|
|
Posts: 22
| Here are the three commonly used formulas, so everyone has the correct perspective on a fish that is 57 x 33:
Formula #1 (L x G x G) / 800
Answer: 77.6
Formula #2 (L x G x G) / 754.5 (MHM formula)
Answer: 82.3
Formula #3 ((L x G) / 25) - 10
Answer: 65.2
--Frazier |
|
| |
|
| Each fish is different as the "girth" of a fish is also different on every fish.
Not 70-90 pounds, more like 60-65 pounds. |
|
| |
|
| If I had to put some money on it, I would put my money that most fish are going to be around 63-67 lbs with those measurements. |
|
| |
|
| most fish are going to be around 63-67 lbs with those measurements.
"most fish...with those measurements"
now THAT is funny stuff right there...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | all one of em lambeau |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1996
Location: Pelican Lake/Three Lakes Chain | All of them that I have caught with those measurements......How could we possibly know? Anyone with any experience with fish that size? I know I don't.
I think officially those measurements make fish weigh ALOT. |
|
| |
|
| what I meant was, yes, there has been one fish that we know of with those measurements, but every fish is going to carry their weight differently. You could weigh 10 different 52" x 22"s and they will vary in weight considerably depending on how they carry it, one could just have a big belly and nothing behind it, one could be carry it from the front to the back and weigh quite a bit more than the other, one could have just eaten and weigh even more. Fish of the same LxG are not going to weigh the same. That fish weighs a lot for sure. only guessing. We'll never know. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Two questions to maybe help wrap our brains around this awesome fish.
What where the dimensions of the O’Brian fish?
What where the dimensions of the 60+ pound Georgian Bay fish caught a couple years ago?
Both fish were actually weighed and are assumed legitimate, correct?
O-yea what were the dimensions of the Dempsy(sp?) fish caught out of season on the Fox a couple of years ago? That fish was not weighed, but was talked about as record class.
Regardless, I’ll agree with Norm its BIG!!!
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | The O'Brien muskie was 58 x 30.5 and weighed 65 pounds.
The Williamson muskie was 55.5 x 31.5 and weighed 61 pounds 4 ounces.
Both were weighed and are considered legit.
The Dempsey fish was 56 x 33.5 but was not weighed.
Weight formula's are all over the board and were developed on dead fish. Live girth is larger and therefore formula's are merely an "estimate" and almost always overstate weight. The Crawford formula (L x G/25-10) comes the closest for release muskies. A friend has further modified that formula reducing weight another 5% from formula calculation based on many actual scale weighed and released muskies over 50 inches from trophy Ontario waters. His calculation for this 55 x 33, "ASSUMING" measurements were correctly taken, is 62 pounds. My "estimate" is that this is likely pretty close. It was an AWESOME fish!
Edited by Larry Ramsell 12/2/2008 8:59 AM
|
|
| |
|
| i wonder if the formula work on fish like that 
Attachments
----------------
 48x32.jpg (12KB - 98 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1270
| First let me say that that is a great fish and I don't mean to take anything away from it. But I don't see it as being as big as people are saying. I'm not saying that it wasn't 57X33 but it just doesn't look that heavy. Maybe it's a bad picture or maybe the guy is just so big that the fish doesn't look as big. Look at the way the fish lays in the guys arms and now look at the pictures of O'brians fish or of Gelb's fish. These fish just envelope the arms of the guys holding them and I don't see that on this fish.
Oh and to throw some more controversy into this this fish is WAY bigger than Sprays fish! |
|
| |
|
| The official VA state record musky weighed 45.5 pounds. The fish was mounted and the taxidermist inspected the stomach and reported to VDGIF biologists that it was empty. The big girl was 53" with a 24.5" girth. None of the formulas come close to estimating the correct weight. As was stated above, all fish are different and the only accurate weight is one taken off a set of scales. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Thank you Larry!
So based on the L and G and assuming accurate measurements on released fish, here are some interesting numbers.
O’Biran LxGxG is 13% smaller than MacNair (8% Per Larry's adjustment)
Williamson LxGxG is 11% smaller than MacNair (6% Per Larry's adjustment)
Dempsy LxGxG is 01% larger than MacNair
Pretty interesting in my opinion also points out formula problems, as O’Brian is 2% smaller than Williamson when looking at LxGxG but is 6% heavier.
If you plug it into the “Roberts Book” as discussed to death by all of two or three people on the research board the fish would rank as follows.
1-MacNair 57”+33”=90
2-Dempsy 56.5”+33.5”=89.5
3-O’Brian 58”+30.5”=88.5 (89.5 per dead girth adjustment)
4-Williamson 55.5”+31.5”=87 (88 per dead girth adjustment)
I will not get into weather or not the measurements are correct or not, that’s the result of Catch and Release, if we want these AWESOME fish to be released we can’t constantly question posted measurements, especially on a fish that is so hard to judge and so rare. I would love to meet the person that could estimate girth +/- 10% from a photo, it won’t happen.
Awesome fish most likely in the top 5 of ALL TIME reported!
Nail A Pig!
Mike
Edited by MRoberts 12/2/2008 11:49 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1270
| mota, I brought up Gelb's fish because IMHO it looks heavier than this fish. Did you see the picture of his fish in the latest MH magazine? The way it kept it's girth is amazing.
I agree though on how the size of the angler can make the fish look different. Tony Rizzo is what 4' tall (a joke!) so all his fish look huge. Now you take me at 6'2" and over 300lbs. and all my fish look small. At least that's my story why all my fish look small! |
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | Talking about it is pointless. The only way to know how much a fish weighs is to weigh the fish.
As far as comparing pictures that is pointless as well. I heard that Dale is over 300 lbs...plus he seems like he was concerned with getting the fish back in the water and not posing for a flattering picture....props to him.
As far as the O'Brien fish, everybody looks at the flattering pose. Here is another picture that isn't so flattering.
Attachments
----------------
yellow slicker1.jpg (19KB - 115 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Dale weighs around 300 pounds!
Mike, to be fair, I think to compare apples to apples, you would have to subtract an inch off of the girth of the two released fish.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 12/2/2008 9:58 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8782
| I'd say that fish probably weighs about...
20 lbs more than any muskie any of us will ever catch or see for the rest of our lives. What's there to argue about? That might be the heaviest muskie there is, anywhere.
Holy crap! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 21
Location: Wallingford, KY | The new KY state record that was just caught recentley was 53.75 x 26.5 and weighed 47#.
Formula #3 ((L x G) / 25) - 10
This formula hit it just right. But as alreaded mentioned from other posts, this fish had generous girth, but wasn't all in the middle of the fish, but distributed most of the length of the fish. In my opinion no one formula is going to work for all fish. They are simply a guide line to go from, and IMO that is something definitely needed to maintain are CPR methods. With Cave Run only having a 30" limit on it, without the efforts of anglers practicing CPR, this fish would never have gotten that big. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2024
| Troy,
Well said and my thoughts exactly.
Dale could have taken 10 photos in 10 different poses, but he didn't. O'Brien got "lucky" that one of the pictures taken happened to portray the fish's girth in excessive glory. The picture Troy posted makes the O'Brien fish look incredibly "smaller" than it actually was, and if you didn't know anything about his fish and saw the more famous photo you'd probably think they were two different fish (assuming you didn't recognize the same yellow jacket). Dale took two photos between 5:05PM and 5:06PM and the fish was swimming away at 5:09PM. Sometimes I think we treat our beloved BIG girls more poorly than some of the smaller fish we catch. In Dale's case, however, he did not when he could have EASILY put himself first versus the fish.
As Troy said, this discussion will go nowhere (except fuel the debate over length/girth weight estimations) since the fish was not actually weighed.
Mad respect for Dale. Look forward to meeting him next year. |
|
| |
|
| I don't know about the Williamson fish but I believe that O' brian's fish had 6 or 8 pounds of bullheads in its belly that might be why it weighed more than Williamson's. Larry please correct me I was wrong on this info. BTW I will be up there starting FRI hopefully she wants to bite again then we will have a weight.
Jason Bond |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Jason:
To my knowledge the weight of the stomach contents of O'Brien's fish are unknown. Dr. Ed Crossman, who did the autopsy, said the following:
"I had hoped contents may have been a single easily identified individual fish. Instead they turned out to be one recognizable bullhead and a second probable bullhead and a lof of disarticulated bones..."
The Williamson fish, according to MNR biologist Arunas Liskauskas "...had a 15 inch whitefish and two partially-digested 10 inch lake herring in its stomach."
O'Brien's fish was aged at 29+ years of age and Williamson's fish was aged at just 17 years. Both were aged via the Cleithrum method by Dr. John Casselman, OMNR Research Scientist. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4266
| The picture that addresses the true girth of the giant that was caught was the releasese shot. Though it's not the best photo, it does show that she holds bulk all of the way back to her tail. In the first 2 photos, the angler is seated with the fish on his lap, and he seems to be holding her close to his body to protect from dropping her. No stretched out arms on these pictures, the fish is actually bent head and especially tail, away from the camera. Not a pose that we are used to seeing, but probably a very safe pose for a heavy fish. He's supporting her weight while trying to keep a firm grasp as not to drop her. Kudos to him for holding onto that treasure in a secure manner instead of going for a money shot.
Beav |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2361
| I really don't care one way or the other as to what the fish actually weighed. It is a tremendous testament to the fisherman that it was released. Others seem to have encountered release difficulties with fish of even lesser size.
Although my first glance told me here was a fish with a stomach full, definitely bulging in one area, further exam reveals an awful lot of depth as the fish follows back, and it is not discerned on first glance. As for width over the top any fish this size ought to carry lots of width all the way back. Heckuva fish, heckuva release, and we can discuss the potential weight all winter and it will still be a heckuva fish, and a heckuva release! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1767
Location: Lake Country, Wisconsin | Well I really can't even comprehend how anyone can doubt the size of this fish. But besides the fact that the man is 300 lbs, also do not forget he is decked out in very thick winter clothing that is making him look even bigger then he already is. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 210
Location: VA | "20 lbs more than any muskie any of us will ever catch or see for the rest of our lives"
Ain't that the truth! 
DR |
|
| |
|
| WOW!!!! What a 48" fish!!! Mota - thats a whopper!!! I would take any 48"er like that one!!!
|
|
| |
