# Should have had it weighed!!!!



## Kingalingdingaling33

Not a very good day on the water, Met this big ugly guy. I didn't know state record was 78 lbs buy Angler I don't know guys you tell me how much you think it was.


----------



## Kingalingdingaling33

Btw I'm over 200 lbs and 6'


----------



## rainbowrunner

Nice one!

55lbs


----------



## teamfirstcast

I would say close to 60 but not close to the record. Good CPR!


----------



## Bird

Big fish for sure. 60lbs? You are in my back yard...caught a lot of fish right there this past Fall.


----------



## sharkchum

Nice fish.
The state record is actually 81lbs. That fish is 35 to 40.


----------



## Kingalingdingaling33

I've lifted weights my whole life I know what a 50lb dumbbell weighs and a 100lber that fish was very hard for me to hold up I looked at some other records and I'm thinking that fish was @ 75


----------



## Blk Jck 224

sharkchum...That fish is 35 to 40.[/QUOTE said:


> Think you might be underestimating that fish John.


----------



## CAPSIZED

My guess is 60lbs not a record but still a monster. We usually catch 50 of those per year and very few are that big.


----------



## jpayne

Definitely over 50 pounds. I say 60 to 65


----------



## sharkchum

Blk Jck 224 said:


> Think you might be underestimating that fish John.


 Not at all. It appears to be around 42" to 43", it's average girth, so that would put it around 35# to 40#. He asked for weight estimates, and in my experience that's what it would weigh. You have to keep in mind that I catch more of those things a year than anyone else in Texas, so I have a better understanding of length/ weight ratio than most. I'm not trying to belittle the fish, it's a great catch in anyone's book, but sometimes the truth hurts.
Here's a cool length to weight calculator that is pretty close.

http://txmarspecies.tamug.edu/length-weight.cfm


----------



## troutalex33

*Sharkchum is right again bro*

Really nice fish bro but I did weigh this one and it was 72 lbs .... Im 6ft 1" , 220 lbs and ... Bro trust me Im not bragging just trying to give you reference . This was back back in the day.... at old seawolf park .My personal best was 26 by uglies in one day at the old park ... awe back the day . Nice fish bro , God Bless and Happy New Year .


----------



## Rockfish2

Kingalingdingaling33 said:


> I've lifted weights my whole life I know what a 50lb dumbbell weighs and a 100lber that fish was very hard for me to hold up I looked at some other records and I'm thinking that fish was @ 75


Did you get length measurement on that beast?


----------



## pocjetty

sharkchum said:


> Not at all. It appears to be around 42" to 43", it's average girth, so that would put it around 35# to 40#. He asked for weight estimates, and in my experience that's what it would weigh. You have to keep in mind that I catch more of those things a year than anyone else in Texas, so I have a better understanding of length/ weight ratio than most. I'm not trying to belittle the fish, it's a great catch in anyone's book, but sometimes the truth hurts.
> Here's a cool length to weight calculator that is pretty close.
> 
> http://txmarspecies.tamug.edu/length-weight.cfm


The problem is that perspective on a fish picture is a really tricky thing. I thought you were a little short with that length. But I'm 6'1", and the distance from my elbow to the end of my thumb is 17". That's the closest thing I can see for comparison to the picture, since his forearm is right next to the fish. Based on that, you're probably not too far off with that 42"-43" length. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, since you're pretty much the local expert on drum.

A 51" drum would be about 67 lbs., according to the calculator.  And 51" is the distance from the top of my head to my kneecap. The fish in the picture appears to start lower than the top of the guy's head. It clearly doesn't extend down to his kneecap. I don't want to insult the OP - that's still a big fish. But it sure looks like 50 lbs. is about max, according to the calculator.

But that calculator? Punch in a 21" speckled trout, and tell me if you think that weight looks right to you.


----------



## andre3k

I know the weight is important to you guys, I'm wondering how old these huge fish are?


----------



## Kingalingdingaling33

It was a hair over 50" I've caught a lot of these guys but this drum was so broad, I'm 24" across my shoulders. I've never seen one this fat and stubby. Also she was clean no scars or marks. Good looking big ugly, no pun intended


----------



## 348473

Blk Jck 224 said:


> sharkchum...That fish is 35 to 40.[/QUOTE said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think you might be underestimating that fish John.
> 
> 
> 
> By nearly twofold, I agree.
Click to expand...


----------



## RedXCross

If that fish is over 50" like OP says, it is at LEAST 55-60lb. bare min.


----------



## bonkers

It's longer than a yard stick (36") and looks to weigh at 60 or 70 lbs is my guess.


----------



## Elgatoloco

Nice saw one about that size in parents canal Christmas Day it was crazy just cruising around.

Tom


----------



## Rockfish2

Kingalingdingaling33 said:


> It was a hair over 50" I've caught a lot of these guys but this drum was so broad, I'm 24" across my shoulders. I've never seen one this fat and stubby. Also she was clean no scars or marks. Good looking big ugly, no pun intended


Well, I think that would put it around 65 according to that calculator, and maybe more since it was so stout. It is remarkably good looking, so to speak, for a big ugly that big!


----------



## Brian Castille

I always think it's hard to gauge fish size when they are vertical. I did a quick photochop and rotated it. Based on comparing that to fish we have weighed in the past, I would guess at around 45 pounds or so (we have caught hundreds and hundreds over the years). I think the comparison to a weight is a tough one because a weight is so dense, is easy to grip and isn't squirming. I think a 45 lb Olympic plate is easier to lift than a 30 pound bull red but that's just me. Was the 50" measurement exact on a legit, flat ruler or was it done with a tape? If it was something that was "approximate" and it was really 48", that might be 6-8 pounds lighter than true 50". The other pic is the biggest drum I have ever seen - handily bottomed out a 50 pound scale but not sure on true weight. 60 lbs? Who knows. My dad and I are both over 6' 1" for reference. All I know is it was heavy and it was really big, lol. The 45 pounds or so may be way off - I don't know because it's just a picture and they can be deceiving - a few weeks ago I made an 18" snow man look 4' tall, lol. Not trying to be insulting or anything but you asked for opinions  I DO know for sure that you are holding a really big fish and most people haven't caught anything close to that big in their lives. Nice fish!


----------



## jas415

*Really nice fish*



Brian Castille said:


> I always think it's hard to gauge fish size when they are vertical. I did a quick photochop and rotated it. Based on comparing that to fish we have weighed in the past, I would guess at around 45 pounds or so (we have caught hundreds and hundreds over the years). I think the comparison to a weight is a tough one because a weight is so dense, is easy to grip and isn't squirming. I think a 45 lb Olympic plate is easier to lift than a 30 pound bull red but that's just me. Was the 50" measurement exact on a legit, flat ruler or was it done with a tape? If it was something that was "approximate" and it was really 48", that might be 6-8 pounds lighter than true 50". The other pic is the biggest drum I have ever seen - handily bottomed out a 50 pound scale but not sure on true weight. 60 lbs? Who knows. My dad and I are both over 6' 1" for reference. All I know is it was heavy and it was really big, lol. The 45 pounds or so may be way off - I don't know because it's just a picture and they can be deceiving - a few weeks ago I made an 18" snow man look 4' tall, lol. Not trying to be insulting or anything but you asked for opinions  I DO know for sure that you are holding a really big fish and most people haven't caught anything close to that big in their lives. Nice fish!


Using that pic of the big fish I measured across the left hand of the fellow on the right, about 4", then I measured the length of the fish and divided the hand into the length of the fish. I get about 56" for the big fish and on that calculator it comes to about 89 lbs!!! On the original post of 'How much---" I measured the elbow to the fingertip (18"), and did the same calculations and got 45-46" long and about 47lbs.

No matter what it weighed it was a very good fish!

As a 12 yr old I caught a 47.5 lb (weighed) King Salmon and it was right at 46" long. I may have outweighed it 20 lbs.


----------



## BBCAT

50 lbs plus.


----------



## bonkers

Brian Castille said:


> I always think it's hard to gauge fish size when they are vertical. I did a quick photochop and rotated it. Based on comparing that to fish we have weighed in the past, I would guess at around 45 pounds or so (we have caught hundreds and hundreds over the years). I think the comparison to a weight is a tough one because a weight is so dense, is easy to grip and isn't squirming. I think a 45 lb Olympic plate is easier to lift than a 30 pound bull red but that's just me. Was the 50" measurement exact on a legit, flat ruler or was it done with a tape? If it was something that was "approximate" and it was really 48", that might be 6-8 pounds lighter than true 50". The other pic is the biggest drum I have ever seen - handily bottomed out a 50 pound scale but not sure on true weight. 60 lbs? Who knows. My dad and I are both over 6' 1" for reference. All I know is it was heavy and it was really big, lol. The 45 pounds or so may be way off - I don't know because it's just a picture and they can be deceiving - a few weeks ago I made an 18" snow man look 4' tall, lol. Not trying to be insulting or anything but you asked for opinions  I DO know for sure that you are holding a really big fish and most people haven't caught anything close to that big in their lives. Nice fish!


Ship channel near the causeway....you left too much information in your picture...LOL Cool pic anyway.


----------



## SurfsideShane

That's an awesome drum, very clean too!

I can't really add anything to the discussion other than the current regulation:

"No more than one black drum over 52 inches may be retained per person per day and counts as part of the daily bag limit and possession limit."

It's my understanding that the reason for it has to do with the potential for a new state record. So presumably TPWD took the time and figured that it would take at least a 52" drum to beat the old record. Regardless, great catch and photo.

Shane


----------



## bmccle

*Ok*



sharkchum said:


> Not at all. It appears to be around 42" to 43", it's average girth, so that would put it around 35# to 40#. He asked for weight estimates, and in my experience that's what it would weigh. You have to keep in mind that I catch more of those things a year than anyone else in Texas, so I have a better understanding of length/ weight ratio than most. I'm not trying to belittle the fish, it's a great catch in anyone's book, but sometimes the truth hurts.
> Here's a cool length to weight calculator that is pretty close.
> 
> http://txmarspecies.tamug.edu/length-weight.cfm


According to this, a 51" drum would weigh around 67 lbs. I think he said he measured it (in a later post) and that it was over 50". So, sounds like it could be 65-75 lbs. But, so tough to tell from a pic.


----------



## bmccle

*drum*



troutalex33 said:


> Really nice fish bro but I did weigh this one and it was 72 lbs .... Im 6ft 1" , 220 lbs and ... Bro trust me Im not bragging just trying to give you reference . This was back back in the day.... at old seawolf park .My personal best was 26 by uglies in one day at the old park ... awe back the day . Nice fish bro , God Bless and Happy New Year .


To me, his looks about the same size as this one. If you were to lift it up to your head it would come to about your knees which appears to be about the size of his. Anyway, he said it was a hair over 50"..and if you use the calculator sharkchum provided it would be around 65 lbs. Given that he said it was very thick/stout. Reasonable to assume around 70 lbs.


----------



## SKIPJACKSLAYER

ive done it before in the kemah channel i strongly believe i caught a 60-65lb fish. Looks the same size as that one. no way that fish is under 50 lbs though i can promise you that.


----------



## Aggieangler

I believe the reason for the upper size limit, is to protect the largest members of the species who have a huge impact on the spawn. That's the reason for the upper slot limit on reds and trout, anyway. These larger fish, which are wily enough to last this long, are the genetics we want to persist. Also, the amount of eggs they produce in a single spawning event is many times more per fish, than their smaller counterparts.


----------



## bubbas kenner

*Size matter*

I say yours was 40 lbs or so I did not weigh this one but it was on 12 lb trilene.
Btw I'm 6'5" 225


----------



## Blk Jck 224

bubbas kenner said:


> I say yours was 40 lbs or so I did not weigh this one but it was on 12 lb trilene.
> Btw I'm 6'5" 225


Did you lick that fish Ruben?


----------



## lagunaredz

*nice drum*

we caught one off of copano state pier that was 47 1/2" I've always wondered what it weighed.


----------



## lagunaredz

Kingalingdingaling33 said:


> Not a very good day on the water, Met this big ugly guy. I didn't know state record was 78 lbs buy Angler I don't know guys you tell me how much you think it was.


nice drum!!!


----------



## Kingalingdingaling33

I caught that one while I was fishing for trout also 12lb big game. It ate a original down south. I thought I snagged the reef till the reef started moving!


----------



## Reel Paradise

Congrats and a nice fish. Not to belittle your catch but to me that looks like an average size BIG Black drum in the 40 lbs range. I have a spot in Rockport that I fish in the winter time where when the water temp hits 56 degrees and below, the drum stack up in the deeper water next to a large flat. See pictures, I am guessing these drum are in the 40 lbs range as well.


----------



## Salty Dog

I saw the state record drum. I was down for the weekend 2 houses over when the kid caught it. The drum in the pics on this thread are big but they are not in the same class as that fish.


----------



## Snaggletoothfrecklefish

Never seen this much discussion over a big ugly before....


----------



## TexasSlam18

Snaggletoothfrecklefish said:


> Never seen this much discussion over a big ugly before....


X2...everyone must be itching for something to argue about.


----------



## NOCREEK

May as well.....I have no idea how long or heavy this little Ugly was. Just disappointed it's the only thing that ate one of my croakers that day, didn't catch a single trout. I thought it was tractor tire on the trout rod because it had about 50 pounds of grass with it.










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## HoustonKid

Nice big ugly. I caught one about 11 years ago off of the Walter Umphrey pier on the south end of Sabine. It was 49" long. No scale to weight it. I let it go. I am 6'1" and this fish went from my chin to below my knees. I will post a pic later tonight when I get home. Big bull of a fish. I looked later that the state record was 51". Had I known that, I would have tried to get a weight on it.


----------



## GSMAN

*Just Guessing*

I caught this one a few years ago and I thought it weighed maybe 60 pounds or so. I am 6' 210 lbs to get a size reference.


----------



## oc48

for the original post, I'd say that's a 45 possibly 50lb fish. like a few folks have said, I've caught them in the past for years and years at the jetties. still a good fish. Like pulling up a **** F150 stuck in reverse.


----------



## battleredtexan

I've caught quite a few in the 40lb range that I weighed.
This is the biggest "ugly" I've caught...no scale on the boat that day.
Estimated 55-60lbs...


----------



## Blk Jck 224

The state record black drum weighed 81 pounds and was 51.18 inches long


----------



## rduron21

I agree with Sharkchum on this one, that is a 40-45lb fish. I've caught a 47", 48", and 50" ugly and they were all in the 45-55lb range.


----------



## battleredtexan

Caught in December in South Carolina.
Supposedly a new unofficial world record. 
The fish was estimated at 122.5 lbs. (based on a formula)
http://www.myrtlebeachlife.com/myrtle-beach-fishing/video-myrtle-beach-area-fishermen-catch-possible-record-setting-black-drum-41418/


----------



## stammster - temporary

Kingalingdingaling33 said:


> Not a very good day on the water, Met this big ugly guy. I didn't know state record was 78 lbs buy Angler I don't know guys you tell me how much you think it was.


How did it taste?


----------



## troutsupport

Nice!


----------



## MarkU

That's what she said.


----------



## battleredtexan

troutsupport said:


> Nice!


To be clear... *I* didn't catch the 122lb monster drum.
Just posting the pic and link.


----------



## fishonkev

One thing is certain. The older you get the bigger it was.


----------

