|
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | In 2017, purveyors of this muskie board asked for a World Record Release category. After much discussion, I worked out a usable weight estimate formula modification and the program was born; see:
https://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=106707&posts=112&mid=796043&highlight=mille+lacs+queen&highlightmode=1&action=search
Since that time I have been doing considerable more research on the formula subject and its history and enhanced my data base to back-up the new formula created. The following link will take you to my write-up of what I found with comparisons to other weight formulae out there:
READ THE ARTICLE!
Attachments
----------------
 Untitled4.jpg (105KB - 443 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 39
| Why is there not a live weight category? With todays technology the Bluetooth scales used to weigh babies could get actual weights of caught fish. I get there are some adaptation challenges, but all the hard work has already been done. I think it would be awesome to have tournaments based on live weight rather than length. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 41
Location: Rochester, MN | Nice work Larry. You talked primarily about four formulas (standard, modified standard, Crawford, modified Crawford). Is there a certain length range we can use determine what formula would be best or most accurate to use on a particular fish? You mentioned the modified standard is good for mid-size 35-45# fish and modified Crawford is for true giants over 50#. What lengths are we talking here? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Purple: Actually, the modified Standard usually underestimates weight. Easiest thing is use the Crawford Formula for fish under 50 pounds and the new Modified Crawford formula for those over 50 pounds. It is a combination of length and girth that determines estimated weight, so I can't give you a length only answer. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 612
| One giant fish regardless.
|
|
| |
