What do you think about the methods used to disqualify this record? Don't you think this is opening a "pandora's" box?

http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070722/SPORTS10/707220358/1002

That just crazy.

The problem with "records" is that the really old ones are not held to the same standard as those wishing to break them. If the fish wasn't as heavy as it was reported to be, then it should not be a record.

I am all for accuracy. I am not sure about the "Pandora's Box" question, because the truth is what matters, and if history has recorded it wrong, it needs to be corrected. If a modern day record is ever brought into question and it's proven that the record is false, then the books should be corrected to reflect that. I don't think doing it wrong for 50 years makes it suddenly right.

I agree completely. We should apply the same standards we use for today's fish to those of the past. It's about accuracy.

You cannot go back though. This fish and all others caught prior to the new rules should be grandfathered. This is a terrible move by the FWF.

I don't think they should change it unless someone knowingly falsified the weight. I know I would not enjoy holding a record that was taken away from someone like this...

25 pounds 50 years ago=25 pounds today. Scales were around then. The more important agency, the IGFA, seems to agree.

Seems they also knocked the smallmouth bass record back to 10-8 and the muskellunge record back to 65-0. Walleye record is now 22-11.

I look in my IGFA record book (good from Oct. 2006) I do not see David Hayes' WR smallmouth listed. Apparently they've had second thoughts - again.

I think the old muskellunge record of 69-15 was disproved by a group several years back which dropped it to the Louie Spray record of 69-11 but the same group disproved Louie's fish as well. Louie Spray's fish discounted Louis Spray's WR musky - he had it mounted but it was later lost in a fire.

Back "then" they filed affidavits but even then without pictures those signing the affidavit have recently been considered "shady."

Field and Stream magazine was the "official" records keeper back then (1940's thru 1960's) with money and noteriety being the rewards (contest). The best I've seen any well-documented facts on a big muskie was the Robert Malo catch.

Per Larry Ramsell's book A Compendium of Muskie Angling History, printed in the 80's I think, the top five muskies were:
Art Lawton's 69-15 (1957), Louie Spray's 69-11 (1949), Robert Malo's 69-08 (1954), Ruth Lawton's 68-05 (1961), and Len Hartman's 67-15 (1961). You have to go all the way down to the Number 8 fish (Len Hartman's 65-0 [1962]) that have all apparently just been blown away by the IGFA.

You can see by how close all these fish are in weight that a few lead sinkers back in the day could tip the scales a shade over the existing record.

BTW, the great state of Tennessee still recognizes David Hayes' 11-15 smallmouth bass (1955) and Mabry Harper's 25-0 walleye (1960) as state records.

New York also still recognizes Art Lawton's 69-15 muskellunge as it's state record.

I think the WR largemouth bass has also been challenged but they just can't get it to stick.

I'm sick of all the records being revoked. I don't see how they con disprove something they weren't around to witness in the first place. There wasn't any mores shadiness back then than their is now. It's just some winers that can't break it in the first place trying to get the standard lowered.

TBK, I'm not for it either. The right people like Bob Crupi will eventually set a new standard in LMB history - he's been real close a couple of times. If you think muskie fishermen and bass fishermen are whiners, just talk to a walleye fisher. You want to get a muskie fisherman's attention, start talking about catching some trophy walleyes somewhere...man, they'll stick to you like glue!

I didn't particularly care about The Group that went after all those old-timer muskie hunters - I know a few of them by name and they're all after the noteriety.

If the old record followed the rules in effect at the time, I think it should stand until beaten, even if they change the rules. Otherwise, it's kinda like a cop giving you a ticket "because we changed the speed limit from 70 down to 60 today and you drove through here at 65 yesterday".

I'm with everyone else. How do they know. Its not like the photo was photoshopped way back then!!!

Art Lawton's WR muskie was determined to be false from several photos of it...in one photo it was labeled as the world record and in another photo it was listed by the angler as something less than 60-lbs. It was the same fish.

If you are going to weigh a fish, weight it ONCE and get it certified. DO NOT ever weigh a potential record fish more than once and do it on certified scales. Get the scale name, serial number, date it was last certified and owner/address of the scale.

I have to disagree with you here. The rules weren't changed. It's more like a convicted felon getting out of jail because DNA evidence has shown him to be innocent, and previously free criminal being arrested because DNA evidence showed him to be guilty. We wouldn't want a person put to death when evidence exists to prove them innocent, simply because of the "grandfather" principle. Likewise with records. Truth is what matters, not tradition.

If a fellow catches a genuine record fish and goes through the proper steps to have it verified, it should not be nullified just because another fish that wasn't as large as it was reported to be made it into the record books.

Wrongs are righted all of the time. However, if this is a case of politics and dishonesty (one and the same usually), then I am totally against it.