Search Fishin.com

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 12 of 25

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Columbia, KY
    Posts
    50
    Post Thanks / Like

    inches compared to weight size question

    [font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON Jan-02-06 AT 12:15PM (EST)[/font][p]In November I caught a 21 3/4 inch smallmouth on Dale...I did not have my scales and had to borrow another person's scales...Their scales said it was 4.5....After reading the other posts, I feel like those scales were off....What is the opionion of the masses?

    Thanks for your input!!!!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Louisville, KY.
    Posts
    229
    Post Thanks / Like

    RE: inches compared to weight size question

    Shouldn't there be different formulas for smallmouth and largemouth given there somewhat different shapes, especially as they get bigger?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    .
    Posts
    165
    Post Thanks / Like

    RE: inches compared to weight size question

    The one thing that might result in a large weight than it really is , some fisher man sort of like to read the tape measures to the high side ( I would never do that , ha ha ). How was the girth really" measured.
    I saw a fishing show one time where they were using the formula and a scale. Most fish weighed within 8-10 ounces of the formula verses the scales.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA.
    Posts
    1,016
    Post Thanks / Like

    guesstimate formulas

    LxLxL/1600 ... LxLxG/1200 ... LxGxG/800 will give you different weights for your fish.

    LxLxL formula puts your fish at 6.4lbs
    LxLxG formula puts your fish at 7.5lbs
    LxGxG formula = 10lbs

    LxLxL formula puts my 7lb LMB (22.5 x 18) at 7.1lbs
    LxLxG formula puts it at 7.5lbs
    LxGxG formula = 9.11lbs
    The fish was weighed on accurate scales @ 7lbs even.

    If I were you ... I'd call it a 7lb fish (avg between LLL & LLG formulas). Then I'd get myself a set of scales & have them checked for accuracy. Or else, quit measuring them ... and just "eyeball" weigh'em ...LOL!! .......... cp






  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    4,015
    Post Thanks / Like

    RE: inches compared to weight size question

    The Smallies at Dale this year have been huge for me. I caught several 4 pounders that barely pushed the 19" mark in December. A friend of mine caught a 19 incher that was 5-6. My 6-4 went 22 3/8 but my 6-6 was only just barely over 21". Hope this helps.

    Tight Lines

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Benton, KY.
    Posts
    264
    Post Thanks / Like

    RE: inches compared to weight size question

    Sounds like a female that just pigged out on the late fall shad runs, smallies weigh a ton anyways but females are use to gorging until their bellies sink them to the bottom. The G(squared) x L divided by 800 = w formula is correct but on heavy fish it could be off a pound. My thoughts.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    .
    Posts
    160
    Post Thanks / Like

    RE: inches compared to weight size question

    I dont think this formula is right. I should only weigh 148 lbs!
    Just 100 lbs. lite! lol!!!
    Rowdy

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    .
    Posts
    140
    Post Thanks / Like

    RE: inches compared to weight size question

    [font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON Jan-03-06 AT 07:07AM (EST)[/font][p][font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON Jan-03-06 AT 07:06*AM (EST)[/font]

    Sorry to report but, know this for a fact....Formula's are only guesstimate's and are not necessairly accurate. I've caught a 19" smally outta Dale last year that was pushing 4 1/2 last year and have also caught 21" fish that only weighed 4.9 oz.
    Shorter fish that look like footballs at Erie are the norm and a 20" fish there can be a monster.
    I think it all depends on the geographic area...a 20 to 21" fish at Dale could be anywhere from 4 to 6 lbs. most of the time.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Benton, KY.
    Posts
    264
    Post Thanks / Like

    Hold on

    I see your point, but formula is a measure of GIRTH and lenth. A 21" males will weigh 4lbs while a 21" female will weigh 6-10 lbs depending on the girth. With fish over 10 pounds the weight may be off a LITTLE. But otherwise the formula is very close. It's all about girth.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    .
    Posts
    2,303
    Post Thanks / Like

    RE: Hold on

    [font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON Jan-04-06 AT 07:17AM (EST)[/font][p][font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON Jan-04-06 AT 03:44*AM (EST)[/font]

    Maybe you did not read this whole string..but when using this so called "close formula" the fish in question would have weighed a little over 10lbs...and the person that caught it says himself that the fish was no way that good. If you use this formula on the current world record smallmouth then it would have weighed 15.83lbs instead of the actual 11lbs 15oz. So much for this formula..better buy some scales.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Benton, KY.
    Posts
    264
    Post Thanks / Like

    Like I said

    [font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON Jan-06-06 AT 09:44PM (EST)[/font][p]The formula is off on fish over 10 pounds but I would expect that much. But think about this. The fish, we know is a female, was caught in July after she spawned out, since the biggest fish move first, the stretching of the eggs added to the girth, but after spawn left no weight in the belly, I've seen a that looked over 6 lbs to everyone, but at the scales it was 4.89, you could feel a huge nothing when pushing on the belly, couldn't that be an exception, that recently spawned females would have a peroid of "flab" to add to girth but not weight. Just a thought. WOW, could you imagine how hard it would be to beat that record if the fish was caught during spawn?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    .
    Posts
    2,303
    Post Thanks / Like

    RE: Like I said

    [font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON Jan-07-06 AT 11:24AM (EST)[/font][p][font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON Jan-07-06 AT 04:46*AM (EST)[/font]

    In your words..."if the fish weighs over 10 lbs it may be off by a LITTLE"....in this case it was off by 4lbs...that is not a LITTLE. As far as imagining how long it would take to break the record if the fish had spawn out...I don't know that the fish was spawned out...it is not usual for a fish to spawn in the summer time but it does happen now and then....anyway, the record has stood for 50 years...that in my mind makes it pretty hard to break.

Similar Threads

  1. Boat size (safety related) question
    By SLP in forum Kentucky Discussion Board
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 11-01-2011, 12:02 AM
  2. Another 1 to 2 inches of rain
    By mhall in forum "Off Topic" Posts
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-14-2011, 11:18 AM
  3. 7.6 lbs, 20 1/5 inches
    By birdstrike in forum Photos
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-17-2008, 01:10 PM
  4. Fishing Lines Compared
    By Todd2 in forum Kentucky Discussion Board
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-04-2008, 10:32 PM
  5. FNF reel size and rod--question?????
    By MarkW in forum Kentucky Discussion Board
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 11-26-2007, 11:11 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •