|
|
Posts: 18
Location: Hudson, WI | Strong SOB to hold 65# that easily...
http://thedrydenobserver.ca/2013/09/eagle-lake-yields-big-muskie/ |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | 60 x 30! love it! 
i hope the guy is 5 feet 4 inches and has a waist of 48"
Edited by BNelson 9/6/2013 1:57 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | Where have I seen that hand behind the head pose before? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 95
| Nice fish... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| It IS a nice fish.
Anybody ever take a girth tape to various oval shaped things and see what it takes to get to 30"?? Just for fun, take a girth measurement of the widest part of your thigh for example. I came up with 25".
I have to admit, anybody who can hold up a 65# fish vertically like that is not someone I'd want to mess with. |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | My girth is 33 inches and I weigh 185 pounds then again I'm 69 inches
I guess my waist isn't my girth
Edited by horsehunter 9/6/2013 4:12 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 20219
Location: oswego, il | I don't see an oar in this photo.
still a huge fish.
Edited by ToddM 9/6/2013 4:13 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 174
Location: Ontario | Wouldn't bet my life on the girth being 30". Might take a small wager on the length being 60 ". That's a big fish !! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 221
| I'd say that's closer to 57 x 25 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 287
Location: Oconomowoc, WI | That's a giant! Congratulations are in order for the angler. I think everyone that reads or posts on this board dreams about a fish like that. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | Gee I wonder if that fish still swims... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| Well... you know this one's going in the crapper anyway, so here goes...
He's holding the fish up to his nose, and he's standing in the water. Figure 8" from the jaw to the top of his head, and another 6" of him that's under water. Let's ignore the fact that the fish isn't in the same plane as the angler for a moment....
If it WERE, and this genetleman was 6 feet tall, that would put the fish at around 58". Considering the distance between him and the fish, based on how he is holding it, I'm going to say closer to 54". A great fish nonetheless. Looking at the McNair fish and a handful of other "giants" that have been caught in recent years? Yeah. I'd say 54x27 at the top end, and 52x25 at the bottom.
I'd be interested to see what all the folks out there with mid 50's fish to their credit would say about this picture.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 19
| Way to go... that is a BIG fish regardless of the exact measurements. |
|
| |
