Posts: 43
Location: S. Wisconsin | Larry Ramsell - 3/13/2018 4:33 AM
"A bit more info: First a correction; the first Knobla photo was found in the Outdoor Life magazine archives.
Second, the first published length of Knobla's fish being 54-inches was an "estimate" by Peter Haupt after he had viewed the mount.
Third, early Field & Stream contests required fish length measurement to be "Fork length", not total length. This would make a BIG difference in Knobla's fish, bringing the stated length of 52 1/4-inches much closer to the size of the Lapp fish (as found by Ron Lax when he remounted both fish)."
Well, we ran into this issue with the Malo fish and you decided that a 52.5 fork length on a TRUE MUSKIE with a POINTY tail equals 55 inches overall. Haupts estimate of 54 inches from a HYBRID with 52.25 fork length on a ROUNDED tail seems appropriate enough. Even if we add a full 2.5 inches like Malo got, we get 54.75 inches. Even rounding UP to 55, Knoblas fish falls an inch short of Ott-Lapps.
"As for girth measurements, I have never placed a lot of faith in different folks taking this sometimes confusing measurement, especially in the early days when few knew its value."
We can look at the side comparisons of the two hanging fish and see that the girth sure couldn't be BIGGER than reported...
"Again, Lax couldn't tell which fish was bigger and by certified weight the Knobla fish was 15-ounces heavier."
Lax SAID he couldn't tell. This is the answer of a very savvy, tactful, and diplomatic individual. This "perfect" answer shows he has wisdom to match his incredible taxidermy skills.
"Fourth, had the Lapp's gotten her fish to a certified scale immediately, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The Lodge scale first weighed on showed an unofficial weight of 52-pounds. At that time hybrids were not known to be different than "silver" muskies and the Lapp's knew that the record at the time was a (bogus) Louie Spray record, supposedly much larger than her fish. So, as related by Mrs. Lapp;..."After awhile we weighed him officially in town (at Neiman's grocery - on a meat scale per Peter Haupt)." By then the official weight of the fish was 50-pounds 4-ounces. According to Haupt, the fish hung in the wind and sun most of the day before the official weighing!"
How well is the documentation on the certified scale for Knoblas fish in 1919? Where was it weighed? When was it last inspected and certified? How accurate were scales then? They still rode horses back in 1919, mass produced machinery and the assembly line which brought us standardized interchangeable machined parts were rudimentary compared to 1951... Are we sure the scale used on Knoblas fish is more accurate than the one at the resort which weighed Dolores' fish at 52?
"Fifth, The State of Wisconsin, the IGFA and the NFWFHF all recognize the Knobla fish as the world record Tiger Muskie."
The state kinda just follows the HOF, the IGFA stopped caring and like the fact that they will NEVER have to deal with the Muskie WR again since they don't get that big (67.5), and the FWFHF lost ALL my respect when they chose Chin Whiskers Charlie over Larry Ramsell and Brad Latvaitas.
They recognize Spray, Johnson, and Spray. A Shyster Trifecta.
"While I'm sure Mr. Clark's unnecessary "embarrassment" will never be assuaged, it is unfounded as the right things were done at the time of both recognizing the Lapp fish initially and later correcting the record when photographic evidence of the Knobla fish was found and I'm sure Peter Haupt would agree. Recently, a second Knobla photo has been discovered (the first was found by my cousin, not "brother", Rod)."
I agree you guys did the right thing back then, when nobody questioned any weights, measurements, scrutinized photos, and were unsure of the IGFA formula, which we now know is accurate.
So the right thing to do NOW would be to put recently acquired tools and resources to work, and reassess/verify/correct any discrepancies. [Maybe the new photo can be used to authenticate the measurements of the Knobla fish.]
For example when applying the formula to Knoblas fish using the highest estimates in his favor (25.25 x 25.25 x 55 / 800) we get 43.83 pounds. 7.42 pounds light. Thats 14.4% of the total weight of the fish (7.42 / 51.25) With the original measurements, its even lighter, 41.84 pounds. That's 9.41 pounds light, almost 20% of the fish's weight. The claimed weight and the formula estimation are too far off.
Lapps fish has 1" in length and 1.25" in girth over Knoblas. (26.5 x 26.5 x 56 / 800) gives us 49.16 pounds, very close.
It's hard to find archival research documenting such large and rare muskies, but we have a few examples.
A 54 x 26 hybrid caught 6/17/48 by Praefke weighed 42-6. The formula says 45.63 pounds. Within 3.25 pounds, 7.6 % off, not bad...
It sure seems like in order for the Knobla fish to weigh as much as it did with the measurements it had, it must have been made up of something denser than fish meat, at least part of it.
Perhaps Knoblas fish ingested some sand or gravel to aid in its digestion...? This seemed to happen MORE OFTEN the FARTHER one goes back in time, you know...*wink*...
Just some stuff to consider...
Nice post Larry, your time is always appreciated. |
