New World Record Bass?

The biggest problem with breaking the record is that these people are just too nice…..the fish is going to have to be killed. Sad but true fact.

I would agree that so far people have just been too nice in letting the fish go. I have a few other points and questions. First is a question. that is what are the measurements on Perry’s fish and what weight do those calculate out to. Next, when he caught his fish there was no reason for him to lie about it or at least not as nearly as much(ex. to add weight and so on). Like someone already said it went from the scale to the dinner tabl. People didn’t fish for the record then. So there is much less reason to question the validity of the measured wieght. Plus we have the length measurements of his fish. The lady with the last case had measurements that didn’t add up. And in other cases people have not kept the fish to be examined. And now, unlike when Perry caught his, there is alot at stake in catching the world record and there is alot of motivation to do so. So if people are not going to keep their fish I have no reason to believe them. At least give me visual evidence of the length measurement, not just a picture. So I have no reason to doubt Perry’s record as does noone else. But you have to quesion the fish caught now just because of the money at stake. That is my take on the issue.

Eric Ahlstrom
aka The Bronzeback Bomber

Yes, but one has to be carful with the so called “calculations.” I will provide a real world example. Remembering my history is not bass, but muskie. Here is a picture of my dad’s cousin who caught this 55″ Muskie. Calculations of girth, length, etc. only put this fish at 35 lbs… it weighed in *over* 40. Please note that Phil is a “Muskie Maniac” and has caught hundreds of muskies…and knows the esox fish…he himself didn’t believe it would be 40+.

So, the bottom line is…measurements and calculations are great, but they only get us so far…a SCALE is the only that gives us all TRUE measurements!

It was released, bu the way, and we took great care to insure its health..

Yes the calculations are just a rule of thumb or more technically a mathmatical model. Sorry guys I’m an engineer. The great thing about mathematical models is they can quickly answer a question and predict performance. In this case weight. The problem with models is they are only valid over a defined region. For example it may be near 100% accurate at the average weight but will be come less as we move from that. It will be least accurate at the extremes. This fish is certainly at the extremes whether or not it’s a record.

From my engineer training I would not expect the model to be anywhere close once we get to the teens much less when we cross into the twenties.

The argument that the numbers don’t add up does not hold water if you understand modeling.

For those looking for a comparison, here is my 50″, 30 lb muskie… notice the belly and head size difference… To Ken’s point, average sized fish, whether Bass or Muskie, work well within the boundaries of the models…

I think it was my engineering degree that resulted in my last post… Models and non-destructive testing methods (NDT) are GREAT and an invaluable tool that allows lower-cost, lower-impact analysis, but will never replace true, real world testing… Amen,Ken!

Yes models, I know about them. I was working on my major for chemical engineering and am now working on my phd for math and will be teaching engineering and math at the college level. So I know plenty about them. But let me try to clearify my point. I was not trying to say that models are 100% correct or that you should use them to calculate the correct weight. What I was saying is that in these situations you need some kind of info/data and as much of it as you can. What I was trying to get at is that what is the probability that a fish with the given measurements would weight as much as they claim it does. In this last situation we only have an odd angle picture, measurements of length and girth and a weight. We need to look at all of these things and decide if it adds up. And another point about modeling is that it shouldn’t be too hard to come up with a more accurate model for fish of larger size. Like was already pointed out, as you move further away from the original data used in the model the model becomes less accurate. But that doesn’t mean you can’t use a set of data say over 15lbs to come up with a model that more accurately describes these huge fish. So basically all you do is come up with a model and in that model you should be able to come up with a confidence interval and a percent error. Using that information you can come to a conclusion like…for example: you could come to the conclusion that a fish of 28 inches with a 16 inch girth weights say 18 lbs with a 95% confidence interval of (16lbs,20lbs). This is basically saying that you are 95% confident that a fish with those measurements is between 16-20lbs. I am not saying that should be used to find the actual weight but it can be used to discredit a claim like this one. It is just a way of looking at the data you have and it helps you to make a decision. You can’t just look at the picture and say that looks like 22lbs so I believe them. Use the info you have. That was my point. Hopefully that made some sense. A 95% confidence interval for a 50+ inch muskies weight could very easily include the measured weight as well as what you thought it was. But it will help you reject weights that are very unlikely of occuring. I am sure you have had all this stuff in your classes before and you should be one that would want to use this info to aid in your decision. Engineers do this stuff all the time. Models are an aid.

Eric Ahlstrom

Eric,

I agree with all of your comments and of course we could come up with a better model for large fish but that is not what everyone is using. The formula may very well discredit this fish but I would bet it would also discredit George Perry’s fish which we also have few very poor pictures of.

My whole point is that a record breaker should be judged by the same standards as the current record holder was. This is not the case here and it apears the fix is on. Let’s have a level playing field. I would love to set a record and then change the rules so I can hold it longer but that just isn’t fair.

Maybe this fish doesn’t meet all the rules but if Perry’s doesn’t meet the same rules let’s throw it out too, and find a fish beyond scrutiny.

Okay…May I ask a stupid question? I fear I am suffering from memory loss… Well, here goes…

What is the formula for estimating Bass weights?

Your *kind* response(s) would be appreciated…

Model Engineering is the process of creating “Stuff” with the objective of establishing complete, consistent, and unambiguous predictions for a given application. Take for instance that the factoring media is no longer in existence nor is the current population base of the same genetical makeup. On this foundation alone we are handicapped to a measure of an undeterminable amount. Ok, Now we have guestimates in length and girth. We have a poorly taken photo, we have a fish that has been consumed and we only have ancestors to the genes this fish may have had. Now I am all for reasonable and rational modeling of many things but we are talking about fish within a couple pounds of each other at best. We all generally believe that cheerios helps fight heart disease. While I might eat cheerios for breakfast with the thoughts that it might help I will gladly switch to a new brand when I know undoubtedly that is does or does not help. Like I said before, until it is broken I will conform with the masses in the belief that it is the record but when someone breaks that record and it is properly recorded I will switch.

As for taking the time to find some dna from the fish of this era, cloning many fish that may or not be of the same genetics and creating predictable models for calculating weight based on length and girth measurements. Then purchasing the same model camera and factoring in the distance, shutter speed, film development procedures and so on to get an accurate representation of what this fish should weigh in the photo…. In stead I think I will restate the fact that generally we believe that cheerios help fight heart disease.
Jc

That, JC, was a thing of beauty!

That is why we feed Cheerios to my son…

I lost track, am I supposed to eat Cheerios or not?

While they may help my heart through cholesterol reduction, they are too plain for my tastes, thus I pour copeous amounts of sugar on them or I just can’t get myself to eat them. The sugar will likely lead to a rise in my tri-glyceride count, which may in fact lead to a higher cholesterol count in the future. It may also lead to the worsening of any hidden diabetic ailments I have. After crunching all the data and modelling it out, I have determined that the the eating of Cheerios for breakfast will in all reality give me a 55% chance of actually dying QUICKER than I would with a Cheerios free diet. What this has to do with bass fishing? Nothing I guess, aside from the fact I have a 0% chance of catching a world record bass when I am dead, down from the 0.001% chance I currently have.

I would think the angle and intensity of the lighting in the picture would also be a variable that would have to be recreated closely.

PS, the puppy in the tree picture is great. Is it me, or does he look content to just hang there?

Quote:

---

PS, the puppy in the tree picture is great. Is it me, or does he look content to just hang there?

---

That dog has the look of “when you let me down, I’m gonna pee in your shoes.”

p.s. I like Honey Nut Cheerios.

I’m with Tom. Honey-Nut Cheerios rock!! As far as I’m concerned(which isn’t all that much), as long as there are antagonists, pessimists, crybabies, etc., a new record could never be justified in everyone’s eyes. Someone is always going to feel the need to throw an asterisk in next to an entry, if for nothing more than the sake of arguing. As far as Perry’s fish, well, you can only be as accurate as the technology of that time allows you to be. What the heck do I know, anyways?

Mark

Hey Slop Bass, looking at your “picture”, weren’t you the JFK assasin? You know, that guy on the magazine cover holding the rifle?

Well, I went to eat some cereal this morning, opened the cupboard, and lo and behold there is a box of Cheerios. Now after laughing to myself, I ate a bowl of them bad boys covered in sugar. Not sure if I git healthier or not, but they tasted OK.

lol?? not sure where that came from? which picture? this one?

That’s the one. I suggest changing your monniker to “Lee Harvey.”

Aside from them both holding things in both hands, I fail to see any resemblence.

Ummm… Juggs… taking your comment to Slop Bass one step further… How about a monniker representative of some real “juggs”…

Okay…wow, this Bassin’ forum has really begun to demonstrate a northern bass fisherman’s stir crazy attitude……. anyone have enough blow torches to thaw the river so we can do some real fishing!?

Bassmaster’s new issue does a nice job with the “Trew Story”. They were clever putting a pic of a 21-11 against the purported 22-8. The depth of the each fish’s body, from the anal fin to the tail, is a good comparison point. I will join the naysayers on the Trew fish …