The 61 incher debate
1 - 20 of 79 Posts
Joined
·
4,049 Posts
So those of you that didn't know it..there is a BIG debate going on about this 61 inch muskie caught on Millacs in MN. Iv'e been talking to all my pro friends and guides and 100% say no way no how is that fish 61. Although I have seen many muskie pics where fish WERE indeed bigger than the photo looked I'm going to have to go with my friends on this one. Take a look at the 59 incher in this link verticaly held. A fish 2 inches longer than THAT would be nearly imposible to hold horizontal. Half the fish would be drooping over your arms. So what are some opinions here? HOAX? OR NO HOAX?
Joined
·
4,049 Posts
Joined
·
249 Posts
It wasn't on Mille Lacs, it was in Ontario. They also measured it with a homemade stick made from a net handle. Maybe they saw 61 on their net handle measuring device. Who really cares? It's a really big fish. Heck... I know some guys that every fish they hold looks BIG because they're soo small. Tauchen, Saric, Bucher, etc. none are even close to 6' when wearing heels (I'm not saying they do... just trying to lighten the mood).
I'm pretty comfortable saying that it's bigger than any photo I've ever seen of the current FWFHOF world record muskie. LOL
I'm pretty comfortable saying that it's bigger than any photo I've ever seen of the current FWFHOF world record muskie. LOL
Joined
·
4,049 Posts
QUOTE(Chefnutz @ Sep 17 2009, 04:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>This thread is going right in the can the second sh*t starts. I see no good comming from it.
It's a good debate and one that is going on all over the place. It hasn't come close to going in the can lol. Actually it means a LOT to a LOT of people and I am one of them.
It's a good debate and one that is going on all over the place. It hasn't come close to going in the can lol. Actually it means a LOT to a LOT of people and I am one of them.
Joined
·
1,357 Posts
When I first heard of this fish last week I coudlnt wait to see it. once I seen it I wasnt very impresed. It looks thick and all but Dont think its 61. still a nice fish. but it is hard to tell from pics.wish they had better pics. better yet wish they would have kept it so it was confimred. I would have definately took my anchor off the rope and use the rope for a stringer and dragged it to shore
Joined
·
4,049 Posts
QUOTE(Will Schultz @ Sep 17 2009, 04:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>It wasn't on Mille Lacs, it was in Ontario. They also measured it with a homemade stick made from a net handle. Maybe they saw 61 on their net handle measuring device. Who really cares? It's a really big fish. Heck... I know some guys that every fish they hold looks BIG because they're soo small. Tauchen, Saric, Bucher, etc. none are even close to 6' when wearing heels (I'm not saying they do... just trying to lighten the mood).
I'm pretty comfortable saying that it's bigger than any photo I've ever seen of the current FWFHOF world record muskie. LOL
I heard Millacs but ok lol. Any experienced muskie angler looks at that photo and laughs lol. Look at the support hand! I mean COMMON! LOL
I'm pretty comfortable saying that it's bigger than any photo I've ever seen of the current FWFHOF world record muskie. LOL
I heard Millacs but ok lol. Any experienced muskie angler looks at that photo and laughs lol. Look at the support hand! I mean COMMON! LOL
Joined
·
4,049 Posts
QUOTE(Canuck @ Sep 17 2009, 03:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>How about adding a who cares with the yes and no?
HOW ABOUT WHY REPLY IF YOU DON'T CARE??
HOW ABOUT WHY REPLY IF YOU DON'T CARE??
Joined
·
3,592 Posts
QUOTE(Canuck @ Sep 17 2009, 05:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Thanks Schram!
I'd vote for who cares but see no option
I'd vote for who cares but see no option
Joined
·
3,113 Posts
Not going to debate or vote but offer the following:
1.) I zoomed the picture to 200% and measured the width of the kid's face. 1 inch at 200% zoom.
2.)I took a piece of string and measured the fish with some assumption on portion of the missing tail. The measurement was 10 3/8 inches.
3.) measured the width of all the faces around here and 6 inches average. Not scientific enough.
4.) Googled average skull width and and for an adult male it is 17-18 cm which converts to 6.7-7.1 inches on average.
5.) Doing the math the fish is just over 10 times longer than the width of the kid's face. Using my facial measurements of 6", which is more conservative than average, I come up with just over 60" on the fish. Of course distance from the lens of the camera is an unknown but a fish that size isn't held too far in front of the body.
If it's a hoax it's a good one. Is the claim the pictures were doctored or what? My goal is not to get in any pissing matches on this site. From my best computations the picture shows a fish that is a plausible 60 and I would buy 61". Just food for thought.
In the end it is a magnificent fish and if legally taken a remarkable catch and release. In the end that is all I really care about it.
1.) I zoomed the picture to 200% and measured the width of the kid's face. 1 inch at 200% zoom.
2.)I took a piece of string and measured the fish with some assumption on portion of the missing tail. The measurement was 10 3/8 inches.
3.) measured the width of all the faces around here and 6 inches average. Not scientific enough.
4.) Googled average skull width and and for an adult male it is 17-18 cm which converts to 6.7-7.1 inches on average.
5.) Doing the math the fish is just over 10 times longer than the width of the kid's face. Using my facial measurements of 6", which is more conservative than average, I come up with just over 60" on the fish. Of course distance from the lens of the camera is an unknown but a fish that size isn't held too far in front of the body.
If it's a hoax it's a good one. Is the claim the pictures were doctored or what? My goal is not to get in any pissing matches on this site. From my best computations the picture shows a fish that is a plausible 60 and I would buy 61". Just food for thought.
In the end it is a magnificent fish and if legally taken a remarkable catch and release. In the end that is all I really care about it.
Joined
·
29,295 Posts
Where is the "Who Cares" voting option?
None of us were there, none of us caught the fish in question.
The only person it should matter to is the guy who caught it.
The rest of us weren't there, didn't catch it, and really have no right to say if it is real or a hoax.
If we were to find definate proof one way or the other, would it really change your life???
None of us were there, none of us caught the fish in question.
The only person it should matter to is the guy who caught it.
The rest of us weren't there, didn't catch it, and really have no right to say if it is real or a hoax.
If we were to find definate proof one way or the other, would it really change your life???
Joined
·
204 Posts
Plan and simple it is very nice fish.
Joined
·
38 Posts
Thats why you take it to a taxidermist then the proof is in the pudding.
Joined
·
4,049 Posts
QUOTE(canaller @ Sep 17 2009, 06:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Not going to debate or vote but offer the following:
1.) I zoomed the picture to 200% and measured the width of the kid's face. 1 inch at 200% zoom.
2.)I took a piece of string and measured the fish with some assumption on portion of the missing tail. The measurement was 10 3/8 inches.
3.) measured the width of all the faces around here and 6 inches average. Not scientific enough.
4.) Googled average skull width and and for an adult male it is 17-18 cm which converts to 6.7-7.1 inches on average.
5.) Doing the math the fish is just over 10 times longer than the width of the kid's face. Using my facial measurements of 6", which is more conservative than average, I come up with just over 60" on the fish. Of course distance from the lens of the camera is an unknown but a fish that size isn't held too far in front of the body.
If it's a hoax it's a good one. Is the claim the pictures were doctored or what? My goal is not to get in any pissing matches on this site. From my best computations the picture shows a fish that is a plausible 60 and I would buy 61". Just food for thought.
In the end it is a magnificent fish and if legally taken a remarkable catch and release. In the end that is all I really care about it.
I'm not doubting that it is a remarkable fish but no more remarkable than Bondy's 55 inchers or Petes or Tauchen's 57 OR the current world record. NO WAY ON GOD'S EARTH IS THAT FISH CLOSE TO 61''.......The fish is held away from his body because it's no longer than 53 inches. You could barely HOLD a TRUE 61 inch muskie horizontaly.
1.) I zoomed the picture to 200% and measured the width of the kid's face. 1 inch at 200% zoom.
2.)I took a piece of string and measured the fish with some assumption on portion of the missing tail. The measurement was 10 3/8 inches.
3.) measured the width of all the faces around here and 6 inches average. Not scientific enough.
4.) Googled average skull width and and for an adult male it is 17-18 cm which converts to 6.7-7.1 inches on average.
5.) Doing the math the fish is just over 10 times longer than the width of the kid's face. Using my facial measurements of 6", which is more conservative than average, I come up with just over 60" on the fish. Of course distance from the lens of the camera is an unknown but a fish that size isn't held too far in front of the body.
If it's a hoax it's a good one. Is the claim the pictures were doctored or what? My goal is not to get in any pissing matches on this site. From my best computations the picture shows a fish that is a plausible 60 and I would buy 61". Just food for thought.
In the end it is a magnificent fish and if legally taken a remarkable catch and release. In the end that is all I really care about it.
I'm not doubting that it is a remarkable fish but no more remarkable than Bondy's 55 inchers or Petes or Tauchen's 57 OR the current world record. NO WAY ON GOD'S EARTH IS THAT FISH CLOSE TO 61''.......The fish is held away from his body because it's no longer than 53 inches. You could barely HOLD a TRUE 61 inch muskie horizontaly.
Joined
·
2,435 Posts
QUOTE(schram @ Sep 17 2009, 04:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>QUOTE(Canuck @ Sep 17 2009, 03:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>How about adding a who cares with the yes and no?
HOW ABOUT WHY REPLY IF YOU DON'T CARE??
Ditto. If you don't care, then don't reply at all.
Pretty simple stuff.
HOW ABOUT WHY REPLY IF YOU DON'T CARE??
Ditto. If you don't care, then don't reply at all.
Pretty simple stuff.
Joined
·
3,592 Posts
QUOTE(CaptDoug @ Sep 17 2009, 10:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>QUOTE(schram @ Sep 17 2009, 04:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>QUOTE(Canuck @ Sep 17 2009, 03:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>How about adding a who cares with the yes and no?
HOW ABOUT WHY REPLY IF YOU DON'T CARE??
Ditto. If you don't care, then don't reply at all.
Pretty simple stuff.
thanks for the tip Doug, but I think you just broke your own rule.
HOW ABOUT WHY REPLY IF YOU DON'T CARE??
Ditto. If you don't care, then don't reply at all.
Pretty simple stuff.
thanks for the tip Doug, but I think you just broke your own rule.
Hey schram, what the hell does it matter, are you the muskie measurement poliece?? Say nice fish move on, talk all this garbage in your head, that fish isn't a minnow??? And according to your "evidence" pic's it very well could be 61"
----------->It's a f*ck!n fish man get over it, it doesn't effect you, and no one is going to die if it is an inch or two off!!!
----------->It's a f*ck!n fish man get over it, it doesn't effect you, and no one is going to die if it is an inch or two off!!!
1 - 20 of 79 Posts
