Sorry I wasn't able to respiond to this sooner but work got the better of me the last few days.

cst: I developed this formula using a "least square curve fitting method" used in modeling data. Essentially, you gather "good" data and develop a model (or formula as most people cal them) based either on theoretical methods or empiricle methods. This model, because it doesn't incorporate volume in the "powers" is considered "empiricle". much like the formula that mteman provided above that the FL DFG came up with. I cam up with two other theoretical formulas but they weren;t as good as this one. There's a better description of the method in the article that you'll be able to read when it gets posted. Rob is actually going to print the article as submitted. In-Fish deleted a bunch of it because it had too much math in it. LOL.

mteman: Good job dude. LOL. Yep, Dickerson's fish is predicted to weigh 18.47 lbs. I used his fish as one of my data points. What I need are more fish over twenty pounds in order to make it better but getting measurements of 20lb fish is difficult. most of the 20s cauht were never measured.

As for the Fl DFG formula, if you play the game of logrithyms, you can convert it to the following whichy is a bit easier. But you have to remember that it is all in millimeters.

Weight = Length (raised to the 1.923 power) x Girth (raised to the 1.157 power) all divided by 67608.3. This gives the same answer as the log formula and is easier for most to use.

Yes, there is no fool-proof formula that will give exact weight. That's why I always give the deviation when I do stuff like this. Fish like Dickerson's and Long's 20s and other fish may not be as accurate because the data was fit to fish mainly between 16 an 19 pounds. In time, I will be able to develop a better more accurate formula but I'll need the data (fish measurements over 20lbs) in order to do it.

If anyone wants to talk more about this, feel free to email me at battisti@onewest.net.

Take care all

Terry