|
|
Posts: 1141
Location: NorthCentral WI | Larry Ramsell - 2/7/2013 1:03 PM
MartinTD: I understand what you are saying, but have you ever tried to find a certified scale period, let alone one that reads in one-hundredths of a pound? There are very few out there commercially, in areas where these size fish may be caught.
Never tried to find one I guess. We have digital scale where I work that I believe reads to the hundredth, definitely to the tenth at least and a max. of 500#. We also have an outside contractor come in and certify all of our scales every year. But then again they are probably few and far between; and it was probably very expensive. Not worried about anyone catching a record around me though...
...along with the plastic wrap, the weight was in excess of 58-pounds. So no, this weight could not be used as the official weight.
Got it. I think it will be broken relatively soon but remember...
If you want to top it, you've got to bop it! Lol 
Edited by MartinTD 2/7/2013 3:29 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | MartinTD - 2/7/2013 4:26 PM
If you want to top it, you've got to bop it!
I like that and I might even steal it |
|
| |
|
Location: Grinnell, Iowa | From someone who deals with metrology and gage calibration for a living, I can tell you that the word "certified" is term that is used with caution. There are a lot of companies out there that will "certify" any type of gage or instrument you have for the right price. However, they have no traceablility back to a national standard. In the world of metrology, if the instrument is not certified by a fully accredited lab with traceability to a national standard, the measurment is considered "suspect". I only bring this up because there is a lot of discussion on this post regarding the scale or scales being used and the answer always is the scales are certified. Has the MDMWRP defined a standard to which MDMWRP scales are to be certified to or will any certification be acceptable? Just trying to put the scale issue to rest. I support and recognize the MDMWRP and the new record established. But also agree we shouldn't forget about the great fish caught in the past; both the myths and the legends! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Roy: Interesting points. By "certified" we mean "Legal for Trade".
And, the myths and legends will always be loved! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1828
| 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
This is the worst reason to challenge the legitimacy of the fish. The probability that the fish is "exactly" 58 in and "exactly" 58 lb is EXACTLY the same as the fish being exactly 57 in and 59 lb, or 60 in and 58 lb. I'm talking just in terms of numbers, not actual probabilites of fish reaching such sizes. If you had two 60-sided die (or 600-sided, or whatever you want), the probability of rolling a 58-58 is the same as rolling a 3-47, a 31-32, or a 1-1.
Additionally, it was already explained clearly that the fish was neither exactly 58" nor 58 lb, but that the rules don't allow interpolation, and those were the nearest graduations on the measuring devices.
Had they said the fish had a length of 1473 cm and a weight of 258 N, would you still be skeptical? Why not? It's the exact same size.
I realize tons of other posts occured since this one. It just bugged me, so I had to comment on it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 40
| Jaultman,
Yes the probability of rolling exactly 29-29 are the same, but the probability of rolling a 58 is not the same as rolling 2. Had to edit my post b/c I didn't translate yours correctly the first time.
Edited by BretRobert1 2/8/2013 9:40 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2015
| please edit your above post again because it doesn't make sense.....he was talking about making two rolls of a 60 sided dice....the chance that 58 comes up twice is just as likely as a 58 and a 2? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 151
Location: IL | Thats one hell of a fish! |
|
| |
|
| scot - 2/8/2013 9:49 AM
Thats one hell of a fish!
Agree, even though the pictures aren't as flattering as some of these recent C&R fish, it isn't being pushed forward at the camera either. Congratulation to Joe Seeberger for catching the modern-day record! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 567
| Brian -- you got my back brother LMAO ! MD |
|
| |
|
| I'm a proud Canadian and think we live in the best country in the world, I also think we have the best Musky lakes in the world, but Its funny when we as Canadians talk about O'Brien fish everybody gets all poofy chested and think O'Brien,s is the record. I'm also a MCI member, I find it funny that when the fish was caught there where 100's of MCI or allot of MCI guys on site that all seen this fish with there own two eyes some even held this fish but yet not ONE single person will come forward and say this fish was legit not ONE, and the one that did come forward was so full of it and was caught in piles of lies, get over it O'Brien was was a glorified 55lbs at best, so please stop the crap. move over fakes we have a true record, a true rock solid record that we all as musky anglers should be proud of.
Great job Larry and all who where involved in this as I'm sure there was lots of work involved. |
|
| |
|
| "I'm also a MCI member, I find it funny that when the fish was caught there where 100's of MCI or allot of MCI guys on site that all seen this fish with there own two eyes some even held this fish but yet not ONE single person will come forward and say this fish was legit not ONE, and the one that did come forward was so full of it and was caught in piles of lies, get over it O'Brien was was a glorified 55lbs at best, so please stop the crap. move over fakes we have a true record, a true rock solid record that we all as musky anglers should be proud of."
So not one single person will come forward and say the fish was legit but yet one of them DID come forward and said it was?
How many of the on site MCI guys have come forth and said the fish is NOT legit?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Take that argument elsewhere, please.
Here's a good place to continue that point/counterpoint:
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=81... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | I worked in a shop that has a certified balance beam scale. Certification is really quite simple. A known weight is weighed on the scale. Each scale has an adjustment which is set to the exact weight. For instance we used a 30 pound steel weight for zeroing our scale. When the scale read exactly 30 pounds using the Known 30 pound weight we knew our scale was accurate. Certification uses several known weights to test the accuracy of said scale. An accurate scale reads exactly zero with nothing on it and must be within its factory % tolerance at its maximum weight. We used to zero our scale every day to make sure our weighed products went out as stated. So there is a standard for certifying all scales used in legal trade. They have to be accurate. Kingfisher |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1660
Location: central Wisconsin | Kingfisher - 2/9/2013 11:14 AM
I worked in a shop that has a certified balance beam scale. Certification is really quite simple. A known weight is weighed on the scale. Each scale has an adjustment which is set to the exact weight. For instance we used a 30 pound steel weight for zeroing our scale. When the scale read exactly 30 pounds using the Known 30 pound weight we knew our scale was accurate. Certification uses several known weights to test the accuracy of said scale. An accurate scale reads exactly zero with nothing on it and must be within its factory % tolerance at its maximum weight. We used to zero our scale every day to make sure our weighed products went out as stated. So there is a standard for certifying all scales used in legal trade. They have to be accurate. Kingfisher
I worked in Quality Control for 20 years including calibration. The issue with the way you are doing this that the 30# weight has to be verified traceable back to a National standard or else it is meaningless. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1106
Location: Muskegon Michigan | Jeff78 - 2/11/2013 4:02 PM
Kingfisher - 2/9/2013 11:14 AM
I worked in a shop that has a certified balance beam scale. Certification is really quite simple. A known weight is weighed on the scale. Each scale has an adjustment which is set to the exact weight. For instance we used a 30 pound steel weight for zeroing our scale. When the scale read exactly 30 pounds using the Known 30 pound weight we knew our scale was accurate. Certification uses several known weights to test the accuracy of said scale. An accurate scale reads exactly zero with nothing on it and must be within its factory % tolerance at its maximum weight. We used to zero our scale every day to make sure our weighed products went out as stated. So there is a standard for certifying all scales used in legal trade. They have to be accurate. Kingfisher
I worked in Quality Control for 20 years including calibration. The issue with the way you are doing this that the 30# weight has to be verified traceable back to a National standard or else it is meaningless.
Correct, Ours was from a weigh master. It is solid brass (not steel as I stated before) My brother still works there. This weight has a certification stamp on it dated 1948. It is not exact due to wear but very close. It was and old HOWE scale and needed to be fixed several times while I worked there. They get sticky with age. The company that came in to certify the scale had several weights in a nice case that he used to test the scale from zero to max plus he tested the 100 to 1 ratio we used for weigh counting parts. These guys are thorough . The fact that there is a national standard was my point.
Edited by Kingfisher 2/14/2013 9:24 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Gents;
Take the debate over the MCI and O'Brien fish to this thread and keep it reasonable.
http://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=68...
|
|
| |
|
| In response to the comment about Spray's being the record, I have always considered the Malo musky the true World Record and always will. I truly believe it was bigger than Sprays and have seen and read enough evidence to back that up. So anytime I get asked what is the world record musky I say it was caught by Robert Malo and never even mention Spray. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | Sorry Dylan, the Malo fish is Bogus too! |
|
| |
