World record bass a phony.....

[Crestliner2008]

I just love this thread! But, does anything that anyone could have, or will have, to say today, going to change the fact that Perry's world record will stand tomorrow? I think not. Speculation is fine, but it will never change that number. And I don't think that's a bad thing either.

Now here's some food for thought: Here in MA, our state record is 15+ pounds! Now that's some bass! 22 - 15 = only 7 more pounds! Doesn't seem all that impossible to me. If we can grow a bass to better than 15 pounds, why is it not plausible that a 22+ pound fish can/does exist somewhere in our more fertile waters to the south? I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility at all.

[ROCbass]

Matt, I can show you a picture of my brother and say that he's not related to me, you don't know either of us so you would have no idea. So Perry family members saying its not him is not proof of anything. Especially taking into consideration the son's comment that the reason he knew its not his dad is his dad didn't smoke. Its possible he did as a young man and stopped, and the son never remembered it. If the son said he knew it wasn't his dad because it looks nothing like him or my dad was not that tall it would be a lot easier to take at face value. I could also show you two different pictures of the same person that look like completely different people, but they aren't. So that also proves nothing. Personally I believe it is Perry's fish and that is not Perry holding it, but I don't know. I wish there were some other photos of this Jack Page character. If a known picture of him looked more like that man than the known photos of Perry, that would be good enough for me to say its him and not Perry, but based on the evidence as I see it, there is still some very slight doubt in my mind. As others have said, this is all moot because 22-4 is the mark to beat and no amount of talk or speculation at this point will change that. I just think it is an interesting picture, especially considering the mystery behind it.

[Catt]

Bill Baab, who retired in 2000 after 35 years as a sports writer and outdoors editor for The Augusta Chronicle, interviewed Perry in 1959 and has authored numerous articles on the Perry bass.

But he never heard Perry mention any photos of the record fish.

"I'd also talked with his widow, two daughters and a son - and none were aware of a photo of the big fish," Baab said.

[Bassnajr]

OOOO!!

I love a good controversy....

[cart7t]

Bill Baab, who retired in 2000 after 35 years as a sports writer and outdoors editor for The Augusta Chronicle, interviewed Perry in 1959 and has authored numerous articles on the Perry bass.

But he never heard Perry mention any photos of the record fish.

"I'd also talked with his widow, two daughters and a son - and none were aware of a photo of the big fish," Baab said.

Clearly, due to the written stuff that's been unearthed since then, that at least one photo was taken.

Not hard to believe back then.  It was in the heart of the depression.  Not that many had Kodak "Brownie" camera's, fewer still could've afforded a roll of film and even fewer still the cost to process to make some photo's.

It's really not hard to understand the lack of hard data about this fish if you realize:

Bass fishing as a sport was not realized.

There was no multi billion dollar bass fishing industry.

There were no bass fishing tournaments.

Personal endorsements were not a standard way of advertising like they are now.

Camera's were a luxury, no something attached to your cellphone which, BTW, didn't exist either.

Nor did the internet, computers, email, television, bass boats, $400 fishing reels or $300 fishing rods.

George Perry was scraping out a life for his family in the middle of the depression.  It rained that day so he wasn't going to get paid.  He decided to fish to feed the family to make up for it.  He tied into a monsterous bass.  So big he had to go show it off before he took it home and put it in a skillet.  The size of the fish was so big an onlooker suggested he enter a Sports Afield contest to win a rod and reel.  He had the fish weighed and measured at 2 legitimate places that had no outside interest in the fish other than it was much, much larger than any that had been caught previous.  Apparently, a photo existed because a hand written letter by Mr. Perry to the Creek Chub people indicated he had one and they could use it in their advertising for the whole whopping fee of some lures.

So far, nobody has ever disproved that the fish existed and that's who the burden of proof lies upon.

Unless someone can unearth some evidence of a grand conspiracy by George Perry, a notary in Helena, Georgia along with the postmaster of the Helena  post office I'd say this record is firmly set in stone and will only fall if a CA guy can remember to do everything right when he/she finally hooks the next fish larger than 22-4.  

[Eddie Munster]

Catt,

I've taken stuff to a notary several times (to one I know and a couple I don't) and they've notarized stuff where the document was supposed to be signed by the other party in their prescence but wasn't.

Notaries are humans and like most of us, are trusting and/or take the path of least resistance. I'm not saying the notary lied for Perry but rather that it's possible that the notary just 'rubber stamped' it. Not probable but possible.

Since it was the 30's it adds credence to both sides of the argument. Back then who really cared if some guy holds the record for this type of fish? People were worried about just surviving let alone whether this fish weighed 17 lbs or 22 lbs. On the other hand, since fishing wasn't so popular back then how many toads were caught that people didn't even think 'this could be a record fish!'.

One thing about Hannon; who can doubt the man has caught some HUGE fish and knows something on the subject of toads? He's done so much underwater study on them that you'd think by now he'd have video of numerous fish that would break the record. I don't think he's proceeding from a position of jealousy but merely stating through his experience the record fish coming from Georgia is most likely false.

The record fish is out there and will be taken from Cali. or Texas.

[mattm]

Posted by: shaner1988 Posted on: Today at 6:35am

Matt, I can show you a picture of my brother and say that he's not related to me, you don't know either of us so you would have no idea. So Perry family members saying its not him is not proof of anything. Especially taking into consideration the son's comment that the reason he knew its not his dad is his dad didn't smoke. Its possible he did as a young man and stopped, and the son never remembered it. If the son said he knew it wasn't his dad because it looks nothing like him or my dad was not that tall it would be a lot easier to take at face value. I could also show you two different pictures of the same person that look like completely different people, but they aren't. So that also proves nothing. Personally I believe it is Perry's fish and that is not Perry holding it, but I don't know. I wish there were some other photos of this Jack Page character. If a known picture of him looked more like that man than the known photos of Perry, that would be good enough for me to say its him and not Perry, but based on the evidence as I see it, there is still some very slight doubt in my mind. As others have said, this is all moot because 22-4 is the mark to beat and no amount of talk or speculation at this point will change that. I just think it is an interesting picture, especially considering the mystery behind it.  

Geez!  I can't believe you are standing behind this.  What the kid said was as soon as I saw the picture I knew it wasn't my dad b/c he didn't smoke.  I'm sure that he has a pretty good idea of what his dad looked like though.  If someone showed you a picture of your dad couldn't you say for a fact whether or not it was him?  This part of the argument has to be over.

Posted by: Catt Posted on: Today at 4:37am

Of what benefit would it have been for the notary to lie?

The notary simply made a mistake in reading a ruler or weight scales?

The standards back then were loose? A pound was still a pound and an inch was still an inch.

mattm that's is the silliest argument ever

George L. "Dazy" Perry the son of the record holder flatly stated in the ESPN article When I saw the cigarette in the man's mouth, I knew it wasn't my dad because he didn't smoke," Perry said. "I believe the picture was taken by Aunt Mae (the former Lelia Mae Walden who married James Bowen Perry in the early 1930s, according to family records). I don't know who the little boy might be.

How much more proof do you need  

Catt,

I'm not saying the notary lied or had any motive to lie.  However, I don't find it impossible that the notary just took Perry's word for what the fish weighed and measured.  I grew up in a small town in TX, you know how us southerners think were all good, ol' country folks, where I don't think it would of been impossible for my dad to get something notarized on his word.  Especially if he had in his possesion a huge fish that was obviously bigger than anything the lady in the post office had ever seen.  In the 1920's I'm sure a female notary could of easily said huge fish big deal what do I need to notarize.  It not like she was notarizing where Perry was on the night of a murder.  Again not saying it happened but could of.

An inch is an inch and a pound a pound, but we as humans can make mistakes and scales can certainly be off.

Standards back then were certainly loose compared to todays standards.  To date we haven't even seen a picture of Mr. Perry with the fish.  I believe that right there would disqualify him today.  However, I'm the first to admit that none of that matters.  He did what was necessary then and the records is his today.  

Even though I have my doubts the picture goes a wrong way to proving the story in my mind.  The fish in the picture is certainly a monster.  As we all know you can look silly real fast by guessing weights from pictures, but that fish is big.  I'm getting a kick out of the guys saying 13lbs.  I can guarantee you if ya'll catch one that big and someone is saying its only 13 you are going to be ready to put your fighting boots on.

We'll never know for sure I guess.  I think I could write a very long paper that made a lot of sense for both sides of the argument.

[mattm]

The record fish is out there and will be taken from Cali. or Texas.

I sure hope it comes from TX, but I've never understood why everyone is so quick to throw us in the running.  We have never produced a bass over 18 1/4 lbs much less 19, 20, 21 or 22.  I live in the state and don't know of anyone that is out here fishing solely for a  world record.  I don't live in CA, but can think of 10 or so that do just off the top of my head.  I think we have the best big fish waters in the US, but I don't know about world record waters.  From what I understand of CA the lakes that are producing the 18+ pound fish don't turn out the numbes of trophy's like Fork, Falcon, Conroe, Amistad and Choke Canyon but produce monsters.  I think CA is the states only realistic shot.

[WRB]

Let's apply some forensics.

The best reference for the length of that fish is the kid standing obliquely next to it.

According to the Center for Disease Control - Anthropometric Reference Data For Children and Adults, the average height of a 5 year old is 44.5 inches.

I printed out the image and measured the height of the boy and the length of the fish. The fish is 71% of the height of the child. Assuming the child is of average height - 44.5 inches, the bass in the photo is about 31 inches long.

Hannon said in his diatribe that the first, nearly 21 lb bass, was 26 inches long. I suggest to you this bass is longer, and have no reason to disbelieve that it weight the claimed 22+ lbs.

I say this is Perry's bass, that Perry accurately stated the weight, and overstated the length.

Got a better method? Post it.

All you guys that catch big fish and hold them way out in front of you to make them look bigger have have done nothing but muck things up. ;D

For the sake of argument; keep in mind the boy is standing behind the bass, the man is holding the bass by the lower lip with all the weight of the fish. The bass's length could measured from the lower extended lip to the tip of the tail, longest measurement, or could be measured from the closed mouth to the fork in the tail, about a 3" to 4" difference. How a fish is measured is very important when trying to determine the bass's weight. Today we measure the fish in accordance to IGFA rules; mouth closed to fork in the tail.

The bottom line is; this picture isn't a picture of the Perry world record bass. The photo was taken in the early afternoon on a sunny day, the record was caught late during heavy rain, weighed and eaten, according to George Perry's account of his catch.

WRB

[senile1]

Ah yes . . . another debate about George Perry's fish . . . I think we have a couple of these threads a year but this one is the best one yet.  Obviously, there is room for doubt, but some people would doubt the record no matter what Mr. Perry did to prove it at the time.  We have to accept that he met the standards for the time period and he holds the record.  (And it was definitely within the realm of possibility to catch a fish of that size, at that time, in Georgia, as Randall stated.)  For those who don't think a 22 lb'er could have been possible in Georgia, how many of us would have believed a 25 lb'er is possible in California if we had not seen Dottie?  (Or, as another poster mentioned, that a 15 lb northern strain largemouth would be possible in Massachusetts?)  Who knows what lurks in the depths of Cali's clear lakes . . . man-eating bass maybe?  Don't let your toddlers go near the water.  

[WRB]

If the Perry bass record was disallowed, for whatever reason, who's catch should replace it?

With all the talk about Dottie, she was never officially weighed and validated by California DFG. The next largest bass; 22.1 lbs, caught by Bob Crupi, doesn't qualify for the same reason. The California state record bass was caught by Mike Arujo, on a Renoski 8" swimbait, Lake Castaic, March 5th, 1991; 21 lbs 12 oz or 21.75 lbs. This bass was put on ice and offically weighed and examined by the DFG.

WRB

[SnowBass23]

Dead horse = beaten.

 I can imagine this thread closing down in 5, 4, 3, 2....

[ROCbass]

Mattm,

I have seen photos of my dad when he was younger from before I was born, and no, I did not recognize him at first. Perry Jr. saying it isn't his dad is very strong evidence against it being Perry. But it does not mean that there is no chance whatsoever in the world that it is not either. Is it good enough to reasonably assume it is not Perry? Absolutely. Enough to be 100% positive and state it as fact? No.  When scientists test a theory, all the evidence they gather can support the theory's validity, but it can't prove it. Evidence and proof are not the same thing, that is all I am saying.

[Marathon Man]

Has anyone contacted Creek Chub regarding George Perry's letter to them regarding a photo and maybe getting  some baits in return. Did he send them a photo? What does Creek Chub say about this matter? In the letter Mr. Perry said the photo was of "himself with the fish". He did not say the photo was of another man, a kid, and the fish. Did Creek Chub ever receive the photo?  Is this a different photo than the one discovered in 2005?

I think if we all approached this more like  investigators, and kept the emotional level lower, that good detective work and some follow up might still shed some light on this occurrence.  Has anyone contacted Ray Scott regarding this story and the subsequent attempt to interview Mr. Perry. Who was the person doing the interview? Did that person actually attempt to get Mr. Perry to submit to a polygraph test? How accurate were polygraphs when this was done. Did Mr.Perry say why he would not take a polygraph? There are answers to all these questions, and there may be people still alive who can answer them factually. This would make a very interesting "myth buster" type  show.

But lets not do a Warren Commission report on George Perry's big bass. Lets find out what really happened.

This is a great forum.

[Catt]

So what does that have to do with this discussion? During this era a man's word was a lot more honorable than that of a man of today, they were a poor people but they said what the meant and meant what they said. A man had the title of public notary it meant something and that something was they could be trusted to honor his word.

Think of the odds that a public notary and a postmaster both getting the measurements and weights wrong.

While it may be slightly possible for George Perry's son not to recognize a picture of his young father what are the odds his wife wouldn't recognize her husband?

Perry mentioned in his letters to Creek Chub the existence of a photo but Creek Chub never responded or did they ever publish a photo.

The theory of the bass being caught on a day when it was to raining for Perry to go to work but the photo is showing sunny skies; it is very common any where along the Gulf coast to have thunderstorms on minute and sun shine the next.  

[mattm]

The theory of the bass being caught on a day when it was to raining for Perry to go to work but the photo is showing sunny skies; it is very common any where along the Gulf coast to have thunderstorms on minute and sun shine the next.  

Agreed.  Most say though that his story said they left on an overcast day and didn't return until dark.  Still doesn't prove anything.  Once Perry decided to enter the contest he could of iced the fish until the next day.

Think of the odds that a public notary and a postmaster both getting the measurements and weights wrong.

 

That would make it less likely, but still possible.  I was under the impression that the notary was the lady at the post office.  Is that not right?

[WRB]

So what does that have to do with this discussion? During this era a man's word was a lot more honorable than that of a man of today, they were a poor people but they said what the meant and meant what they said. A man had the title of public notary it meant something and that something was they could be trusted to honor his word.

Think of the odds that a public notary and a postmaster both getting the measurements and weights wrong.

While it may be slightly possible for George Perry's son not to recognize a picture of his young father what are the odds his wife wouldn't recognize her husband?

Perry mentioned in his letters to Creek Chub the existence of a photo but Creek Chub never responded or did they ever publish a photo.

The theory of the bass being caught on a day when it was to raining for Perry to go to work but the photo is showing sunny skies; it is very common any where along the Gulf coast to have thunderstorms on minute and sun shine the next.

Catt, as I recall the letter and a photo was sent to Field & Stream for Perry's entry in to their contest. I know from experience that sending entries and letters to various contest and lure makers was about the only avenue available to try to earn something from catching a big bass, even back in the 50's.

Field & Stream apparently did not have any pictures of the Perry catch when the IGFA asked for information for their records.

In regards to the rain, Perry didn't work his farm due to a storm, not just a passing rain shower.

Perry was into sending catches into fishing contest, that is why he had a witness and weighed the bass at a post office. If there was a picture, you can bet it would have been published, even back in 1932. The IGFA accepted the catch and that is all that matters. The Perry bass stands as the record, until someone catches a heavier bass.

WRB

[Maxximus Redneckus]

Like i said before in another post how could the man know his 22-4 oz bass would cause such debate and ridicle,if he was lyin and others where involved why not say it was 25 lbs or even just plain 20 even  he would have never known a 22 lb bass record would be so hard to break 60 yrs later

[Mattlures]

shaner1988 are you for real? It is a fact that is not Perry, Period. It has been proven . you are the only person on the planit that would argue against this fact. Perry's famaily has confirmed its not him. Fact.

You can see from the pictures its a differnt man. Fact. Perry was only 20 when he caught his fish. its a different man.

Do you know why his son knew from the second he saw the cigarette? because George Perry watched his dad die from lung cancer from smoking and he cared for him as he died. He became the man of the house and took care of his family. He vowed never to smoke.

Your continued defence is absurd and rediculous. You sir are wrong. deal with it. It happens to all of us, myself included. However when somebody proves to me that 2+2=4 instead of 3 or 5 I admit I was wrong and move on.

And No I am definatley not having any anurisms. I am actualy enjoying this thread and I am not upset at all.

[ROCbass]

shaner1988 are you for real? It is a fact that is not Perry, Period. It has been proven . you are the only person on the planit that would argue against this fact. Perry's famaily has confirmed its not him. Fact.

You can see from the pictures its a differnt man. Fact. Perry was only 20 when he caught his fish. its a different man.

Do you know why his son knew from the second he saw the cigarette? because George Perry watched his dad die from lung cancer from smoking and he cared for him as he died. He became the man of the house and took care of his family. He vowed never to smoke.

Your continued defence is absurd and rediculous. You sir are wrong. deal with it. It happens to all of us, myself included. However when somebody proves to me that 2+2=4 instead of 3 or 5 I admit I was wrong and move on.

And No I am definatley not having any anurisms. I am actualy enjoying this thread and I am not upset at all.

Matt, I agree that its not Perry in the photo, as all of the evidence suggests that its not. I'm just saying that stranger things could happen than that evidence being wrong. A prime example is the OJ Simpson trial. Most of the evidence said he did it, but it did not prove it in the eyes of the jury members. As far as Perry watching his father die of cancer and vowing never to smoke etc. If that is true that is the first time I have heard it, and it rules out the possibility that he quit and his son just never knew he smoked that I mentioned, which was basically me playing devil's advocate along with everything else I posted in support of the minuscule chance it could be Perry.

[Muad Dib]

so georgia bass are part of the northern strain? maybe a hybrid? and maybe theres a chance some ny'er could catch a 22lber!!!!!!!!!. if i did  catch the wr id donate half of any money to bass resource.com ;D

[Micro]

Here's the current US Post Office in Helena, GA.  Palms very similar to the ones in the photo do, indeed, exist very close to it.

[Micro]

There are more palms in the yard of the house next door.  They look much closer together and may be the ones in the picture.  Of course, its just a guess.  But they definately look like the same kinds of palms, only with much more mature.

[Dalton Tam]

If you read the story correctly he had to get the fish weighed at a post office and recorded before he could count the fish as the largest in the world. I do think that it is kinna prepostrous that he took the fish home a ate it but I do believe that the man caught the biggest fish in the world and I also beleive in the 25.1 that was foul hooked. If you read that story correctly the man dint bring it in to a post office bacause he did foul hook it. I seriously doubt a federal mail man or lady would lie for the man just to say he caught the biggest bass in the world. To say that there is one out there right now that could top that idk. All I can say is keep fishing and maybe we'll find out ;D

[Captain Obvious]

I would bet the record will possible be broken in cal first

But I think in the end Texas will set the record that will last longer.