|
|
Posts: 98
| I caught this fish last week and am planning to get a replica of it. The dimensions were 53.25 x 21". I have used weight calculators and I do not trust any of them. I have seen anything from 26 pounds (don't think its that small) to 43 pounds (don't think its that big). I figured in the 35 lb range, but am not sure. Has anyone caught a fish close to this size or have an educated opinion on what they might think the weight is. Thanks in advance.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Edited by buddy lite 8/15/2011 5:11 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 40
Location: B;acksburg Virginia | a friend of mine caught a 53"x24.5" it weighed 45 pounds 8 ounces on certified scales its virginias state record. im thinking yours would be mid to upper thirties it is definitely over 26 pounds. beautiful fish and congrats! |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | we weighed a 54 x 22 that came in at 36-37 lb...I'd call it probably call it 32 ...I've weighed about 6 fish from a super fat 46 to 54" and every one came in within 2 lbs of the weight calculator at the bottom of this site...for reference.
great fish, congrats
Edited by BNelson 8/15/2011 5:06 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1663
Location: Kodiak, AK | Nice fish! Sent you a PM.
Edited by esoxfly 8/15/2011 5:10 PM
|
|
| |
|
| I'm with Nelson. That bemidji fish is 34 lbs tops. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 518
Location: Cave Run Lake KY. | 30# even. |
|
| |
|
| Looks like Hulbert's putting his clients on the fish!!!! |
|
| |
|
| I had a 53 x 21 that weighed 35-3. |
|
| |
|
| 34-35 lbs. Nice fish. |
|
| |
|
| I had a 53 x 23 that weighed 37#'s even on a certified scale. |
|
| |
|
| Had a 51 x 23 = 33 lbs |
|
| |
|
Posts: 200
Location: Minnesota | The accepted formula is length x girth x girth /800. Using that formula, your fish is 29.35 lbs, providing the measurements you gave are accurate.
Regardless of the weight, that's a nice fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 91
Location: Central Wisconsin | Idk if those calculations can be completely right. I've weighted them in cradles and had a 48 3/4" x 20 1/2" weight a little over 29lbs that didn't look as fat as the 53 does. I just got a 47 1/4" x20" that was a little over 27lbs. So how can a fish with a larger girth, and 4-6" more in length weigh roughly the same when their body structures are fairly similar carrying weight throughout. I have found some of those calculations so far off with fish I catch and that I've netted and done work with the DNR on, that I have a hard time believing some peoples weight estimates online, it can vary 10lbs+/- by which calculation they use. Just my opinion. I think this fish goes about 33-35lbs. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 200
Location: Minnesota | muskymedic5 - 8/16/2011 10:05 AM
Idk if those calculations can be completely right. I've weighted them in cradles and had a 48 3/4" x 20 1/2" weight a little over 29lbs that didn't look as fat as the 53 does. I just got a 47 1/4" x20" that was a little over 27lbs. So how can a fish with a larger girth, and 4-6" more in length weigh roughly the same when their body structures are fairly similar carrying weight throughout. I have found some of those calculations so far off with fish I catch and that I've netted and done work with the DNR on, that I have a hard time believing some peoples weight estimates online, it can vary 10lbs+/- by which calculation they use. Just my opinion. I think this fish goes about 33-35lbs.
Muskyhunter and this site both use the same formula (L x G x G/800). Most of the other sites I've seen come out to that as well. As long as the measurements of the fish are accurate, the calculator should be pretty close (plus or minus 5-10%).
Let's face it, most of the fish scales vary wildly with weight. Two of the exact same ones can weigh the same fish 5 or 10 lbs apart. Even professional fighters are given a 1 lb cushion when they weigh in because the "certified" scales have a degree error in them.
I wouldn't trust someone's fish scale with a business transaction based on weight, but I would trust a tested and proven scientific formula.
You can choose to believe or disbelieve anything you read on the internet. At the end of the day, everyone always comes to the same conclusion, "That's a nice fish!" |
|
| |
|
Posts: 81
| Here are the calculations:
Standard 29.35 pounds
Crawford 34.73 pounds
Wilkerson/Ramsell 27.29 pounds
Casselman/Crossman 33.43 pounds
Average 31.20 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 720
| buddy lite,
I think you're within a pound on either side of 35 lbs. A beautiful fish. |
|
| |
|
| 33-34 pounds. Bank on it. Great fish! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 256
| Mid-30's. Fantastic fish! Congrats! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 208
| x2 nice fish .... nice job! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 21
Location: Erie, PA | Crawford's & Casselman/Crossman weight calculation formulas are the most accurate I have seen. They put the weight between 33.43 to 34.73. So 33-35 lbs would be a very accurate guess. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 98
| Thanks to everyone for the help! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 40
| Clean looking fish! Nice job! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1937
Location: Black Creek, WI | MuskyDew - 8/16/2011 12:17 PM Here are the calculations: Standard 29.35 pounds Crawford 34.73 pounds Wilkerson/Ramsell 27.29 pounds Casselman/Crossman 33.43 pounds Average 31.20 What are the differences between these formulas? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 91
Location: Central Wisconsin | I've found that the casselman/crossman formula seem to be the closest when weighing fish from 40 to low 50's, the super fat 50"+ can really vary on true weight. |
|
| |
