The arena is the National Freshwater Fishing Hall of Fame Museum in Hayward, Wisconsin. The title at stake is the Heavyweight Championship of the World, also known as the all-tackle record for largest muskie.

          Let’s go down to the ring. In this corner is the champion, having held the belt since October 20, 1949, hailing from Hayward, Louis Spray. In the champ’s corner is his second, John Detloff, President of the NFWFHF.

          In the other corner is the challenger, the World record Muskie Alliance, hailing from Illinois and seconded by photogrammetrical analysis provided by Dan Mills of DCM Technical Services.

          Normally the referee would have a quick run-through of the rules like, not scratching, no biting, no hitting below the belt, but not in this bout. This bloodbath is a no-holds-barred, bare knuckles contest. May the best man/group/fish win. And there’s the bell!

          Louis Spray is the holder of the current record for the world’s largest musky. The fish is listed at 69-pounds, 11-ounces and was caught on the Chippewa Flowage. Spray had previously caught two other world record muskies.

          During the forties, the muskie title changed hands frequently. If the monsters registered during that era were not works of fiction, it is surprising that Wisconsin’s swimmers were safe in the water and not merely dinner fare for these monstrous, toothy beasts.

          Spray provided affidavits to prove the legitimacy of his catch, but there were always challenges to Spray’s veracity. Spray was a product of the era, somewhat of a fast talker who was always looking to cut a deal to direct a few dollars into his bank account. His personality and reputation are primary examples people who dispute the record use to try to downplay the size of his record fish.

          Since 1949, Spray’s record has been debated. This is not unusual, as the records for bass, perch, walleye and other fish are often questioned by disbelieving anglers. In fat, recently, the old record fish in the smallmouth bass category was reinstated to the 11-pound, 15-ounce fish caught on Dale Hollow Lake in Tennessee by David Hayes in 1955. After decades of verbal jousting, the fish was tossed out in 1996. This year, after review of evidence, the fish was given back its title.

          The photogrammetrical evidence developed by Dan Mills of DCM Technical Services is compelling. Mills does not inspect and analyze fish. Spray’s record was his first attempt at converting his scientifically accepted methods to the angling arts. He did not have an axe to grind. On the basis of his work, I believe that Spray’s fish is not the size that it is claimed to be.

          In presenting the Mills report to the National Freshwater Fishing Hall of Fame, in their attempt to overturn Spray’s record, the World Record Muskie Alliance made what I believe was a strategic error.

          In addition to the Mills report, the WRMA included page after page after page of anecdotal evidence in an unnecessary attempt to bolster their claim that Spray’s fish was a fraud. They cap the report with a statement by noted attorney and master angler, Kim Presbrey, that “the photo analysis provided would be admissible in a court of law and that the conclusions drawn from the photo analysis conclusively prove that the photos provided of the alleged world record musky do not represent a fish of the size stated by Louis Spray.” An interesting opinion by a noted barrister, but an opinion, nevertheless.

          By filling in the tail end of the 93-page report with “he said – she said” allegations, no matter how good they sound, only takes away from the validity and the professionalism of the scientific portion of the report. For every anecdote and allegation that the WRMA provides, Detloff and the hall of Fame are able to return the volley with their own salvo of affidavits and stories. They tend to negate each other.

          Often whispered, but never published are the allegations that Detloff defends Spray’s record to the death because he has a financial interest in the matter. Yes, Detloff has published a book, “Three Record Muskies in His Day – the Life and Times of Louis Spray.” Come on now! This is not the latest blockbuster by Tom Clancy or Stephen King we are talking about. I am sure that Detloff has pocketed some dough from his writing, but I will bet that he is making even more money selling books now that the WRMA has brought the controversy to the press.

          Detloff also owns a bar/resort, the Indian Trail in the Hayward area, in fact, right on the Chippewa Flowage, a long cast from where Spray’s muskie was reportedly hooked. If I were in the area, I would probably stop and have a beverage at Detloff’s place to bask in the history and hear a few tales swapped at the bar. Is Indian Trail sold out of room space because of the legend of a fish caught in 1949? I think not. No one goes to Hayward any longer because of the 1949 world record muskie, they go there because it is an excellent vacation area and still provides quality fishing with plenty of opportunities for catching big fish.

I think Detloff’s financial rewards in regard to the Spray fish are quite exaggerated.

          One point that his detractors gleefully bring up is the manner in which Detloff has overruled records on other fish that have been caught by other fishermen over the years. In regard to another purported record fish, Detloff writes, “Spray, and most musky fishermen for that matter, were far from jealous about the Lawton musky. “They just wanted to be convinced that the muskie was legitimate.  It’s not necessarily WHO holds the world record musky title that’s important, rather that the record is accurate.” Detloff’s zeal to disregard any other fish than the Spray fish certainly raises suspicions.

          I sincerely believe that John Detloff truly believes that Spray’s fish is the true world record. You know, there is a tale told by my family of a time in the 20’s when my grandfather brewed gin in his home on the west Side of Chicago. The legend says that one day he was sampling a batch along with a couple of uniformed representatives of Chicago’s finest. Apparently, the still blew up and Grandpa and the two officers were rushed off to the local hospital. Looking back on this, I have to think that the colorful story is merely another urban legend. More than likely, the myth was embellished with every retelling and got stronger and stronger. Now, I have been hearing this tale for many decades. It is very hard for me to believe that I now think it to be no more than a fairy tale. I think that is how it is for Detloff and Spray’s fish.

          Spray’s fish and the legend that surrounds it is part of the fiber of John Detloff’s existence. He has lived with Louis Spray and his record fish for every day of his life. He grew up idolizing Spray. He has told the Spray story countless times. I would never expect to hear Detloff question something that is almost as much a part of himself as any of his internal organs. Does that make the fish legitimate? No.

          Going back to our arena, we find the battle ended without a knockout punch having been delivered. As substantial as the WRMA case is, the panel of judges would not award a victory on points to the challenger. The voting members of the NFWFHF elected to allow the Spray record to stand.

          The Hall ruled that, “ the report lacks sufficient merit to overturn the Spray record. The report's primary piece of evidence came as a result of a computer software program that relied on multiple assumptions to be inputted before a result could be yielded. Because no control was ever done to test the approach that was used and so many assumptions had to be made, there exists too much reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of their result.”

            Was the voting done fairly? Again, allegations are bandied about. Hough the vote passed on a unanimous 8-0 margin, with one abstention and two members recusing themselves, Detloff is targeted as having steered the vote even though he did not take part in it. I do not doubt this at all.

            So we are left with a tainted record in the logs of the NFWFHH, a second record that is just as questionable, if not more so, that Spray’s, recognized by the International Game Fish Association and a horde of angry fisherman burning up phone lines and Internet message boards arguing over a big fish.

            The easiest solution is for someone to go out and catch a new, provable world record muskie, but the current record is so absurdly large that a fish of new record proportions may never be captured.

            To solve the dilemma, I humbly call upon John Detloff and the National Freshwater Fishing Hall of Fame in Hayward, Wisconsin, to establish new categories for world record fish. The first would be a historical record fish and the second would be a modern record, beginning immediately. Cameras and scales are much more accurate today and I believe that advances in technology warrant a new set of records, but not the abandonment of the old ones. Everyone knows Pete Rose, but who remembers Cap Anson and Wee Willie Keeler? I believe this is the best solution and I solemnly hope that cooler heads prevail and this recommendation considered for the best interests of the sport of fishing, immediately.