81lb Bass? - Page 9 - Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

TheSpecialist · 08-06-2011, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CowHunter

But why on earth would anybody take a pic this way?????? Common

Rookie photog?

If you guys won't buy the F&S story then how about one by On The Water who actually went there in person, inspected and photographed the fish. Would that be enough?

Story and Photos: Potential World Record Striper

TheSpecialist · 08-06-2011, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rizzo

People regularly cheat in tournaments!!! Hows the weighmaster going to know if the fish has been stuffed or not unless they rip the fish apart. I wouldnt if I owned a tackleshop, as you have money to make. However, if your scale is certified, you get a reading and fill out the affidavit. From the weighmaster's point of view, what are you gonna do even if you suspect cheating?

You can't take the OTW tournament too seriously as it is a fish stuffers dream. Bring your fish in to a local tackle shop with a clueless employee and you can turn a 50" 38 pounder into a 50 lber pretty easily. We had threads last year about this. Good guys being accused of stuffing, cheated, blah blah. Lie detectors came up, but theyre not 100% dead on. I just like to see things straight up across the board and it gets old hearing about so and so cheating, when they really arent. A few bad ruins it for all. You can have your 10k prize.

In this case we're talking world record status, so I hope if the state of CT certifies it as a record, igfa or whoever, a state bioligist looks at it to confirm theres no tampering. I hope for greg's sake they are already undergoing these investigations to clear up the accusations of cheating. Theres no reason why this can't be accurately documented. IF the fish is not inspected there is not much credibility plain and simple. Really anyone could go in with a 50" fish (easy to come by) and get fancy stuffing it to make it the record - I'd like to see some proof to make this a little more credible.

Seriously how much extra weight will you get by stuffing a fish? A few lbs. Cause you sure as hell are not stretching his length.

rizzo · 08-06-2011, 07:24 PM

The whole thing is an optical illusion. I heard the scale was recertified and the fish weighs 89.18 pounds now. IGFA world record and new line class record!

CowHunter · 08-06-2011, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Rookie photog?

If you guys won't buy the F&S story then how about one by On The Water who actually went there in person, inspected and photographed the fish. Would that be enough?

Story and Photos: Potential World Record Striper

Ill bet anything fish was not rewieghed... Why not certify it??? Even at 50-51 in that fish does not have the body for that wieght, christ, how many 50-53 inch fish ive seen?!?!?!?!?!

rizzo · 08-06-2011, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Seriously how much extra weight will you get by stuffing a fish? A few lbs. Cause you sure as hell are not stretching his length.

5 pounds of lead doesnt take up that much room. Look at a 25 pound weight lifting plate, thats cast iron and doesnt take up too much room. Rebar is pretty heavy too. I'm saying the fish should be completely gutted, it wouldnt effect the lovely skin mount he'll get so theres no excuses. If you weigh it at 81 pounds, gut the fish and inspect it, and find nothing in the fish, its hard to argue its not the record. Anyone not allowing this has to be hiding something, or is not in it for the glory. If youre not in it for the glory, it would have been released and would have been just a rumor among a few good friends. You bring a fish forward like that, be ready to defend its status.

Nebe · 08-06-2011, 07:58 PM

compare

Nebe · 08-06-2011, 08:31 PM

buncha great pics here... Story and Photos: Potential World Record Striper

Monty · 08-06-2011, 08:32 PM

Hey cowhunter, admit it, you're mad because he's a redsox fan.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

stripermaineiac · 08-06-2011, 08:49 PM

You know whats stupidly priceless? Not a single person runnin their gums saw the fish ist hand. LOL.My 56lber was51 in. my 54 was 49 in my 53 was 52 in my 51 was 53 in. I've got a couple more in there too. LOL. I saw a 58 in that was 38lb.I also saw a 96 lb net fish that was 63 in long.The guy is credible. The jealousy isn't.Stupidly sad.My hats off to the guy. I've lost some really nice hogs an saw one over 60 in lost by a buddy on the Vineyard . big fish are out there. Thats a big fish. I have a 54 on the wall that that fish makes look like a Guppy.

Mike P · 08-06-2011, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stripermaineiac

You know whats stupidly priceless? Not a single person runnin their gums saw the fish ist hand. LOL.My 56lber was51 in. my 54 was 49 in my 53 was 52 in my 51 was 53 in. I've got a couple more in there too. LOL. I saw a 58 in that was 38lb.I also saw a 96 lb net fish that was 63 in long.The guy is credible. The jealousy isn't.Stupidly sad.My hats off to the guy. I've lost some really nice hogs an saw one over 60 in lost by a buddy on the Vineyard . big fish are out there. Thats a big fish. I have a 54 on the wall that that fish makes look like a Guppy.

Yeah, but you and I are so old that we still measure them at fork length.

stripermaineiac · 08-06-2011, 09:00 PM

LOL so true so damn true LOL

stripermaineiac · 08-06-2011, 09:01 PM

Smart a-- LOL

WoodyCT · 08-06-2011, 09:19 PM

What I find interesting is that the guy listing his 50s is proving the point that a 50" fish can't weigh 80+ lbs., WHILE ARGUING THE OPPOSITE.

Not one of his 50"+/- bass went 75, or 65, or even 60 pounds, but we are being asked to believe that the CT fish went 82.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Mike P · 08-06-2011, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WoodyCT

What I find interesting is that the guy listing his 50s is proving the point that a 50" fish can't weigh 80+ lbs., WHILE ARGUING THE OPPOSITE.

Not one of his 50"+/- bass went 75, or 65, or even 60 pounds, but we are being asked to believe that the CT fish went 82.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jon--it's the girth that gives weight to a fish, not the length. That's why you square the girth, not the length, when you use the weight calculator. There are 50" fish that don't make it to 40 pounds, too. They're racers that are all head with no girth.

I can give you absolute proof that a low 50" fish can weigh over 75 lbs---Al McReynolds. That fish is well documented and it went 53-1/2", but with a massive girth at 35". At that length, it was a pound and a half short of 80 pounds. A 54" fish can easily go 80 lbs if it has the girth to go with it. Don't judge a fish's size by a bad picture. I've done it in the past and had to eat crow later.

CowHunter · 08-06-2011, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stripermaineiac

You know whats stupidly priceless? Not a single person runnin their gums saw the fish ist hand. LOL.My 56lber was51 in. my 54 was 49 in my 53 was 52 in my 51 was 53 in. I've got a couple more in there too. LOL. I saw a 58 in that was 38lb.I also saw a 96 lb net fish that was 63 in long.The guy is credible. The jealousy isn't.Stupidly sad.My hats off to the guy. I've lost some really nice hogs an saw one over 60 in lost by a buddy on the Vineyard . big fish are out there. Thats a big fish. I have a 54 on the wall that that fish makes look like a Guppy.

Common bud, U can tell wieght / length proportions... Broadness of tail, body, girth etc.. Not one correct lenght/ girth measurement? Ive seen VA fish that were 48-49 inches long and well over 50lbs. that fish aint it and that and what everybody else I know says.. I have seen fish 53"-54" long in the 60's, Yeah never a 70 or 80 and probably never will. I spoke with my buddy that personally saw mcreynolds fish and is laughing his but off in comparison... I nor anybody I know could hold em out like this guy... I got a 59 on the wall and it looks bigger, the 53.10 mouth that I have is bigger than that fish.. There are alot of variables... I predict it will not be accepted as a WR By IGFA...
Look at the mouth where he is putting a tape measure too. You can get an idea of the girth and how the belly is sunken in... I cant tell u how many guys predicted this when Vican caught his fish.

CowHunter · 08-06-2011, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike P

Jon--it's the girth that gives weight to a fish, not the length. That's why you square the girth, not the length, when you use the weight calculator. There are 50" fish that don't make it to 40 pounds, too. They're racers that are all head with no girth.

I can give you absolute proof that a low 50" fish can weigh over 75 lbs---Al McReynolds. That fish is well documented and it went 53-1/2", but with a massive girth at 35". At that length, it was a pound and a half short of 80 pounds. A 54" fish can easily go 80 lbs if it has the girth to go with it. Don't judge a fish's size by a bad picture. I've done it in the past and had to eat crow later.

If that fish was 54" and it had the girth of some of the fish Ive seen agreed.. I never said a 54" fish cant be 80.. A 49-50" fish, it would look like a footbal, 1 " Is a huge amount on a fish.. That fish doesnt have the broadness... No way. And yeah., I personally measured a 52" fish that was 35LBS on the Cape, thin as could be... Common Guys, This is supposed to be a world Record striped Bass, big news, bigger that OTW or FS, why the quietness and been nearly 48 Hours????

CowHunter · 08-06-2011, 10:31 PM

You guys all did read, weve been out of recession since 2009!

ivanputski · 08-07-2011, 12:25 AM

[QUOTE: stripermaineiac: "You know whats stupidly priceless? Not a single person runnin their gums saw the fish ist hand".

To Stripermaniac: Your assumption that no one saw it first hand is stupidly priceless... You remember the crowd that was reportedly gathered at the shop for the weigh in??? Some of those people were actually fishermen... from this board... And it didnt look a pound over 65.

If the fish LOOKS like its 80+ youre fine... when it looks like its a 60, you get a video camera and you dissect the thing in front of Geraldo Rivera to dispel all doubt. I would do it to shut everybody the hell up preemptively.

If you fish just for fun and dont want cash, prizes, and fame, dont bring it to a shop to get weighed... weigh it at home on a deer scale... but if you want the lime light, prepare to have it shined up your Asss for a card-pulling colonoscopy.

UserRemoved1 · 08-07-2011, 03:46 AM

And I just fell off the turnip truck. Sorry but that tape is NOT on the ground it's about 2" above it...but it IS in a direct straight line under the fish. We could sit here arguing about this all day. Not me. I still don't believe this picture. There's another shot of the mouth of the fish with a tape. 5" across the mouth. That also don't say 81lb. I've caught 30lbers with bigger mouths than that.
Off to work enjoy the conspiracy theories.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

No way that tape in the picture is flat to the ground. It was shot either as he was putting it down or lifting it up.

WoodyCT · 08-07-2011, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike P

Jon--it's the girth that gives weight to a fish, not the length. That's why you square the girth, not the length, when you use the weight calculator. There are 50" fish that don't make it to 40 pounds, too. They're racers that are all head with no girth.

I can give you absolute proof that a low 50" fish can weigh over 75 lbs---Al McReynolds. That fish is well documented and it went 53-1/2", but with a massive girth at 35". At that length, it was a pound and a half short of 80 pounds. A 54" fish can easily go 80 lbs if it has the girth to go with it. Don't judge a fish's size by a bad picture. I've done it in the past and had to eat crow later.

I understand that Mike, but has the girth of this fish been made public?

And do we have an accurate length yet?

Hypothetical weight calculations hold little water, just as a 'certified weight' is meaningless without opening the fish up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

cheferson · 08-07-2011, 06:01 AM

That pic just posted looks legit to me! Especially when compared to Vican's fish . Look at the guys track record and reputation ....

Some of you guys are ridiculous with your comments .

nightfighter · 08-07-2011, 06:09 AM

Jenn · 08-07-2011, 06:56 AM

And I thought women were catty.....

Pete F. · 08-07-2011, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenn

And I thought women were catty.....

saltfly · 08-07-2011, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenn

And I thought women were catty.....

Thank You Jenn....

BigFish · 08-07-2011, 07:51 AM

Is this still going on???? Pa-leeeez already!!!

Spinfish · 08-07-2011, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigFish

Is this still going on???? Pa-leeeez already!!!

This fellow is playing the Internet crowd as well as he played the fish.
The more controversy, the more publicity.....better for his bottom line.

He'll be laughing all the way to the bank. Jealousy is a powerful thing.

buckman · 08-07-2011, 08:30 AM

Huge fish and it may be a record but I have to agree,it's not 54". Blame the photographer if you like. Now my biggest was 46# so I really only have the pictures to judge.

westhavendave · 08-07-2011, 08:40 AM

All this talk about the fishes length is meaningless, we are talking about a weight record here. The IGFA will have the last word, leave it at that before questioning someones character.

bloocrab · 08-07-2011, 08:41 AM

If someone posted a picture of a 50lb. fish that the majority of the people found hard to believe based on several pictures along with some odd story-details, that person would get similar results in this silly virtual world of ours....this being a possilbe WR, it's just that much higher on the totem pole in and outside the inter-fishnet, in either case...no websitez is going to make someone cut a fish open for our own credibility approval. Like others have said, time will decide how this pans out. Hopefully, the powers that be, if and when it receives a WR title recognition, will clear up any possibility of discrepency.....otherwise....it will always have...

In seeing some of the pics, they do raise my eye-brows too,,, but I'm no visual expert to actually call it BS. It's a Super-Cow for sure, but the actual Holy Grail? Time will tell. My jury is still out for now.

Nice fish either way Mr. Meyerson.