|
|
Posts: 3480
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | What items and/or ideas do they BOTH agree on?
Steve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Doesnt sound like any....they both hate each other...the only fact i can see is that spray did catch a musky, but thats about as far as it goes.
Mike |
|
| |
|
| I found it interesting that the FEFHoF did not even address the 1940 record, my guess is there was no defending it so they are doing their best to sweep it under the rug? If... wait a second, let's face it... he absoulty cheated in 1940 so the 1949 fish should be tossed then, even if it was as large as claimed. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Isn't that the fish that they held the contest on? I mean...all those people guessed the size and then the thing was measured & weighed in front of a whole slug of people. Am I not remembering it correctly? I thought that was well-documented in Dettloff's book. I will have to dig up that book and research it.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 43
Location: S. Wisconsin | I thought about that one...I read Dettloff's book.
If the 1940 fish is on ice in the SAME bar that the 1939 mount is at, not 30 feet away...
Why wouldn't EVERY guess in the guess book eclipse the 1939 fish's dimensions?
People had a year to study the 1939 mount before they saw the fresh 1940 fish...and the mount was in the same building, yet half the people thought the fish was 56" or less...?
I made a photo comparison of two 5'11" men holding two muskie within ounces of each other...
Edited by IGotTheFeverBIG 1/18/2006 9:10 PM
Attachments
----------------
 60vs61.jpg (133KB - 464 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Man FEVER, you are good with that photo editing program! Great comparison...
I take it that Spray's fish was not measured to the fork in the tail? I see your point about the girth--the "smaller" fish on the left looks much fatter. But again, the appearance of girth (or truncal obesity in humans, for instance) is very dependent on their height; hence the term "he's a little short for his weight". And while I definitely agree that the fish on the left looks fatter, I don't know how much of an impact the shorter length has on the appearance of "fatness". (I apologize if I didn't make myself clear as to the point I am trying to make.) Having said this though, I can definitely see your point in that Spray's fish doesn't "look" that long.
It's like a tall, slender (but muscular) individual--you would never think they are that heavy until you see them on a scale. I used to be that way, but unfortunately I have now slipped into the "short for my weight" category...lol.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 1/19/2006 10:19 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | I had a guy I work with look at the above pictures. He doesn’t musky fish but is an avid outdoorsman. I asked do you think those two fish could be the same size. He looked at the pictures for a few minutes and said YES I think they could be about the same size.
I asked why he thought so. He said look at the belly, on picture one you can clearly see both fins. On picture 2 you can only see one, the fish his held at a different angle to the camera, plus he said that the placement of the anglers hand in pic one looks like it is pushing the belly out more. In pic two the fish is being held more vertical.
I thought that was a very interesting unbiased opinion.
After that I showed him a pic of the record, he said it sure didn’t look like the fish was over 5’ long.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3480
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Then, just as another observation...look at the expressions on the two faces. The colored photo clearly shows the guy is struggling to hold the fish up whereas Loui is not struggling at all.
Steve |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well, FEVER really picked some good pictures. If you guys will allow me to go off on a bit of a tangent, I would like to make an observation--you'll see why in a few minutes. In my line of work I deal with people alot. Although I don't publicize it (because it is totally irrelevent to most of the topics here), I am a Physician. And as such I deal an awful lot with people. Besides that, I have taken several engineering classes, including advanced mathematics and engineering mechanics. As such I feel qualified to make the following observations.
I was rescanning the pictures that FEVER put up here and I noticed something...look at the pictures of the anglers in each shot. I have heard what I am about to say alluded to by others, but given my background I thought I might try to approach the topic from a new direction. Look at Louie Spray in the picture on the right--unless he had pipes of steel, he certainly doesn't seem to be straining much while holding that fish; and it is at a mechanical disadvantage to be doing so. Now look at his arm position compared to that of the angler in the left picture--Spray's arm appears to be in a very relaxed position for the load imposed on it by the fish. Contrast this with the right arm of the other angler--it is *above* the fish; a position much more mechanically advantageous, as there would be less torque imposed on the arm because the load lies more in the same plane (in essence, the arm becomes a two-force member).
Now look at the facial expressions of each angler. Spray's is not the kind of expression you'd expect if someone was straining to lift and hold a large object. The other angler seems to be having some difficulty however, and almost seems to be in partial Valsalva (what you do when you lift a heavy object--subconsciously taking a deep breath and trying to exhale against a closed glottis). This further suggests that the angler on the left is straining a bit more to hold his fish.
While I am not purporting to know whether Sprays fish is actually larger (or claiming that it is smaller) than the fish on the right, I would certainly say that the heavier of the two fish Appears to be the one on the left. Again, I make no assumptions regarding the strength or overall medical condition of either angler...I am simply making an observation.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 1/19/2006 1:56 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 43
Location: S. Wisconsin | Good posts, guys...
MRoberts...I agree that more of the belly on the modern fish is exposed more...due to its' MASSIVE girth in comparison to the other fish...and the inability for this incredibly MASSIVE girth to not spillover when placing a hand on the fish to hold it.
Lengthwise...they might be close...Girthwise...I don't think I even have to say it out loud...
MY OWN opinion there is about a 20 pound difference between these 2 fish...
tcbetcka-excellent points. You must be a weightlifter, also...the valsalva movement...holding your breath to flex and stabilize your core when lifting a heavy object...excellent point. I hope you are like me and never use a belt so you lift OUT of the gym what you can IN the gym without having your core fail...so many athletes injure themsleves because their lower backs and abdominals are used to that belt doing the work for them. Them on the Football field, every other muscle can handle high loads except for...that core...because the belt isn't there...sorry i digress.
Now go through history's old record photos of yesteryear and grab yourself a 60, 65, and 70 pound dumbbell, and try to imitate the holding positions of some other historical photos...like i did.
Did you do it, yet?
Good. Now what do you think?....
EXACTLY RIGHT...;)
*As an interesting side note, the camera is MUCH closer to Spray in his photo than it is to the other Gentleman in the modern photo.
This would help exaggerate the size of Spray's fish MORE THAN the other Angler's.
Also, i dug up this photo of a fish Spray entered in a 1939 Fitger's Brewing contest...I thought the markings on the fish were interesting...do you suppose one could be the other's little sister? Also, I noticed Spray had a "Lucky Outfit" he obviously liked to adorn himself with over the years...eh?
BTW How long would a fish keep in the freezer? Don't taxidermists have deep freeze storage containers for their backlog of carcasses?
Just thought i would ask...?
I have literally hundreds of old historical photos...and people are contacting me for even more...you'd never believe me if I told you who...oh my...not in a million years...;)
In a completely unrelated matter, i'd like to post a quote...
"Louie was a Scheister" - Alvin Van Camp, Alton's son...
Edited by IGotTheFeverBIG 1/19/2006 8:17 PM
Attachments
----------------
46vs61.jpg (143KB - 357 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Jeez...it looks like the same fish in both pictures to me! Look at the belly just forward of the anal port--the little lump is incredibly similar.
But now look at the left picture--notice how his arm is tucked in to his body, propped against his chest? That would provide a mechanical advantage to support the fish and seems logical; but that fish is reported to be less than 50 pounds. And then look at the 61 pounder on the right...his arm is at nearly a right angle, and the entire weight of the fish is being supported by the relatively smaller wrist/hand flexor muscles. In the left picture he is using his biceps (and brachioradialis) to hold the forearm in a more vertical position, to act like a brace. But in the right picture...?
Given his body positioning in the left picture (probably instinctive for someone holding a heavy weight, I might add) and then comparing it to that in the right picture, I would have serious doubts about the size of the fish on the right.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 1/19/2006 10:54 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 43
Location: S. Wisconsin | Did you grab a heavy dumbbell yet...? It changed the whole way I look at these old pics...It seems a lot of guys must've been fishin' buddies with Paul Anderson, Chuck Aherns and John Grimek...otherwise...
Here's another comparison.
"Louie was a Scheister"- Alvin Van Camp.
Attachments
----------------
48-61.jpg (163KB - 566 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 43
Location: S. Wisconsin | These are the two that really catch my eye...
Attachments
----------------
46vs61c.jpg (137KB - 296 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
| The amazing thing to me is ths fish on the left IS NOT even close to a 40lb class musky!!!!!!!!!!! Considering these fish are very close in size the 1940 fish on the right is, AT BEST a 35lb class fish. Louie should not have the record based on this alone. |
|
| |
|
| "WHERE'S THE BEEF"  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 43
Location: S. Wisconsin | I'm thinking that perhaps Hayward area scales measured in kilograms and nobody noticed...? |
|
| |
|
| those 2 fish look to be the same, well... everything to me. Same fish different day! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20216
Location: oswego, il | IGFB, dude you are the man with these comparisons. Junkie won't even respond to them on MH. |
|
| |
|
| Fever,
Do you want to retract your kilogram comment? If we accept your theory the fish would weigh 153.66 lbs (1 kilogram weighs 2.205 lbs).
By the way do you believe that the the "massive" girth of Williams' fish caused the fins to all move to the left side of the body or could it be the way he positioned the fish for the photo.
Since Williams is clearly crouched over and using his left hand to push out the center of the body as far as possible, I can see why he would be "straining" to hold the weight. The torque on his right arm would also be higher due to the distance from the point where the fish weight is supported to his upper arm.
I also note considerable differences in the photos of the 46+# and 61+# fish photos. The 61+# fish photo shows damage on the center of the jaw forward of the gill plate and also just aft of the gill plate. The junction of the body and tail also show considerable differences.
I suppose that it was just Spray planning ahead. He new that you were going to post the two images and claim they were the same fish so he intentionally disfigured the fish prior to taking the photos.
|
|
| |
|
| Fever,
Do you want to retract your kilogram comment? If we accept your theory the fish would weigh 153.66 lbs (1 kilogram weighs 2.205 lbs).
By the way do you believe that the the "massive" girth of Williams' fish caused the fins to all move to the left side of the body or could it be the way he positioned the fish for the photo.
Since Williams is clearly crouched over and using his left hand to push out the center of the body as far as possible, I can see why he would be "straining" to hold the weight. The torque on his right arm would also be higher due to the distance from the point where the fish weight is supported to his upper arm.
I also note considerable differences in the photos of the 46+# and 61+# fish photos. The 61+# fish photo shows damage on the center of the jaw forward of the gill plate and also just aft of the gill plate. The junction of the body and tail also show considerable differences.
I suppose that it was just Spray planning ahead. He new that you were going to post the two images and claim they were the same fish so he intentionally disfigured the fish prior to taking the photos.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I will field my part of this retort.
Williams is leaning backwards slightly--look at his bent knees and the fact that his torso is rotated to his right a bit (placing his right shoulder farther away from the camera than his left). This is in order to keep his right arm in line with the longitudnal axis of the fish, because two-force members are subject to less shear force (torque). Thus it is easier for him to suspend the fish above the ground using his biceps and brachioradialis. But in order to keep the longitudnal axis of the fish in line with his right arm & shoulder, his left arm must push the body of the fish outward. And he also must lean backwards a bit to show the fish's broadside to the camera.
That's my story and I am sticking to it...
TB
Edited by tcbetka 1/21/2006 9:02 AM
|
|
| |
|
| TB,
I think we agree on one thing. We both say that he is using his left hand to push out the body of the fish.
In terms shear (units of force i.e. lbs), that would be equal to the portion of the fishes weight that his right arm is carrying. The torque (units of moment i.e. in-lbs) is equal to the shear times the offset distance to the upper arm or shoulder joint.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I think you may be missing my point here...
I am talking about his right arm being a two-force member. In other words, he is holding his shoulder & arm in such a way that the fish's weight is only placing a tensile force on the arm--there is minimal shear to the RIGHT arm. As the fish's weight is pulling on his arm, his arm pulls on the fish. This is a "two-force member."
As for his left arm, there really isn't much shear (torque) to speak of--certainly there is a component of the weight of the fish; but how much? As an example, let's say that the fish is at a 75 degree angle with the ground (from tail up, for example). Now, if you assume (because we can't see for sure) that his left arm is applying a force to the body of the fish and that this force is applied parallel to the ground:
Vertical component (y-axis, along the longitudinal axis of the fish) = force on right arm: 61 sin 75 = ~59 pounds
Horizontal component (x-axis, perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the fish.) = force on left arm: 61 cos 75 = ~16 pounds
Total force = (59^2 + 16^2)^1/2 = ~61, which is the total weight of the fish.
Note that it is *slightly* more complicated than that, as if the fish is at an angle to the ground, and the left arm pushes againt the fish parallel to the ground, then it really isn't a "normal" force being applied; and the math gets slightly more complicated. But for our purposes here (to illustrate my point regarding the two-force member of the right arm/shoulder) then it's close enough. Also notice that the the exact weight of the fish doesn't matter as I assumed the angle--but you get the point.
So the moral of the story is two-fold:
1) By keeping the right shoulder & arm in line with the longitudinal axis of the fish, the arm/shoulder becomes a two-force member, thus placing all the forces imposed by the weight of the fish in tension on the arm/shoulder. (This is analogous to drawing straight back on a bow & arrow instead of holding the bow some distance from your body and drawing back.)
2) By pushing out on the body of the fish with his left arm, the angler was consciously trying to placing it in a better postion for the photograph, but he was also (subconsciously) placing the fish at a better position to be mechanically supported.
Sorry for the mechanics lesson--my intention was only to illustrate the original point, not to confuse with mathematics.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 1/21/2006 11:13 AM
|
|
| |
|
| TB,
Your calculations are sort of in the ball park but not really accurate. In order to have a correct freebody load balance the summation of forces in the vertical and horizontal must both be zero. The vertical forces are the weight acting down (Fz=-61 lbs) and the support load exerted by the anglers right hand (you assumed no vertical support from the left hand). That would mean that the entire weight (61 lbs) has to be carried by the right hand. In addition, the horizontal forces must also sum to zero. This means that while the left hand pushes to the left, the right hand has to pull to the right. If you assume that the left hand exerts a force perpendicular to the fishes body, the force balances are different but the summation of forces and moment must still be zero.
I'm glad to see that you kept abreast of engineering mechanics principals even though you chose a different career path.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Stan...you are right!
Re-reading my post, I guess I got my axes screwed up lol... My mistake, forgive me. Statics was a few years ago. But check me on this:
Assume the angle of the fish is indeed 75 degrees. Gravity is causing the 61 pound force acting straight downwards. So without the contribution of left arm (ie; assuming the right arm is the only force acting on the fish, and that it is lying on a 75 degree incline), the forces that need be generated to maintain equilibrium are: Fz = ~+59 pounds, Fx = ~+16 pounds. Am I correct so far?
As I over-simplified the contribution of the left arm, let's now assume that it imposes a normal force on the fish in the negative x-direction. As there is no rotational force imposed on or by the fish, the problem (as I see it) is that we have only two equilibrium equations, but FOUR unknowns. So we can never really solve for the actual values of Fz & Fx for each arm. (Hence my attempt at an over-simplification.)
In conclusion, allow me to summarize regarding my earlier post... D' OH!
LMAO!
TB
Edited by tcbetka 1/21/2006 12:13 PM
|
|
| |
|
| TB,
If we make the incline assumption and assume that the only force generated by the left hand is perpendicular to the incline (good assumption for a slimy fish), the actual force balance will depend upon the exact location of the fish center of gravity (CG) and the location of the left hand. If the center of gravity is at 50% length and the left hand is at 50% length, the force on the left hand is 15.8 lbs perpendicular to the fish and the right hand must support 56.91 lbs vertical and 15.25 lbs horizontal. If the location of the left hand is at 25% length the force on the left hand would double and the forces on the right hand would also change.
All calculation are based on the requirement that:
(1) Summation of moments about the right hand is zero
(2) Summation of forces in the vertical direction is zero
(2) Summation of forces in the horizontal direction is zero
Moment is just force times distance (i.e. weight of the fish times the horizontal distance between the right hand and the fish CG). Moment for the left hand force is just force perpendicular to the fish times distance along the length of the fish.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Stan,
Thanks. It's coming back to me now and I do get the perpendicular 15.8 pound force that you got; however I seem to have hit a snafu. Have a look:
(Letting; Mr = momentum about right hand; Fr = force from right hand; Fl = force from left hand, acting perpendicular to fish at its CG)
Mr = 0;
61 cos 75 [x] = Fl [x]
Fl= 15.8 pounds.
But I run into a problem at this point as my value for Frz isn't what your is...
Fz = 0;
Fr cos 15 + Fl sin 15 = 61
0.966 Fr + 4.09 = 61
Frz = 58.9 pounds (right hand applies force 58.9 pounds upward)
Fx = 0;
Frx = Fl cos 1
Frx = 15.3 pounds (right hand applies force of 15.3 pounds rightward)
Nowthen...
58.9^2 + 15.3^2 = W^2
W = 60.9 pounds
Really brings back memories though! LOL.
Tom
Edited by tcbetka 1/21/2006 2:08 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Tom,
Everything is correct except the equation for the vertical force. The equation should be:
Fr + Fl sin(15) = 61
The Fr is the vertical force at the right hand. That should be about 56.9 lbs vertical on the right hand.
I don't know what we proved but the equations show that as you approach a vertical hang all of the weight is on the right hand and if the fish were horizontal all of the weight would be supported by the left hand. This of course assumes that the left hand is at the CG. If the left hand is closer to the right hand pivot point than the CG, the left hand will have to support more than the weight of the fish (for a horizontal fish) and the right hand will be pushing down.
In any case, I hope your chosen profession is going well.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | StanS - 1/21/2006 4:09 PM
Tom,
Everything is correct except the equation for the vertical force. The equation should be:
Fr + Fl sin(15) = 61
The Fr is the vertical force at the right hand. That should be about 56.9 lbs vertical on the right hand.
Don't we have to use the component of Fr in vertical direction? You are breaking the force into vectors for the horizontal component, why not for the vertical? The Z-axis does not lie along the longitudinal axis of the fish and therefore I think that one must consider the vector component that does act along the Z-axis. What am I missing here?
I don't know what we proved but the equations show that as you approach a vertical hang all of the weight is on the right hand and if the fish were horizontal all of the weight would be supported by the left hand. This of course assumes that the left hand is at the CG. If the left hand is closer to the right hand pivot point than the CG, the left hand will have to support more than the weight of the fish (for a horizontal fish) and the right hand will be pushing down.
I wasn't really trying to prove anything--other than that the arm positions of the angler on the left provide a mechanical advantage; and then (since he was lifting a fish on an angle) try to quantify the forces to some degree. In this way one could compare apples to apples when considering the body positions and facial expressions of either angler. I hypothesize that these, albeit somewhat subjective, clues do shed additional light on the relative sizes of the two fish in question. I hoped for nothing more than to provide supporting evidence for the *very* subjective observation that Spray's fish looks significantly smaller than the stated size.
In any case, I hope your chosen profession is going well.
LOL... Is that a nice way of saying that I suck an an Engineer???
TB
Edited by tcbetka 1/21/2006 3:37 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Tom,
No digs intended.
The reason that we have to break the left hand force into two components is because we defined the force vector as perpendicular to the fish. We need to break the left hand force into the two components so that we can compute the force balance in the vertical and horizontal. We could have formulated the problem in an axis sysyem along and perpendicular to the fish. In that case we would have to resolve the weight into components along and perpendicular to the fish and the summation of forces along each of those two axes would be zero.
Needless to say, I would be thrilled to catch one anywhere close to that weight.
|
|
| |
