be in order for it to weigh in at 22-4?

I have been lurking on this site for a while, but after i read the this thread i decided to register.As you can see this is my first post.

I am from telfair county georgia, home of the world record bass.
Some things about the record are not known to the general public, like the fact that montgomery lake is not a lake as such, its a oxbow lake off of the ocmulgee river.Montgomery lake, as it is called in the record books, is mostly filled in by sediment, and could only be accessed by boat in times of high water.

In 1932 no one in this area knew anything about a trophy bass, i dought there was any intentional wrong doing in the weighing and measurments taken of the fish.No one would have had any reason to lie as there was nothing to gain by catching a world record....so much unlike present day. Theres no way to know if all the info about the fish is accurate but i've never heard any rumors that the fish was overstated in any way. In a rural county with a population of 16,000 everyone knows everyone else....and their business also.

During the era the fish was taken in there were no ponds or lakes to fish in, going fishing meant a creek or the ocmulgee river.One reason another outstanding bass has'nt been caught in the area is that there are still no managed lakes in telfair county, and hardly anyone targets bass in the river.

There is a 105 acre state owned and managed lake in the county to the north, thats 12 years old and has produced a 15.5 last year, a fla./northern cross i think.

The only thing i can add to the discussion about the measurements and weight of the record bass vs. measurements and weights of california bass is the time of year the record was caught,although i've never heard otherwise i'm sure she was layed out. I do not know the dates the fish were caught that have been used for comparison, did they have eggs or not?

I sure the record bass was not a planned hoax but not being from the area and what times were like in that era i can see the room for speculation.

In 1932 folks were worried about putting food on the table...not record bass.

Well said ocmulgee.

Btw, I'm not too far from you as I live in Houston County.

Dan

"Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less"

Deo Vindice

Great first post,What in your opinion was the basses forage that got him that big? Have any other decent sized bass benn caught in that area since,that record bass had to have passed on its genetics at some point in its life?
tight lines, Brian

The forage was likely bream, redbreast and shiners.

The river is not fished for bass, it gets too low to navigate at times, there will never be another fish of this class taken in the river due to lack of interest and low water conditions which will not allow them to get to old age.

Pesticides and sediment don't help the fishery either, there are few rivers or waterways in georgia that don't have warnings about mercury, the warnings tell you certain species to not eat, or 1 meal a month or 1 meal a week.

Big cities up stream dump ''treated waste'' in the river.

Since the flathead catfish has taken over the river the brown bullhead is extinct and the redbreast population is low, the flathead is a freshwater shark, they eat anything that fits in their mouth....small spawning bass included.

It is highly unlikely that George Perry caught the world record bass. I read Perry’s 1974 interview with Bassmaster magazine and it is not convincing. George Perry found a way to get a few bucks from a Field and Stream contest and he did it more than once. Not only the measurements do not add up there was conflicting statements between Perry and his fishing partner regarding where the fish was weighted. These two scammers couldn’t even get their story to jive. I wonder what the second largest bass caught in Georgia weighted. It would not surprise me if it didn't make 17 pounds. A 22-4 in June, it’s not impossible to catch a world record in June just unlikely. So what did Perry’s fish weigh in February 24 plus? I attached a picture of one of Perry’s contest winning bass. No wonder the little scammer thought his big bass went 22-4. He claims the one in the picture went 13-14.

Were all chasing the number 22-4, which never existed, well never existed in Georgia.

The very skeptical

Henry


http://www.calfishing.com/dc/user_files/3824-Perry.jpg

Attachment #1, (.jpg file)

George Perry's record should go down as the biggest scam in bass fishing! He was either a lair or had a scale w/ a very weak spring. I think they should give the record to Paul he has alot more proof than George. Also there have never been any record bass in Ga. and never will be. What a Joke.

Hey let that Bass go I wanna catch her some day
http://www.calfishing.com/gallery/v/members/tmcustoms/

>With out a doubt it would have to be George Perry's hoax. The
>George Perry story has always bothered me. It just doesnt add
>up. According to those maesurments that fish should have
>weighed over 25lbs. I think that fish could have been a
>striper. Maybe George knew the diference but maybe the people
>at the post ofice didnt. Once they told him about the field
>and stream contest he let them believe it was a large mouth.
>The facts are there was no pictures and no head or any other
>remains, and the biggest factor of them all is the numbers
>simply dont add up.
>to put it in perspective Mike Longs fish was 27x27 and weighed
>20lbs 12oz.
>Jed dickerson's fish was 28 1/2 x 26 3/4 and weighed 21lbs
>11oz.
>Jeds fish was only 1 1/2 inches longer and 1/2 less in girth
>than Mikes and it weight a pound more.
>Perry's haox was 4inches longer yes 4 INCHES and 2 inches
>fatter than Jeds but it was only 9oz heavier?
>I think His record should be removed and the rightful owner
>BOb Crupi should be crowned. I know why that false record
>still stands. Because it gives everybody something to shoot
>for and its been around for ever but That doesnt make it
>right. Do the math its that simple.
>What do you guys think?

I'll try to add a common sense approach to the length and weight discussion.

Bass that are feeding on protein rich stocked trout will have a dirrerent build than a fish grown in ga., fla., the forage these fish utilize is not close in nutritional value to trout.

I realize most fishermen from cal. have not seen bass from the southern US, therefore have nothing to compare with.

If anyone took the time, using mathmatical calculations a chart or table could be created by taking the top 25 bass from ga. and fla. combined.....with length and weight, to come up with a lb. per inch figure.

Do the same with the top 25 california trout fed bass.

The time of year comes into play...spawn vs. post spawn, this must be added into the equation also.

Hard to beleive someone has'nt already thought about this before, but its human nature to take the easy way out and just say "The world record is a hoax" rather than research the subject throughly and find honest answers that might remove the doughts lingering in some peoples mind.

I can do the research and the calculations involved in the ga. vs. california comparision but me being from georgia no one would beleive me, i urge anyone who has the interest and time to do the comparision.

Anyone who is interested send me a PM and i will get as much local public info as i can find on the top 25 bass and their measurements.

I might as well throw in my 2 cents. I think there are a number of misconceptions floating around based on assumptions that things back then were the same as now. To whit - The mechanical (Post Office)scales back then were easily as accurate or more accurate than the digital scales of today. The Post Office back then was still a branch of the federal government and was kinda like the Marines in their code of honor. (By the way for those unaware the Perry's fish was weighed at the Post Office.) If the employees at the Post Office said it weighed 22-4 that's what it weighed. There were enough witnesses that saw the fish that there's no way they would all mistake a Striper for a LMB.
Disregarding the historical evidence I think the weight of 22-4 itself is evidence that it was a valid WRB. So many fish have come close (Crupi) or maybe surpassed that weight (Duclos) it seem to fit perfectly as close to the maximum size range of LMB.
As for why there haven't been any more fish from GA that size I think you have to look at the type of water there. Heavy snags everywhere. The reservoirs in So Cal are wide open with few snags so once you hook a fish that size in So Cal the odds of landing it are far higher. Pretty much any bass you hook in that size range the odds against landing her are more than 2/1. There may or may not have been other bass that size hooked in Ga and you'd never know because the lack of water clarity, snags etc...
I personally believe there are a fair number of bass in WRB size range all over CA and maybe other states as well (I have seen at least 2 in No Cal that I'm certain were WRB). Its just that the odds of finding that fish on that day with the right bait and then actually landing it are tiny.
Finally, the recognized WRB is Perry's 22-4. You can speculate all you want, but it would be a better use of time to figure out how to catch a bigger one. bob

> The mechanical (Post Office)scales back then were easily as
> accurate or more accurate than the digital scales of today.
> The Post Office back then was still a branch of the federal
> government and was kinda like the Marines in their code of
> honor. (By the way for those unaware the Perry's fish was
> weighed at the Post Office.) If the employees at the Post
> Office said it weighed 22-4 that's what it weighed. There were
> enough witnesses that saw the fish that there's no way they
> would all mistake a Striper for a LMB.

Yup, a pound back then weighs as much as a pound in 2005, especially if it came from a gummint certified/calibrated scale. There are strict protocols in certifying trade and postal scales--you can look them up in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! Are you guys really claiming to be omnipotent enough to call someone a liar over something that happened 70+ years ago? What's your take on Crispus Attucks? Where is the romantic idea of not speaking ill of the dead? Didn't Perry earn the right to be honored for an achievement rather than vilified for a claim you all find far-fetched? I'm sure you'd all sing a different tune if Mike Long claimed the record with the same dimensions and lack of physical evidence. Remember, all these weight formulas are only theories. Just check out the varying proportions and weights of your friends and co-workers as an example.

Answer this, why would Perry claim to catch such a large specimen, when the world record weight was much less than his catch. Would 19 lbs.(still a record at the time) have been more palatable to you? Why would he boost the weight? I'm sure he'd laugh his ass off knowing that we all are talking about this. He was trying to feed his family during one of the toughest periods in American history, and I'm not sure that we all don't owe him a debt for the sportsman he was. One article I read talked about how he took kids from the neighborhood fishing with him, who knows maybe one of them was Bill Dances' father.

Lifting Bob Crupi over your shoulders is also funny as hell to me. Ever here about the one where you drop oil filters(illegal pollution) on your spots when you leave just to ruin it for the next guy? Or the one about taking large waterdogs and covering them in glue and silver glitter(also illegal) to make them look like trout?

Don't even get me started about Doug Hannons' credibility. I did an investigative reporter purchase of his Snake baits last year. Talk about a Hoax.

"Don't even get me started about Doug Hannons' credibility. I did an investigative reporter purchase of his Snake baits last year. Talk about a Hoax."

I did too I'm sorry to admit.........

Dan

"Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less"

Deo Vindice

http://forum.gon.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=10067&stc=1

That is a pic of a South Georgia Bass caught back in the '40s How much do you think it weighed?

http://forum.gon.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=10116&stc=1

There is a little bit more info but no weight is known.

Dan

"Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less"

Deo Vindice

It is not really that long mabey 16-18lbs the belly really looks strange mabey it ate a cannon ball :9

Hey let that Bass go I wanna catch her some day
http://www.calfishing.com/gallery/v/members/tmcustoms/

That fish is beautiful! I might need to reevaluate my statement that Georgia doesn’t produce big fish. It looks like in 1940 Georgia did. GREAT PICTURE.

Henry

Ok here is why I dont believe it.
The whole record is based on hearsay. There is no proof.
No picture, No actual wittness, no remains and motive to cheat.
First off to say that people were more honest back then is rediculous.
People have been cheating and steeling since biblical times.
Georges dad had recently died and he was the man of the house and times were hard. It was the depression and he was trying to feed his family. They were desperate. People SAY george didnt know about field and streams contest when he caught the fish. How do they know? If he was planning a fraud than of cource he would say that. Acording to the book Sowbelly, Georges partner was never found for an interview. If thats true than all you have is George himself. he could have found a fresh floater or used dyamite.
The story also says there were many witnesses at the post office. I may be wrong but I think the only two that signed any thing were the the guy at the post office and the notery guy. We also have George winning the contest again and winning more money/prizes with a teen bass tht barley looks 8lbs.
Why didnt he mount the fish? Because he was poor of course! I rember taking a trip accross the country when I was a kid and I saw a lot of old fish heads that were just nailed to boards. He could have done that. even if he didnt know about the contest than, he found out at the post office.
You could say he didnt care about the fish or the record. Than why would he emediatly weigh the fish on a certifeid scale and have it witnessed by a notery. Thats simple becaus he wanted to win the money/gear.
One of the biggest problems That I have is no picture. He took the time to go out of his way to show people at the post office and have it wieghed but never thought to have a picture. That one realy bothers me. You could say he didnt care but his actions say diferently.
Now dont go getting all upset about these theorys. I dont think George dynamited a fish. I was just making a point that even the smallest amount of real proof is not there.
If there was a pic I would believ it.
If there was a head or mount I would believe it.
If there was no motive I might believe it.
THIS IS FACT, The record is based purely on peoples stories. I need to see something before I believe it. I have tried to believe his story but there just isnt any proof.
I think the numbers are off based on other huge bass. Is it posible that a fish with those numbers could weigh that much? I guess its posible but I still think highly unlikely.
Up until Lightning Rods picture I didnt think that a fish that big in Georgia was posible but I have to admit that pic actualy cast a tiny bit of doubt on my beliefs.
For anybody who thinks That I am just jealous, You are wrong. I am jealous of any big bass bigger than mine, but I dont think the world record bass should be based on stories with no physical proof.
A bunch of you could argue reasons as to why he did this and that but there still isnt any proof.
I apologize If my post offended anybody. I have to admit it wasnt right for me ta call him fraud. I cant prove that he was, but you cant prove that he realy did catch the world record. So hopefuly the next time sombody catches it they prove it without a doubt. I know if I caught it, the fish would be kept.

www.mattlures.com

I am 100% w/ Matt!

Rob hurry up and catch a new World record so we dont have to arguee anymore :+

Hey let that Bass go I wanna catch her some day
http://www.calfishing.com/gallery/v/members/tmcustoms/

Nobody cares what problem you guys have with it- it's the record, it's legit, and that's all there is to say. The fact that you guys are trying to bring this up as a hoax is hilarious and sad at the same time. ;(

just a question for you Sherlock Holmes' out there- who the he!l had a camera in south GA during the FRICKING DEPRESSION????? The only thing more amazing then the 22-04 record is some of the thoughts brought up on this post- Amazing, sounds like the guys on SD Fish or something, go get the record at Barrett

bassnet, You are right it is the record. it is the mark to beat, Period. I understand that. I know you dont care but I(and many others) still feel ANY world record should have proof. A picture Or an actual fish. Calling it legit is an opinion.

As for having cameras, he found sombody to take a piture of this "teen" bass.
http://www.calfishing.com/dc/user_files/3824-Perry.jpg
No need to get upset or put down Sdfish just because we have a diference in opinion. I respect your opinion even if you dont care for mine. I acknoledge Perry's fish as the world record because the IGFA says so. So until its broken we just have to have faith that Perry was telling the truth because thats all we have. I think this has been an interesting thread. I liked hearing all the diferent view points but I dont think its worth getting mad over
:) We will just have to agree to disagree.

www.mattlures.com

When i made my first post i thought to myself..''Why bother...Everyone's with a negative post has already made up there mind that it's a hoax!''

My first impression was right.

I know it has to be frustrating to have a World record largemouth swimming in california and not have anyone catch it, but as in our legal system anyone is innocent till proven guilty.



I'm putting this link to the best overall bassing water in the state, it has the top 25 bass taken on the link, if anyone decides to take on the challenge of proving or disproving the hoax theory by the weights and lenghts calculations that i outlined in an earlier post the names might be helpful.......but so far the naysayer's are content to speculate....and not act.

http://www.stewart.army.mil/dpw/fish/CATCH.htm

Right on, Matt- no hard feelings- sorry if my post came off in the wrong way, my bad. I just respect George Perry and truly believe it's true- Tight lines!

Thank you for that link to Ft. Stewart. I need to get over there but that's a long trip for me. I'm going to call them Tuesday though and get more info. Have you fished there ocmulgee?

Dan

"Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less"

Deo Vindice

>Thank you for that link to Ft. Stewart. I need to get over
>there but that's a long trip for me. I'm going to call them
>Tuesday though and get more info. Have you fished there
>ocmulgee?
>
>Dan

No sir...i have'nt. It's the besy big bass water in the state overall IMO.

I would be well informed about the rules because it's a military base and their law overrides state law....even on the state roads going through the base.

when has catching a world record bass since then not have a motive matt? i mean you say he had a motive back then, which he did, and we all still have a motive today. makes no difference. perry is a champ.

Shane

HUh? there was and is motive.Thats why we have people sticking diving weights in fish and mothers and sons making false claims. The funny thing is a lot of people just assume if you catch it people will just start handing you money. people call it the million dollar fish, and it might be but you will have to earn it by properly marketing yourself. IF IT EVER GETS BROKEN

www.mattlures.com

you just stated what i already said, i said it had a motive and you just repeated the exact same thing.

Shane

thats why I said "huh?" I have always said he had a motive. Read all the posts again. You misunderstood something.

www.mattlures.com

i said it had a motive, and it always has, so theres no big deal about having a motive since its always been one.

Shane

I have been viewing the forums here for awhile, and came across this thread. Decided this was as good an issue as any to make a first post on.

As we all know there are multiple formulas for calculating the weight of a bass based on length and/or girth. Matt, I am curious which formula you are using to get the estimate you give for the Perry bass. I have seen the 25+ weight given from a few formulas I have run using the 32.5 inches x 28.5 inches (I have also gotten estimates lower and closer to the size listed for Perry's bass). On these formulas I have not been able to get either of the other two bass you reference to come in anywhere near their actual weight, both were much lower.

By no means am I questioning those weights or sizes, just that the formulas used are inexact sciences. If you would let me know what formula you are using, I would be glad to compare those with formulas that are most commonly used for Florida bass.

Without knowing how you reach your conclusions, I will refrain from discussing any of the assertions of Perry's bass being a hoax. Look forward to hearing from you.

What does that tell you if the Perry fish wieght is close and the Long Dickerson fish are way light? It tells you the formula is weighing light. As you noticed those bass weights that were actually documented.(Long's & Dickerson's)Are much lower and they have their actual measurements and wieghts. So if you added the 5 or so pounds to the formulas to get them around their actual wieghts Perr'y fish should have weighed more than 25lbs. I do not claim that any of the formulas are accurate. most work well on small fish but not on big ones. The problem is Perry's fish was so much longer and even fatter but only weighed a little more. The measurements are just one of the many unbeleivable parts of the story. My main point all along has been NO PROOF = NO RECORD Thats the way it should be.
This thread has been very interesting but it isnt going any where and we could debate every little thing for ever but nothing will change. The Perry fish is recognized as the record so it is the record. Im done with this thread.

www.mattlures.com

No need to get riled. What did ya expect? I was suprised to see a post debating Perry's fish. But controversy over hot topics is what message boards interesting. It wouldn't be much fun if the only thing we posted was stuff we all agreed on.

So what do we argue about next?

Bedfishing? (fun)
Moving the Classic to February (DUMB!)
What happened to Fishburne? (mystery)
How about where to align guides compared to a blanks spine? (in-line)
Live bait in tourneys? :+ (just kidding)
Banning jet skis on lakes? (YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! YES! )

}(
Chris

Oh what the heck :)

If Perry's record IS removed who gets the record now? Crupi's and Perry's fish have one thing in common... no physical evidence. No fish, no photograph. (which brings up the real question... which witness is more likely to lie about the size of a fish... the post office employee or the lake marina employee) Whoever gets the record better have rock solid documentation (this is what this is all about right?). I guess Mike Arujo is next in line. I don't know much about that fish, but either way the giant can of worms opened up by choosing a new record holder would be much, much worse than this alleged hoax debate.

Perry's fish isn't perfect, possibly even false, but it's better than the alternatives.

ok for most people out there in california the hardest part to believe is the measurements. So heres a few examples to help clear the measurements up. Bob Crupis fish was 26" and wieghed 22lbs, Mike Longs fish was 27" and weighed 21lbs 12oz,Dave Zimmerlees bass was 27" and weighed 21lbs, now the alabama state record bass was 29" and weighed 16lbs 8oz. so as you can see there really could have been a bass that long that weighed that much.