Why Assume the current WR is a Lie??

[Guest avid]

In all the current hubub about the cali 25 lber everyone (except the Georgia boys) seems to take for granted that the Perry fish is a fraud.  Why?  

The lack of photo evidence etc. doesn't necessarily mean anything.  I don't think people were as record crazy then as they are now.  This was at the height of the great depression and most people couldn't have cared less.  The man was fishing for food and in fact ate this trophy.  

Alot has been dug up about in Perry, but the only prizes were from the field and stream magazine (I think??)  anyway, I seem to remember him requesting free lures from the Creek Chub lure company who turned him down!!>

Seriously, the IGFA is a pretty serious organization.  If there was something solid to disprove this fish why han't they done it?

[Cajun1977]

people dont try to give it credit just  to have something to b@#$h about   like starting a arguement just for the sake of starting a arguement

i for one think its real  why shouldnt i

[JayDub]

Seriously... just because no one has caught a bigger one since doesn't neccesarily make it a fake.  The prize was $75 in merchandise in Field and Stream Mag.  The world record bass meant almost nothing back then... he would have no reason to go through the trouble of fraud.  

[CJ]

I think the current WR is legit.I'm with Avid and Cajun 1977.I think Perry's fish should be left alone and respected as the WR.

[Glenn]

people dont try to give it credit just to have something to b@#$h about like starting a arguement just for the sake of starting a arguement

i for one think its real why shouldnt i

Amen to that!

[KYbass1276]

I kind of like the no picture theory myself considering the fact that it was the great depression and the fact that people didn't have disposable  cameras or digital camera's and picture printers or a local wal-mart where they could go and have this picture developed.  I read a a letter perry wrote in I think octobers issue of bassmasters where was asking for lures from creek chub lure company and it said something about a picture I'm not exactly sure what it said word for word but he did mention a picture of the fish.  More than likely he only had one picture of the fish and it was sent to lure company for the reasons of getting free lures  Why not it was the depression I'm sure he didn't have money to just go out and spend on fishing gear and tackle. I beleve perrys fish is legit, And 100% agree with avid That fish was not worth then what it would be now

[earthworm77]

I'm a show me kind of guy. The only photo I've seen of Perry was a shot the following year from the Field and Stream contest. In it he is pictured with a fish of about 6lbs that he claimed was 13.4. That is part of the reason I doubt the credibility of his catch, A- that photo was a fraud and B, for all of the people who said he didn't have a camera, he obviously did. So I still question, where was the photo of the current World Record. If I saw something remotely close to being a giant fish, I would jump into the water with the rest of you who believe it, until then I think it is a hoax that has withstood the test of time.

[5bass]

I'm a show me kind of guy. The only photo I've seen of Perry was a shot the following year from the Field and Stream contest. In it he is pictured with a fish of about 6lbs that he claimed was 13.4. That is part of the reason I doubt the credibility of his catch, A- that photo was a fraud and B, for all of the people who said he didn't have a camera, he obviously did. So I still question, where was the photo of the current World Record. If I saw something remotely close to being a giant fish, I would jump into the water with the rest of you who believe it, until then I think it is a hoax that has withstood the test of time.

I agree EW,the guy had a picture taken of a "13 pounder" that was at most about 6 pounds,it's on the cover of one of my Bassmasters.Maybe his scale was off and his "WR fish" actually weighed about 15,that would have been more believable.

And for someone to say that $75 wasnt jacks$%^& and why would he lie for $75?Well,in 1932,during the depression,$75 greenbacks was a whole lot of money.

And IGFA was not so "stand-up" during the years that they denied the smallmouth record......that guy had more than enough proof about his fish.Way more than Perry and that "22# largemouth".  

[janalon]

If matters little, cause it is the world record. I do not think that show and telling all the nay sayers is part of the rules, thank goodness, because then there would not be a WR.

[earthworm77]

Sure there would be, Bob Crupi would own it. 22-1

[Captain Cali]

Does anyone have links to this 13.4 that was closer to 6? That is very interesting to me and would tell me a lot about George W. Perry. It would at least tell me that he over estimates weight or is a liar. One or the other. Why not question Perry's record? We have zero proof it even existed so of course some will question it. Why shouldn't we? Because the almighty IGFA says so? Give me a break! That is the same organization that dragged the SMB record through the mud, is it not?

[5bass]

If matters little, cause it is the world record. I do not think that show and telling all the nay sayers is part of the rules, thank goodness, because then there would not be a WR.

Thats a bad way to look at it.Wouldnt you like to see a pic of Perry's fish?If you would acknowledge the lack of proof and facts about it,you may see things differently.But maybe not.

Just check out his "13 pounder",that will tell you something about him or his scale that was obviously WAY off.

[KYbass1276]

Roger you might be able to access it through bassmaster.com. It was on the cover of the october 05 issue

[Triton_Mike]

I'm not getting into this one this time.  Enjoy it guys

T mike

[5bass]

I'm not getting into this one this time. Enjoy it guys

T mike

;D

[earthworm77]

You ask, you get

[Captain Cali]

Roger you might be able to access it through bassmaster.com. It was on the cover of the october 05 issue

Thanks....this is the best I could find. And it looks like it's the September 2005 edition.

http://proxy.espn.go.com/outdoors/bassmaster/members/insider/more?page=Bass_Magazine_archive

I can't see the picture too good since it's small but I would bet a lot of cash that is not even a 10 pound bass. Perry is either a liar or over estimates weight! No doubt about that in my mind. The fish in my avatar looks bigger and that is a little over 5 pounds!!

BTW, my fish was weighed on a Shimano spring scale and I believe it was bigger then what the scale said. Came home and tested the scale to be pretty accurate so it's a 5er to me even though I believe it was bigger. I now own a much better and easier to read digital scale.

Edit: Just saw EW's post. Much better picture and that bass is not even close to 13 pounds. Sorry Mr. Perry! You're either a liar or have very bad judgement when it comes to estimating weight.

[5bass]

Edit: Just saw EW's post. Much better picture and that bass is not even close to 10 pounds. Sorry Mr. Perry! You're either a liar or have very bad judgement when it comes to estimating weight.

Or his scale was a real piece of crap.

[earthworm77]

Roger that is the exact photo I was talking about. The one I posted is of the same fish but it does look a little larger than the fish on the cover of the Sept 2005 issue.

Once again I agree. After reading about this for the past several years and also learning about the letters Perry wrote to Creek Chub trying to get free lures in exchange for a photo of the record that he never produced, I conclude that this guy was a scammer. I've never said before that he was a liar but now I am saying just that. Nostalgically its a great story but I'm convinced it is fake.

[Captain Cali]

Edit: Just saw EW's post. Much better picture and that bass is not even close to 10 pounds. Sorry Mr. Perry! You're either a liar or have very bad judgement when it comes to estimating weight.

Or his scale was a real piece of crap.

Could be. It could be that the 22.25 was weighed on a crappy scale too. Things that make you go..."huh?" :-?

[5bass]

That's exactly what I was saying.....maybe his 22 pounder actually weighed 15 since he thought the 6 pounder weighed 13,making his scale off by 7 pounds.

[Jnamo]

I thought I read somewhere that Perrys bass may have been a Striper and he didn't know the difference.  I remember reading somewhere that a member of this site did a lot of research on Perry (maybe it was EW77) and that they had a lot of unanswered quetions about Perry's fish.  I too have trouble excepting a fish without any pics.  Those eye witnesses of Perrys may not have known the difference between a striper and a Largemouth.  Who knows for sure???

Nice 13 pound bass...NOT

Jeff

[Mattlures]

I am one of the greatest WR doubters but I have to disagree about that fish beeing 6lbs. However its no whare near 13. I would call it 8-9lbs. If you guys have studdied the facts about the WR you will see so many holes in it. BTW When the IGFA was formed they adopted some records that had already been around including Fied and Streams record of perry's bass. And to say that F&S is a credible source is a stretch. There were 3 or four other claims that F&S published up to 25lbers and each one blew up in their faces as there were proven to be frauds. These were all atempting to win the F&S prize. So they were trying it back than too. But the bigest thing for me is the measuremants. They simply do not add up to 22.4 I am not talking about a wieght calculator either. I am talking about common sence. With those numbers that fish should have been at least 25lbs. But back then there were no other documented giant fish to compare it to so Perry was at least kinda close when he guessed the measurments of his make believe fish

[5bass]

Matt,I thought the pic on the Bassmaster mag cover (bass on tool box) was the one he claimed was 13 pounds.Regardless,neither one was anywhere close to 13 pounds.

[earthworm77]

I think they are both the same fish. They are both listed at 13.4 and you are right, neither is even half of that.