The Traditional Fisherman's Forum

Amazing fish!
http://www.gofishing.co.uk/Angling-Time ... cord-chub/

A few times on the video they say it was 9lb 5oz with the bag, but the fish is being claimed at 9lb 5oz?

A beast of a chub!

hermes wrote:Good God, thats a monster.
What a fish!

Took the words right out of my mouth (please note a long pause between Good and God).

I'm now a little lost.

Not knowing what the record chub currently is, or any other fish for that matter I notice that in the video someone states "if its 9lb 6oz it’s an ounce off the record".

In 'The Anglers Handbook' that I have (see http://www.traditionalfisherman.co.uk/v ... rns#p16201) on page 8 it states the record chub is 10lb 8oz, my copy of the book is a revised October 1965 edition.

I have a problem with my scanner at the moment, perhaps Paul (pduffield) will do me the honour and scan the page and upload it for me).

Mark, I've attached a scan of the page from the anglers handbook, but the records listed pre-date the current record fish list. From memory, I think the record chub listed was caught by a salmon angler out of season, and apart from that there was some doubt about the authenticity of the capture. It was dropped along with some other fish on the list some years ago.

The current record chub at 9lb 5oz was caught in 2007 from a 'Southern stillwater'. I don't take much notice of records, but I do remember the chub record being less than 8lbs for a long time after I started fishing in the 1970s.

What I'm confused about, though, is that in the video the fish is described as 9lb 5oz WITH the bag, so it must have weighed less than that, but it's being claimed at that weight.

Yeah, I noticed the 9 5 WITH the bag, so it must be less. You'll also notice the scales ate zero zero'd rather than deducted to take into bag weight. Think he said ' 9 6, careful what you say, that's an oz over the record.' I don't care eitherway, that is a spectacular fish. Good shot to the captor.

st.john wrote:Yeah, I noticed the 9 5 WITH the bag, so it must be less. You'll also notice the scales ate zero zero'd rather than deducted to take into bag weight. Think he said ' 9 6, careful what you say, that's an oz over the record.' I don't care eitherway, that is a spectacular fish. Good shot to the captor.

Thinking about it, it was probably just excitement and blabbering. Not being funny but you ain't going to mess up weighing a possible record, and if someone's going to 'doctor' the weight then surely it'd be 9lb 10 or 11. I just say well done. I know if I caught it I'd be talking all sorts of nonsense!

Also, is that a 7lb grayling on the records page above?!!! Sod the chub, that's a fish!!!

st.john wrote:Also, is that a 7lb grayling on the records page above?!!! Sod the chub, that's a fish!!!

I agree. Imagine the fight from that