|
|
| 4amuskie,
The photo were the girth looks "pretty good" does not show the entire tail of the fish. The entire tail would be needed to analyze the side width to length percentage. Otherwise all you're doing is guessing. It looks to me like the WRMA used the only logical choice.
|
|
| |
|
| firstsixfeet,
It can be BEST done with a hanging fish. |
|
| |
|
| GW - 1/8/2010 12:31 PM
4amuskie,
The photo were the girth looks "pretty good" does not show the entire tail of the fish. The entire tail would be needed to analyze the side width to length percentage. Otherwise all you're doing is guessing. It looks to me like the WRMA used the only logical choice.
I know but at least it gives a better perspective of the girth. And indeed the fish looks more like a "Gelb" girth to me.
The photo with the rod in it looks interesting to me also. My take is the fish is at least as long as that rod.
No one is going to be able to prove anything. As a muskie fisherman of some time I can say that to me that looks like a very large fish. As far as quarter inch measurement I could care less. I dont care about my fish or anyone elses. If someone says they measured the fish to a quarter inch or less, I think its a joke.
If I caught a world record potential fish, I'd toss it back as fast as I could and destroy the photo. Who in the world needs this stuff. I got better things to worry about.
Greed???? We all got some of it. Some people just display it better than others. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Larry Ramsell - 1/8/2010 12:10 PM
Firstsixfeet:
You should ask John Dettloff WHY he started this whole mess by getting the Lawton record disqualified and then refuses to apply the same criteria to the Spray and Johnson muskies...pure and simple...GREED!
Stay tuned, his Cal Johnson book will be out soon!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian
I think if you refer to my remarks you will see "personal irons in the fire" and I think that is probably enough history for the several sides to this particular conflict. Let's just recognize that they exist. As to "this whole mess", I think that is a succinct description of the process and the trail being taken. Unfortunate chain of events and the law of unforseen consequences probably apply here. But, here again we are looking at a clear case of personal animosity in your remarks, you are not talking about the Lawton fish, but instead the person who got the Lawton fish disqualified.
Those are subjective, and not objective, comments you have made. How does everyone keep getting back to John Detloff anyway? He is not the fish in question, nor the record holder. He simply is placing material in public view which appears to support the Johnson fish. Attacking him simply shows your personal bias here. If this is truly an objective examination, he shouldn't even figure into any final decision, ONLY HIS RESEARCH AND SUPPORTABLE CONCLUSIONS should matter.
Some of you probably need to educate me on the massive amounts of cash that come rolling in from these book sales, and the piles of tourist coming into the area and putting cash in everyone's pocket because of the Johnson fish/Spray fish?? Evidently my exploration of the somewhat limited book market is WAY OFF BASE! I had considered doing something along fishing lines at one time, and felt the cash return was not worth the research and time it would take to compile a treatise. I MUSTA BEEN WRONG ON THAT ONE!!!
And now, I must ask you a personal question, "Are you keeping your wealth concealed Larry?". Can I come visit you at your mansion and talk about my future book?  |
|
| |
|
| firstsixfeet - 1/8/2010 12:54 PM
Larry Ramsell - 1/8/2010 12:10 PM
Firstsixfeet:
You should ask John Dettloff WHY he started this whole mess by getting the Lawton record disqualified and then refuses to apply the same criteria to the Spray and Johnson muskies...pure and simple...GREED!
Stay tuned, his Cal Johnson book will be out soon!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
Muskellunge Historian
I think if you refer to my remarks you will see "personal irons in the fire" and I think that is probably enough history for the several sides to this particular conflict. Let's just recognize that they exist. As to "this whole mess", I think that is a succinct description of the process and the trail being taken. Unfortunate chain of events and the law of unforseen consequences probably apply here. But, here again we are looking at a clear case of personal animosity in your remarks, you are not talking about the Lawton fish, but instead the person who got the Lawton fish disqualified.
Those are subjective, and not objective, comments you have made. How does everyone keep getting back to John Detloff anyway? He is not the fish in question, nor the record holder. He simply is placing material in public view which appears to support the Johnson fish. Attacking him simply shows your personal bias here. If this is truly an objective examination, he shouldn't even figure into any final decision, ONLY HIS RESEARCH AND SUPPORTABLE CONCLUSIONS should matter.
Some of you probably need to educate me on the massive amounts of cash that come rolling in from these book sales, and the piles of tourist coming into the area and putting cash in everyone's pocket because of the Johnson fish/Spray fish?? Evidently my exploration of the somewhat limited book market is WAY OFF BASE! I had considered doing something along fishing lines at one time, and felt the cash return was not worth the research and time it would take to compile a treatise. I MUSTA BEEN WRONG ON THAT ONE!!!
And now, I must ask you a personal question, "Are you keeping your wealth concealed Larry?". Can I come visit you at your mansion and talk about my future book? : )
Interesting. Thanks |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| GW - 1/8/2010 12:35 PM
firstsixfeet,
It can be BEST done with a hanging fish.
I have not found musky to be uniform in build and rarely cylindrical, though I have caught some that DO SEEM cylindrical, in conformation, they seem oddities rather than the norm.
I can't believe I could accurately predict girth, a circumferential measurement, from one side of a fish, view in real life or a photo, and the measurement of that side would cause my ocd type A personality to kick in and the variables would probably cause an irrevocable breakdown of my already limited mental powers. |
|
| |
|
| Sixfeet, it was done with a hanging fish.
Take a good look at that picture where Cal's fish looks it's widest. The fish is way close to the camera, (look at his hand) notice the shape, how thin the belly is compared to the sides of the fish? Okay?
The WRMA did a very impressive math deal that proved the fish would have to be round to have the right measurements. Is it round looking to you in that picture? Can a muskie even be round no matter how it is held?
If the sworn measurement were false, what good are the affs? Okay?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| I simply do not believe they have a decent formula for girth. Any formula would have to assume a uniformity I am not familiar with. |
|
| |
|
| You are a character, FSF. Have you girthed many fish? It's pretty easy to tell girths when someone has a lot of experience w/ measuring fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| I haven't girthed many from a photograph, but......then, I haven't weighed and measured many from a photo either.
You? |
|
| |
|
| Obviously, you have no idea. Have you girthed and measured fish, and then take a photo of them?
Edited by Baby Mallard 1/8/2010 1:56 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| Baby Mallard - 1/8/2010 1:54 PM
Obviously, you have no idea. Have you girthed and measured fish, and then take a photo of them?
Once again, how many have you girthed and measured from a photo alone? And what did the photo weigh?
(BTW I kinda liked the "living in a bubble" question, there is a real good "glass houses" comeback for that comment) |
|
| |
|
| Sixfeet, you are either really dense or don't understand basic math. CAL measured the fish, the girth HE stated the fish was is NOT possible unless the fish was round.
You can see for yourself the fish was not round, no muskie is round. Jim Saric even said the fishing rod should not be used to measure the fish over on Musky Hunter.
How much did the picture weight? Really? If you can't tell the difference between that 35lb and one claimed to be 68lbs empty, then nothing will convince you. I need a pair of those glasses when I go fishing! |
|
| |
|
| firstsixfeet - 1/8/2010 1:31 PM
I simply do not believe they have a decent formula for girth. Any formula would have to assume a uniformity I am not familiar with.
A circle is as "uniform" as it gets, why is it so hard for you to get "familiar" about comparing an oval shaped fish to a circle?
What if somebody said Cal was 5'9" with a 45" waist, would you believe it too? |
|
| |
|
| firstsixfeet,
Muskies are not rarely cylindrical, they are NEVER cylindrical. They are ALWAYS oval to some degree. Their biological description is having a laterally compressed oval shape. And even if Johnson's fish WAS perfectly cylindrical, it would STILL be 2.25" short of 33.5" in girth. Do you feel it's possible that his fish is wider side to side than top to bottom? Keep in mind this is the ONLY way this fish could have a 33.5" girth.
Has anyone in this discussion ever seen a muskie that was wider side to side than top to bottom?
|
|
| |
