He didn't listen to Bruce very well! You gotta keep the fingers out of the picture and never post a picture of the fish next to a ruler or on a scale. Sorry Bruce, I realize you take pictures like that to show off the fish, but the engineer in my wants verified details.
..You gotta keep the fingers out of the picture and never post a picture of the fish next to a ruler or on a scale. Sorry Bruce, I realize you take pictures like that to show off the fish, but the engineer in my wants verified details.
I quit posting pictures on this forum because I was tired of people implying that I was lying about my fish. Now I can get slammed even when it's a picture of somebody else.
Holding a redear sunfish is like running with scissors.
Bruce, that's the first time that I've seen any pictures of your fish on a scale or with a ruler other than the glamor shots. I don't frequent BBG, so forgive me if they are posted there.
That 3.1 fish always makes me giggle....What a beast!!!
"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"
If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1) And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1) Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT? PB answer: It depends.
I guess I'm now compelled to weigh in on this photo.
I'd like to make a few observations.
Yes, the guy's hand is proportionately big, but anybody who knows a poop about photoshop knows that a skilled photoshop artist would, in fact, do the exact opposite. If you wanted to deceive people as to the size of your fish, you'd photoshop a smaller hand onto the photo.
I'm not skilled enough to tell if there's any pixelation around the periphery of this fish, but the shadows seem consistent with a legitimate photo. Why somebody would take the time to photoshop a dead, frozen pike into a photo, I'd never know. But my first inclination is that this photo isn't altered. It's likely a wide (at least wider than standard) lens, with the photographer using forced perspective to increase the fish to angler size ratio.
OK, now the elephant in the room is the size of the angler's right hand. Yes, it's big, but he is wearing an ice glove. I have three pair and they are all absolutely huge on me. I think this needs to be accounted for in one's assessment of this image.
So 37 pounds is the stated weight? I'm no pike expert, but I do know that's a massive size. Do we know that the angler actually said that this fish is 37 pounds? If not, my suggestion would be to appreciate that it's a pretty good fish, and enjoy it for what it's worth. If the angler has been on record saying it's 37 pounds, and you don't believe it, then fine. But what is our compulsion as a society to call people liars on the internet when we know nothing of this gentleman and his own personal integrity? Sometimes people who possess class and grace refrain from calling people liars on the internet, when in fact they would never do it to his face.
Holding a redear sunfish is like running with scissors.
Bruce, I never EVER doubted that your fish weren't huge, it's just that I had never seen many references where length/weight was attributed to them, other than knowing that you caught one over 3# at RM. Seeing that 3.1# BG on a ruler makes it look even bigger (at least to me) than seeing it in a picture without anything to scale it to. I've never seen a BG larger than 11" much less one that is 14" long!!!
Yes the guy in the photo said it was 37 pounds. Granted the ice gloves can be huge but I think it's obvious the man has pushed the pike closer to the photo to make it look bigger. I don't think photoshop was used and didn't imply that.
Scott et al you guys really stepped in it and I'm not taking any responsibility as I never mentioned Bruce.
How about we move on to politics or religion?
Last edited by Cecil Baird1; 12/21/1312:59 PM.
If pigs could fly bacon would be harder to come by and there would be a lot of damaged trees.
This " discussion " is almost as good and the 'ring fights' that Cecil and I have. I might as well get back in this foray. 'Standard' or average length of a 37 lb northern pike is 52" long.
I think the 17 inch largemouth bass esshup was referring to is the bass in the picture above, which if one does not look closely, the bass length could be seen as 17" long, but is in fact 27 inches long!. Esshup - look again and closely at that ruler marking. I had to darken the photo to get a good view of and verify the 27 inch marking. By the way that is a real big largemouth but more importantly an unbelievably trophy sized bass coming from the great state of Nebraska which is in plant hardiness map or climate zone of 5 and not from a warm long growing season of Florida or southern California. To grow a bass this big in plant hardiness zone 5, one has to be doing many things very well. Condello is not only good at producing great angler fish photos but also growing trophy sized bass.
To see the plant hardiness zone where you live click on the link below. If on the map you click on your state it will give you a detailed map of your state showing low average winter temperatures. http://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/PHZMWeb/#
The lower your average winter temperatures means that area has a shorter growing season and it is less likely you will be able to grow fish as big as someone else in more southern plant hardiness zones. It makes that 27" bass a truly remarkable fish for Nebraska waters. FYI - the standard weight for a 27" LMB is 11.95 lbs. IMO the Bruce bass is a pound or three larger than 11.95 lbs.
Last edited by Bill Cody; 12/21/1302:44 PM.
aka Pond Doctor & Dr. Perca Read Pond Boss Magazine - America's Journal of Pond Management
Bruce baby it's lonely at the top eh? LOL Not picking sides, I just wish to share a learning experience for myself. until joining PB, I had never been personally included with big fish, and the photos associated with them. I was at Bruce's last fall, for the PB gathering. Some large bass were caught there, and accompanying photos were taken. One photo, particularly the one with Sue Cruz, was shared on another website. I eventually caught wind of the controversy surrounding this fish. It educated me personally. Fantastic fish, beautiful woman, and outstanding photo. Many were claiming the photo was altered, and that it was even a mounted fish. I was there, saw the fish that were being caught, and the photos and techniques being used.
Some may call different photo techniques "trick photography", or sometimes when the photo actually turns out good, it is labeled as photo-shopped. Personally I can never get the real true feel for the fish unless I'm actually there.
There's a gal I went to school with. Her husband runs a muskie/pike guide service in Wisconsin. I have seen many of their photo's. But since I have never caught or weighed anything like this, I will have to go with them until I find out for myself.
Last edited by JamesBryan; 12/21/1302:52 PM.
Give a man a fish, and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will sit in a boat and drink beer.
This " discussion " is almost as good and the 'ring fights' that Cecil and I have. I might as well get back in this foray. 'Standard' or average length of a 37 lb northern pike is 52" long.
I think the 17 inch largemouth bass esshup was referring to is the bass in the picture above, which if one does not look closely, the bass length could be seen as 17" long, but is in fact 27 inches long!. Esshup - look again and closely at that ruler marking. I had to darken the photo to get a good view of and verify the 27 inch marking. By the way that is a real big largemouth but more importantly an unbelievably trophy sized bass coming from the great state of Nebraska which is in plant hardiness map or climate zone of 5 and not from a warm long growing season of Florida or southern California. To grow a bass this big in plant hardiness zone 5, one has to be doing many things very well. Condello is not only good at producing great angler fish photos but also growing trophy sized bass.
To see the plant hardiness zone where you live click on the link below. If on the map you click on your state it will give you a detailed map of your state showing low average winter temperatures. http://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/PHZMWeb/#
The lower your average winter temperatures means that area has a shorter growing season and it is less likely you will be able to grow fish as big as someone else in more southern plant hardiness zones. It makes that 27" bass a truly remarkable fish for Nebraska waters. FYI - the standard weight for a 27" LMB is 11.95 lbs. IMO the Bruce bass is a pound or three larger than 11.95 lbs.
Great post Bill! LOL! Do you really think Scott thought that fish was 17 inches? Must've been a typo on his part.
In reality that fish was closer to 25". I'm holding the tail away from the board just a touch. The unintended consequence was that it added a little length. I have about five other photos that show the tail lying truly flat at 25". The reason I like this photo so much is that my hand gives a little additional true perspective.
Holding a redear sunfish is like running with scissors.
I guess I'm confused. Which 17 inch largemouth bass is that?
Bruce, sorry, Bill is correct, that's the 27" LMB, NOT 17". I saw the 26" and mistook it for 16". That's a TOAD! I had to enlarge the pic and adjust contrast to read the ruler. Yes, I really thought it was 17", no typo.
...It's likely a wide (at least wider than standard) lens, with the photographer using forced perspective to increase the fish to angler size ratio.
I think that's the correct call. His elbows are obviously pointed towards his hips, but if you measure the length of his elbows to his finger tips, that would mean his hands hang around his knees while standing straight up.
He'd be a point guard in the NBA with arms like that.
.gif)
