|
|
Posts: 220
| Here is a link to the last St. lawrance monster. Can't see anyone trying to doubt this one. I am not posting the pic. just the link to where they are talking about it and there is a photo there.
http://www.lakestclair.net/index.php?/topic/94800-another-giant-st-... |
|
| |
|
| I do believe this was the biggest caught on the Larry this year , congrats to Dr Russel Marion and to Sal Rotolo for releasing this magnifcent beast , I am sure the debate will start soon with winternet , but do a comparison of all other pic,s posted and i do think it will be obvious that this was largest |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| Can't see the picture. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 536
| yah i cant see it either, you have to be a member of that forum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 380
Location: Michigan | Here is the pic
(post-6177-0-08374600-1323878885_thumb.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
 post-6177-0-08374600-1323878885_thumb.jpg (20KB - 753 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 5
| Good lord that thing is a monster! Congrats to that angler!!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 164
Location: Twin Cities | Wow! |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | Nice fish and it certainly appears to be a beast but would be more credible if the photo hadn't been taken with a Kodak 110 Instamatic... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1455
Location: Kronenwetter, WI | Who cares exacty how big...they're BiG. Unless i had a pic of myself with a fish of those proportions, id just say congrations then keep my mouth shut. In fact, thats what I'd do even if I DID have such a pic.
*God gave us two ears and one mouth so to listen more and talk less.
*A smart man has something to say; a wise man knows when NOT to say it.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 129
Location: North Metro - Twin Cities | Wow!!! Really puts all the fake record fish in perspective when you see these true giants. That's about as big as they get right there. |
|
| |
|
Location: 31 | "Nice fish and it certainly appears to be a beast but would be more credible if the photo hadn't been taken with a Kodak 110 Instamatic..." That sure looks like a legitimate mid-50 x 29, the fact that it wasn't “staged” actually makes it even more convincing to me. "Who cares exacty how big...they're BiG." Yikes, I certainly care how big. Maybe I'm just weird (I would prefer different  ), but when I look at a picture of a giant, that's about the first thing that pops into my head. The fact that it's so big is what makes it so cool, so yes… I definitely care. “Wow!!! Really puts all the fake record fish in perspective when you see these true giants. That's about as big as they get right there.” Now there's something I agree with 100%... Congratulations to the anglers for such a magnificent release! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 536
| yap another beast from the east!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | wow ! That is one big a$s fish,...... but the pic looks like something from 1963 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 366
| Is that Paulie Pennino out fishing with him? Serious slob either way. Maybe there are other photos out there?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | Credible fish??? If anything, they undermeasured that fish. Look at how long that fish is in comparison to the fisherman's shoulders and the girth is incredible. That fish is all of 55x29 and may be larger. No question, that is an awesome fish.
This is definitely one of the largest of the year and, for that matter, one of the largest Muskies ever caught.
Congratulations to the angler!
Edited by Herb_b 12/20/2011 11:59 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 425
Location: Roseau | I have to agree with herb_b, for some reason that fish looks like an absolute giant!! I havent seen one in a picture that looks as big as that!! Imagine what that would have looked like being held out with the tail forward? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16
| What a piggy...lets not forget that this is the guy who was fishing with Dale McNair when he caught his monster a couple of years ago.
Bob |
|
| |
|
Posts: 981
| that river behemoth looks bigger than Clark's 60 incher (not in ANY way doubting Clark's was 60" so dont think I am!) I for one am a big fan of pics taken with the fish held next to the body not pushed away towards the camera so you can see the relative size of the fish. This thing looks stupid massive...unreal fish congrats to the angler.
Looking at the discrepencies for the tiger muskie record (which I think should be abolished and go to the gentleman who caught that 49 x 28.5 monster) and by doing common sense picture comparisons between the wisconsin and old st. larry record and this fish and Clark's, there no doubt in my mind (just my opinion anyways) that those old records were BS. I think the true world records were caught this past month. |
|
| |
|
| rnschott - 12/20/2011 1:13 PM
What a piggy...lets not forget that this is the guy who was fishing with Dale McNair when he caught his monster a couple of years ago.
Bob
Other way around. |
|
| |
|
| Consider the two gentleman pictured in the photo and their upper body mass/torso size compared to the musky! Granted this is a grainy ? appearing photo, but unless those guys are smaller than average you're looking at a very, very big fish. When judging the size of a big musky, consider the fish's appearance from the bottom of it's belly to the top of it's back in comparison to the angler's head............ or bottom of an angler's chin to the top of their head/ball caps; big fish generally are at least 10 inches from the belly to the back when measured whether flat on a board or mounted up on the wall (27 inch girth class or bigger). That photo maybe the one in a hundred which the camera has somehow embelished it's actual appearance, but I'd say both it's length and girth seem to appear much larger than 55 x 29 measurements. If the photo is indeed truthfully a reflection of the the appearance of it's weight/size........I'd have to guess well over 60 pounds and undoubtedly the largest appearing musky in any photograph ever published; period! |
|
| |
|
| Why would anyone fart? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 67
| With all the discrepancies on the correct way to measure ,I do know that Sal would check and double check the length and girth ,The conraversies that arise on fish usually come from measuring a fish over the top which can add a couple of inches in length and I believe that he would not make this mistake ,This just show's what a true 55" X 29" fish looks like |
|
| |
|
| Assuming this fish was truly 55" x 29" what this photo does is show what a true 55" x 29" looks like if held in front of the angler in this manner. A true 55" x 29" will look much smaller than this if the fish and the angler were the same distance from the camera. |
|
| |
|
Location: Des Moines IA | Now that's a coffee table mount for sure!!!!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 24
| leech lake strain - 12/18/2011 6:20 PM
yap another beast from the east!!
Amen!
What ever size you want it to be is fine with me. It's just another giant beast for sure  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 203
Location: Alexandria, Minnesota | Wow...........What a Fricking Beast!!!! Now that is a 29 inch girth. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Guest - 12/21/2011 2:58 PM
Assuming this fish was truly 55" x 29" what this photo does is show what a true 55" x 29" looks like if held in front of the angler in this manner. A true 55" x 29" will look much smaller than this if the fish and the angler were the same distance from the camera.
What's he supposed to do, hold it up over his head? Give it a rest, that fish is a giant. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32
Location: Tower, Lake Vermilion | For real Steve, why would anyone even doubt that this fish is a true giant.
Merry Christmas.
"Ace" |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Why?
Who cares? The angler certainly didn't do anything but CAREFULLY hold a giant for a picture and release it.
Enough. |
|
| |
|
| The photo is a picture of the original picture...hence the crappy quality and reflection from the flash.
You guys are funny....Sal is not large man, and that fish could not have been held any closer to his body. He's no stranger to fish this size...Dale was fishing with him when THEY landed "Dale's" fish. They guy in the back of this photo is the dude that reeled this one in.
It's a giant and gives some true perspective to all the other "so called" huge fish with alleged huge girths. |
|
| |
|
| If you will send me your email address, I can forward an even more amazing photo of my fish. Please send your email to [email protected] |
|
| |
|
| Hey Russ,
Congrats again, on the once ina lifetime catch that most of us will only ever dream of seeing, much less/landing.....................by all means, if willing, share a couple more shots of that monster. Did you chose a taxidermist to make a replica yet?
I've seen a photo off another musky website that although may not embelish or heap any more needed weight in appearance with your fish; it certainly did'nt take away from the fact that you laid your hooks and hands upon yet another Monster fish from the east!
A true 55 anywhere, any girth is a special muskellunge! Much less a specimen with a healthy girth, and in your fish, a freak of a build!
Monster catch and qudos even all the more on a monster release! |
|
| |
