|
|
| That is the best thing i have ever heard. Lots of people claiming weight when they have no right. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 285
Location: NE Wisconsin | First off, I must admit, I have not read all the official documents of this fish, but I think I am not alone. IMO I find it a little odd, the OFFICIAL length is EXACTLY 58" and the OFFICIAL weight is EXACTLY 58#. Not 58.1" or 58.3" or 58# 3oz or 57# 14oz, etc. What are the odds this fish's length is exactly 58" and exactly 58#!! Not saying this isn't a great fish, but when OFFICIAL measurements come out exactly at full inches and full pounds, it leaves a little doubt in the back of my mind. I am not a statistician, but I would like to now the odds of this happening.
John Aschenbrenner |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Johnnie: Apparently you haven't read all of this thread either, as I explained the "even weight" of 58-pounds on the first page. The fish DID weigh a bit OVER 58-pounds on the original certified scale, BUT the scale needle did not go to the next readable weight graduation on the scale and "intrepolation" isn't allowed by rules, so it became the even weight.
As for the length, I personally measured the thawed fish last tuesday. If you choose not to accept my personal measurement, that is your choice, but it was what it was.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 2/4/2013 8:10 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 572
| "measured the thawed fish last tuesday"
You mean the fish has been frozen since it was caught? Just curious of the story behind where and what has been happening to the fish after it was caught. Who owns the fish and controls what happens to it? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Muskie Bob:
Yes, it was frozen after initial weighing and then taken to taxidermist Jeff Lutz of "Lasting Memories" in Charlevoix, Michigan, where it was wrapped and frozen. 54 days after the catch, Will Schultz, one of the MDMWRP Committee members, went to Charlevoix and re-weighed the frozen fish on a certified scale. Then the fish was recently shipped frozen to John Metz of "Lake Country Replica's" in Hawick, Minnesota (Mr. Lutz does not do replica's). Lake Country will/has made a form from the fish and then re-freeze the fish and return it to Mr. Lutz for mounting. Joe Seeberger, the angler that caught it, owns and controls the fish.
Edited by Larry Ramsell 2/4/2013 11:21 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 908
Location: South-Central PA | I'm just happy that we have a baseline to go from now. After reading all of the 'discussions' over the last few years and reading through tons of info on the situation, I was pretty sure the only way forward was to erase the past records and start over. You can't please all of the people, but I think this was the only option given the circumstances.
jeremy
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 567
| Where does this leave a former # 8 or 9 fish on the top ten list ... was pictured off our dock on the Manitou ? Gene Borucki ( Sp ??) 56.4 pounds . |
|
| |
|
Posts: 567
| IF my memory serves my right it was frozen before officially being weighted.... I've caught a dozen or so that size but thought I was aiming for 68-70 pounds . now I know . MD |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Manitou Dan:
Gene Borucki's fish will remain in the historical listing but obviously will drop down a notch in future listings. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 456
Location: Kansas City BBQ Capitol of the world | Input was in Inches with a specified length of 58 and girth of 29
Standard weight calculation:
60.97lbs or 27.66kg
Wilkinson's weight calculation:
57.86lbs or 26.24kg
Crawford's weight calculation:
57.28lbs or 25.98kg
Casselman and Crossman calculation:
60.21lbs or 27.31kg
Doug Hannon's weight calculation:
69.68lbs or 31.61kg
Looks like Wilkinson's formula was the closest and a little lean, which is good. It will be interesting for me to see when the new biggies get weighed in if Wilkinson's formula is still the closest to the actual weight of the fish.
Ron |
|
| |
|
Posts: 456
Location: Kansas City BBQ Capitol of the world | Just out of curiosity I plugged in Dale McNair's 57X33 and under the Wilkerson formula it came up 74.10lbs.
If that formula is that close I'm thinking, like some of you that this Fall the new Modern day record of the current 58# might be broken. Still kind of sucks you have to kill the fish though.
Ron |
|
| |
|
Posts: 164
| Was the fish reweighed after being frozen to see how much weight it lost? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Muskie Bob:
Yes, it was frozen after initial weighing and then taken to taxidermist Jeff Lutz of "Lasting Memories" in Charlevoix, Michigan, where it was wrapped and frozen. 54 days after the catch, Will Schultz, one of the MDMWRP Committee members, went to Charlevoix and re-weighed the frozen fish on a certified scale. Then the fish was recently shipped frozen to John Metz of "Lake Country Replica's" in Hawick, Minnesota (Mr. Lutz does not do replica's). Lake Country will/has made a form from the fish and then re-freeze the fish and return it to Mr. Lutz for mounting. Joe Seeberger, the angler that caught it, owns and controls the fish.'
From a couple posts above. Interesting the fish did not lose any weight, considering claims from the past. |
|
| |
|
| rjhyland - 2/4/2013 6:32 PM
Just out of curiosity I plugged in Dale McNair's 57X33 and under the Wilkerson formula it came up 74.10lbs.
If that formula is that close I'm thinking, like some of you that this Fall the new Modern day record of the current 58# might be broken. Still kind of sucks you have to kill the fish though.
Ron
Agree but nobody is making anyone kill the fish, they can just let them go. I also think anyone who keeps one that size was predisposed anyway like Seeberger. The cool part is we can start to put those fakearoos behind us and start a new beginning with something we can almost all agree on as a starting point. I liked the comparison of our situation to wiping the books clean of that cheat Lance Armstrong and I'm glad we have these guys making sure it's legit. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 518
Location: Cave Run Lake KY. | muskyschlott - 2/3/2013 8:50 PM
Sprays fish will always be the record to me. unless someone catches one bigger than 69lb 11ounces. which is unlikely. Louie Spray's fish is the true world record and if not Spray's fish what about Robert Malo's 70#er caught in 1954 or Cal Johnson's 67-8 1949 -Ken O'Brien's 65# 1988 - Spray's 61-13 1940 - Edward Waldon's 61-9 , 1940 - , John Colman 60-8 in1939 - Art Barefoot 59-11 in 1989 Louie Spray again in 1939 a 59-8, and Rubin Green's 58-8 # in 1945 , your saying all these fish that are all over 58# -- All listed in Larry Ramsell's Second Edition are all false. I don't think so if so, then Mr Ramsell should reimburse everyone that bought his book . |
|
| |
|
Posts: 415
| ChinWhiskers - 2/5/2013 12:06 AM
muskyschlott - 2/3/2013 8:50 PM
Sprays fish will always be the record to me. unless someone catches one bigger than 69lb 11ounces. which is unlikely. Louie Spray's fish is the true world record and if not Spray's fish what about Robert Malo's 70#er caught in 1954 or Cal Johnson's 67-8
Now if you want to debate some others legitimacy that's fine, but if one can't see how obvious of a farce Spray and Johnson's fish are then there's no point in trying to debate with you. Your mind is clearly made up and no amount of fact or reason will probably change that.
Edited by Ja Rule 2/5/2013 6:14 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 567
| I thought Art Barefoot's giant was well documented and weighted ? is it's only fault not being modern ? ( dang I'm getting old) |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| sworrall - 2/4/2013 7:32 PM '' From a couple posts above. Interesting the fish did not lose any weight, considering claims from the past. I don't see that the fish didn't lose or gain any weight from the posts above. All I read is that it was weighed, frozen, weighed, thawed and weighed, and then frozen again? Hard to believe that not an oz gained or lost through that process? And on different scales to boot. What am I missing? But no matter. I've been saying for years they should jettison the record book and start new. That is now done. And I fully expect 58# to be broken in the next year or two. Probably from out east, possibly from the Great Lakes, maybe from one of the Canadian lakes. As for reimbursing for sold books? Never bought it, or read it, so you're even with me Larry!
Edited by Shep 2/5/2013 10:33 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Agree that some don't want to see how obvious of a farce Spray and Johnson's fish are, same with O'Brien even though it was at least big to start with. When I look at pictures of O'Brien, it's obvious to me that it's just a low 50" class fish without all the research. I'd guess Barefoot and some of these other giants like Williamson are just "farce casualties". Why would they bother getting their fish certified when they are not even in contention in the record books? I doubt that Seeberger weighed the same on all 3 scales, but I also think rechecking the weight and checking the stomach contents should be an important part of the modern day process too. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | To clarify a point in the last guest post...The Seeberger fish was weighed on just two scales...the original certified scale (Official weight, scales certified and re-checked accurate) and the MDMWRP certified scale, twice. Once frozen after 54 days in the freezer and again after a total of 108 days in a freezer, but after thawed. |
|
| |
|
| Johnnie - 2/4/2013 7:53 AM
First off, I must admit, I have not read all the official documents of this fish, but I think I am not alone. IMO I find it a little odd, the OFFICIAL length is EXACTLY 58" and the OFFICIAL weight is EXACTLY 58#. Not 58.1" or 58.3" or 58# 3oz or 57# 14oz, etc. What are the odds this fish's length is exactly 58" and exactly 58#!! Not saying this isn't a great fish, but when OFFICIAL measurements come out exactly at full inches and full pounds, it leaves a little doubt in the back of my mind. I am not a statistician, but I would like to now the odds of this happening.
John Aschenbrenner I am with you on this one John. Sounds a bit strange to me to accept measurments and weights that arent the actual measurements and weights for whatever reason. Lowering the standard so this fish fits into the record book also seems a bit strange. Re weighing and measuring a frozen fish one or two weeks ago to verify previous weights and measurements also seems a bit odd. Just my opinion is all but that sure is a strange way to start off a new modern day record to me. How about starting off with real weights a measurement instead of those you had to adjust. That doesnt sound modern at all.
Edited by 4amuskie 2/5/2013 2:13 PM
|
|
| |
|
| 4amuskie - 2/5/2013 2:12 PM
Johnnie - 2/4/2013 7:53 AM
First off, I must admit, I have not read all the official documents of this fish, but I think I am not alone. IMO I find it a little odd, the OFFICIAL length is EXACTLY 58" and the OFFICIAL weight is EXACTLY 58#. Not 58.1" or 58.3" or 58# 3oz or 57# 14oz, etc. What are the odds this fish's length is exactly 58" and exactly 58#!! Not saying this isn't a great fish, but when OFFICIAL measurements come out exactly at full inches and full pounds, it leaves a little doubt in the back of my mind. I am not a statistician, but I would like to now the odds of this happening.
John Aschenbrenner I am with you on this one John. Sounds a bit strange to me to accept measurments and weights that arent the actual measurements and weights for whatever reason. Lowering the standard so this fish fits into the record book also seems a bit strange. Re weighing and measuring a frozen fish one or two weeks ago to verify previous weights and measurements also seems a bit odd. Just my opinion is all but that sure is a strange way to start off a new modern day record to me. How about starting off with real weights a measurement instead of those you had to adjust. That doesnt sound modern at all.
Really? Seems obvious that they just confirmed the weight, how else would you confirm it unless you reweighed it and check the stomach at the same time? Lowering it 2 lbs after 7 years seems reasonable to me too.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Before commenting, folks probably should actually read the release, the rules regarding entry of a fish, and how the process of confirming this fish was accomplished. Perhaps then none of this will seem 'odd'. In fact, just reading all of the posts here will assist most in grasping the facts. I believe it would be an extraordinary excellent idea to do both before commenting. |
|
| |
|
| I did read them. Doesnt make acceptance of weights and measurements that arent true weights and measurements acceptable to me. It might fit the rules of whoever formed the MDMWR but I am sure that Louie Sprays and Cal Johnsons rules also made those fish world record to them.
How about some real weights and measurements?
The MDWMR acceptance of anything but actual weights and measurements takes the word "record" out of the books for me.
Any acceptance other than the fact surely opens the door to political manuveuring.
The above is only my opinion and is not meant to reflect negatively or positively on anyone or any organization. I offer it only for digestive input. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 82
| ManitouDan - 2/5/2013 9:55 AM
I thought Art Barefoot's giant was well documented and weighted ? is it's only fault not being modern ? ( dang I'm getting old) This is a great point, how can a 14 pound test world record be bigger then your all tackle record. It's not like this is an old record that there are very few people alive to witness it. In fact its newer then the Obrian fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | 4amuskie, I think you are missing the point that Larry or whoever made earlier. They didn't "adjust' the weight. The scale that was used, the weight of the fish was above 58# but below the next gradation on the scale. What ever the scale's marks were, whether ounces or 1/4 pound marks or 1/2 pb marks or whatever, it was in between, and at that point you can't just "guess" what you think it should be. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Precisely, and it was stated clearly right here, posted in context as posted earlier comparing another fish that did NOT meet the rules requirements as it was released:
'Actually guys the Barbosa fish was not a confirmed "beat". BOTH fish were OVER 58-pounds, but the closest readable scale weight graduation (by rule) was 58-pounds for both, hence the 58 "even" weight for the Seeberger fish. Both fish were weighed on certified scales, but the Barbosa fish did not meet rules requirements as it was weighed on a hand scale in the boat. Since it was released, it could not comply with additional MDMWRP rules either. '
Paragraph number three under Scale, Weighing and Witness Requirements in the rules clarifies.
http://www.modernmuskierecords.org/index.php?option=com_content&vie... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 82
| So did Bearfoots fish not meet any of this criteria? How can a 14 LB test IFGA record be bigger than your guys? Am I missing something? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Relax Mr. Crooms, Larry will answer your question when he checks the thread again. Patience. |
|
| |
|
| Propster - 2/5/2013 4:33 PM
4amuskie, I think you are missing the point that Larry or whoever made earlier. They didn't "adjust' the weight. The scale that was used, the weight of the fish was above 58# but below the next gradation on the scale. What ever the scale's marks were, whether ounces or 1/4 pound marks or 1/2 pb marks or whatever, it was in between, and at that point you can't just "guess" what you think it should be. You might be right and I have re read this many times but I do not see where the weight was reduced from. Please inform me. Was it 58.1, 58.2? What were the length calculations reduced from. Thank you.
|
|
| |
