Guess the weight?

[binka]

What would you say is the most over guestimated of fish when it comes to weights?

I’m going firmly with the Perch, especially after a walk around some local lakes yesterday soon met with yet another (sigh!) angler who had caught a four pounder just the other week.

I asked if he weighed it but he didn’t, adding that it was easily four pounds though.

This seems to happen to me on so many waters and if I were to believe every account it would seem that four pound Perch are ten a penny in these parts.

I’m with **** Walker and I do think a good Perch looks very big for its weight, I reckon eels could run them a close second for an overly optimistic attempt at a guess.

What d'ya reckon?

 

[rich66]

Definitely perch look bigger than they weigh, pike also are a prime candidate their length seems to make them look heavier.

 

[mikench]

Carp! They barge in when not wanted, fight like stink and then weigh 4lb when you remain convinced they will be in double figures! Apothrycal tales by fishermen are legend!!!

 

[103841]

Definitely the perch, nobody believes that's a five pounder in my avatar.

 

[S-Kippy]

I think the overestimation of weight is more often down to the individual angler rather than the species. Some people are very good at estimating weights [ I'm confident enough to say I'm one of them ] and others are just plain rubbish. Whether they are just not very good at it or deliberately rubbish is quite another matter.

 

[nottskev]

I'd go for roach. So many anglers say, or even write, that they had x number of roach "up to a pound". Judging by what I see on the bank, where I'm often fishing for roach, some anglers have a tendency to categorise roach as small enough to swing, big enough to net, then zooming up to "a pound" without stopping at 12 or 14 oz. Relatively few of the many roach I catch get to that weight.

 

[thecrow]

Fish from different water of the same species can be confusing, barbel I caught from a small river were double figure length if they were say from the trent but weighed a couple of pounds less, time of year can also affect the weight to size ratio before/after spawning for example although that should be apparent from the condition of the fish. Of course there is the wishful thinking angler that always wants to fool himself into believing a fish is bigger than it is, could be down to lack of experience with larger fish or having knicker elastic in their scales

How much a fish fights is no indication of what it might weigh when its landed, smaller barbel often give a harder fight that bigger ones, individual fish within the same species often fight better than others from that species (3 shredded wheat syndrome)

Also the genetics of a fish can mean that certain groups weigh more/ less for their size, its seen in all of nature where the strongest are usually dominant and get the most food to build muscle, imo the best indication of a fishes weight is in its broadness not length.

 

[flightliner]

Roach for me. Can't remember how many times I've seen and heard anglers put a forefinger in the crook of their arm and say stuff like "big dog roach" or "Had three this big , all over two pounds" Asked if they were weighed , no is invariably the answer..
It makes me pee, any roach from my fingertips to my elbow would break the currant record out of sight.
I often hazard a guess before weighing a big roach and it's so easy to get it wrong
By several ounces at times

 

[peter crabtree]

Definitely roach. The amount of times I've seen people catch a 10/12oz roach and say " ooh that's a pound"

 

[steve2]

Roach and perch but all my 5lb Bream look like they should weigh a lot more.
Pike can be can also highly over guesstimated especially if you rely on the out of date Mona scale for length to weight.

 

[thecrow]

I think any fish can be overestimated if the angler involved isn't used to catching fish of the size he thinks his catch is.

 

[john step]

Roach for me. An example. A mate showed me a good roach he had just landed. He said its the biggest roach he had ever caught.
It looked 12 ounces to me. It was not weighed.

The tellings started like this. "It must have been about a pound". Then " It was a pound". Then " It was a good pound at least" Then " It was well over a pound"

I saw it and he is a genuine bloke but anglers enthusiasm sometimes distorts memory.

 

[binka]

I think the overestimation of weight is more often down to the individual angler rather than the species. Some people are very good at estimating weights [ I'm confident enough to say I'm one of them ] and others are just plain rubbish. Whether they are just not very good at it or deliberately rubbish is quite another matter.

I'm one of the rubbish ones Skip, I'm forever knocking a pound or two off just to be on the safe side.

I wish! :laugh:

 

[thecrow]

Roach for me. An example. A mate showed me a good roach he had just landed. He said its the biggest roach he had ever caught.
It looked 12 ounces to me. It was not weighed.

The tellings started like this. "It must have been about a pound". Then " It was a pound". Then " It was a good pound at least" Then " It was well over a pound"

I saw it and he is a genuine bloke but anglers enthusiasm sometimes distorts memory.

I once unhooked a pike for an angler that was struggling with it, he insisted the fish was over 20lbs I thought it was 16/17lbs which proved to be nearer the mark, imagine my surprise on my next visit to the water to be told that "umbro man" (he wore a blue umbro coat) had caught a 20 and I had weighed it for him................. I was not at all pleased a fact I passed on to him in no uncertain terms when I next saw him, if anglers want to fool themselves that ok but don't use other anglers to verify the lie.

 

[Philip]

Roach for me simply based on how many people say their PB Roach is "2lb".

 

[peterjg]

Roach for me as well. A 'true' 2lber looks huge! Also so many anglers somehow confuse them with small bream!? Years ago I was told by another angler of numbers of 2lb roach in a certain reach of the GU Aylesbury Arm - I fished there many times - the '2lb roach' turned out to be 2lb bream!

 

[Tee-Cee]

I would agree with roach, but I suggest crucians are also quite difficult to guestimate, so if something 'looks' to be close to (say) the 1lb mark for a roach then out come the scales. I'm happy to admit catching 'over the lb' roach (surely) only to find it is spot on 14ozs, and will never weigh more no matter how many times I jiggle the scales!!

With crucians, and this because I catch them so rarely, I find it hard to be accurate as they can be almost as deep as they are long and deceiving in the thickness. Take the two I caught last Thursday; The first fought really well and had I lost it I would've sworn it to be a pesky carp of the common variety. It bent my Ultralight alarmingly on the strike and even after playing it foe a while I still wasn't sure of the species.
Once landed I had the notion it would bring the scales down (with a bang!) to something over the 2lb mark but on weighing it was nothing near it (21/4lb?) and this after re-zeroing the scales and putting on my glasses! The second; I could see immediately it was smaller as the first acted as a guide and so it proved....

Still dead chuffed with both, but I was fooled about the weight. Similarly, with roach; I agree 100% with Simon in that folk wildly over estimate size of roach to the point that one chap suggested my scales were 'out' - bloody cheek!!! 15ozs is 15ozs but I didn't labour the point, walking away with a mumble of "nice fish"...........................

ps I shall check my scales this morning just in case they are weighing 'light' and my crucians can be re-assessed..........Ho ho ho

 

[David Rogers 3]

Gudgeon! Many anglers might guess a 6" specimen to be a record breaker, when it would actually weigh in the region of 2oz. The old "Fishing" magazine had an article and correspondence about this c.1964 and in its last year of publication (1969) ran a "Guess The Weight of the Gudgeon Competition" in which most of the entrants believed the gudgeon shown in the photo weighed 4oz when in actual fact, it weighed 2oz. My entry of 1oz 15drms won the editor's prize of a guinea!

 

[no-one in particular]

Generally I am happy with small, average or big except were I have a little ambition; never caught a 4lb chub on one river so I weigh the big ones, always 3lb 14/15oz though, must be the same fish or my spring balance keeps getting stuck.
But overestimate, sure I must do it a lot and others. I would vote for roach. A mate and me often used to fish the same river and separate, at the end of the day he had often caught 2lb+ roach, his genuine belief I am sure. I never caught one, maybe struggled to a 1lb. He died about 10 years ago but I still carried on fishing the river and still waiting for a 1lber let alone a 2lber. Better fisherman than me!? he was a sea angler really, couldn't cope with tiny gear so it was always a big Polaris float and and a big arsely bomb and a big hook; virtually all he fished with; I never quite knew where his fingers started. Fishing nut, lovely chap-worked for the Gas Board and deliberately fell down a hole and injured something so he could take early retirement to go fishing every day, marriage went sideways of course.
But who knows maybe we are all doing it wrong!

 

[john step]

Roach for me as well. A 'true' 2lber looks huge! Also so many anglers somehow confuse them with small bream!? Years ago I was told by another angler of numbers of 2lb roach in a certain reach of the GU Aylesbury Arm - I fished there many times - the '2lb roach' turned out to be 2lb bream!

A year or two ago on my club lake an old fellow told me quite proudly he had just caught and photographed a 4lb tench.
The photo was of a BREAM and nothing like 4lb either.
I said nice fish so as not to burst his bubble and went on my way thinking thoughts of "Specsavers"