|
|
| Thanks Larry. I would like to put our past problems behind us and be friends again. You always used to be my go to guy with anything concerning muskies and I miss the old days. I'm not able to spend any more time with this right now and I hope you can answer the questions Tom has asked me being you clearly understand everything I've put across. People such as yourself are difficult to find these days! Anyway, I sincerely hope that what I've presented will prove valuable to todays catch & release muskie anglers and to you personally.
George
P.S. Tell Will the Crawford formula works beautifully on the Spray record, LOL! |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | George, let's please take this discussion over to the thread I've created in the research section in order to further discuss this material:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=85...
I won't respond to any more of this type of discussion here in the new world record thread.
TB |
|
| |
|
| "Whoa...how did you go from 840 to 894?
Seeberger...29" x 29" x 58" / 840 = 58.069 lbs. Actual dead weight...58 lbs.
Gelb...28.5" x 28.5" x 53" / 840 = 51.249 lbs. Actual dead weight...51.125 lbs.
There you advocate using 840 in the denominator, and I follow your logic there. Then you show how the '800' value used historically overestimates the weight of a fish...and I follow you there as well. But then, seemingly out of the blue, you shift to using '894' in the denominator. Why?
It appears to me as though you did this to support up your assumption regarding the live girth of Mr. Seeberger's fish. Was that 29.9" girth value reported somewhere, and maybe I simply missed it? The only girth I heard was 29".
So I think the FIRST thing to do here, would be to get an accurate idea of just how much of a difference there is between live and dead girth... ."
Tom,
I used the three examples Larry provided in determining how much difference there is between live and dead girth. Everything is clearly explained below:
LR: "As I have noted before on three fish this past December, the Standard Formula greatly overstated fish weighed before release on an IGFA Certified scale:
One calculated 55 pounds via formula and weighed 49
One calculated 58+ pounds via formula and weighed 51
One calculated 63.66 pounds via formula and weighed 58"
The average overestimation of these muskies was 6.22 lbs. and ALMOST HALF of this is do to the inherent weakness of the 800 divisor as is shown in the examples below.
Seeberger...29" x 29" x 58" / 800 = 60.97 lbs. (2.97 lbs. overstated)...Actual weight 58 lbs.
Gelb...28.5" x 28.5" x 53" / 800 = 53.81 lbs. (2.685 lbs. overstated.)...Actual weight 51.125 lbs.
6.22 lbs - 2.97 lbs. = 3.25 lbs.
6.22 lbs. - 2.685 lbs. = 3.535 lbs.
Average...3.39 lbs.
So how much additional girth would account for the additional 3.39 lbs? About .900".
The .75" that Warren uses simply will not account for an additional 3.39 of weight.
So my revised formula for released muskies over 50 lbs. is as follows: G x G x L / 894
So I would say the girth on Seebergers LIVE muskie was 29.9".
Again, this is based upon the live examples that were measured and weighed on a certified scale and the average 6.22 lb. overstated weight on these fish when using the standard 800 weight formula.
29.9" x 29.9" x 58" / 894 = 58 lbs.
The 840 divisor shifts to the 894 divisor because of the .900" of additional girth on the live fish.
My version of Warren's formula would be to measure the live girth and subtract 1.6" when using the 800 formula. Why on earth would anyone want to do this?
29.9" - 1.6" = 28.3" x 28.3" x 58" / 800 = 58.06 lbs.
There really is nothing more to discuss at this point unless people start killing 50+ pound muskies in order to determine the difference between live and dead girth.
Being Larry hasn't responded to my message I'm reluctant to discuss this any further on the other thread.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Guest - 4/26/2013 5:26 PMe P.S. Tell Will the Crawford formula works beautifully on the Spray record, LOL! You just did. Joking aside, it seems to work fine on the fish above so why the exercise in trying to come up with something more complicated? |
|
| |
|
| Will,
What's complicated about changing the 800 divisor to 894? Which formula comes closest to the actual weight of these fish?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | George:
Message received...see you on the other thread along with Will and Tom and anyone else that wishes to participate. |
|
| |
|
| Larry,
I will be able to continue this discussion later but for now I'm tied up with other obligations.
I also suggest moving a portion of the material from this discussion over to the other thread.
I'd like to present this final thought to you after reading your post below:
LR: Tom:
Definately take out the Hannon formula...never was valid.
As for being a valuable tool, I will be convinced of that ONLY when the "estimates" are at or BELOW the actual weight.
If you guys prefer the formulas to slightly understate the actual weight the adjusted formulas below will do the job and still offer extremely close estimates.
Formula for LIVE muskies over 50 lbs...G x G x L / 897
Seeberger...29.9" x 29.9" x 58 / 897 = 57.81 lbs. ... Actual weight 58 lbs. Formula understates actual weight by .19 lb.
Gelb... 29.4" x 29.4" x 53" / 897 = 51.07 lbs. ...........Actual weight 51.125 lbs. Formula understates actual weight by .055 lb.
Formula for DEAD muskies over 50 lbs....G x G x L / 843
Seeberger...29 x 29 x 58 / 843 = 57.86 lbs. Actual weight 58 lbs. Formula understates actual weight by .14 lb.
Gelb...28.5" x 28.5" x 53" / 843 = 51.06 lbs. Actual weight 51.125 lbs. Formula understates actual weight by .065 lb.
George
|
|
| |
