102 lb Muskie
You got it. I'm 6 feet tall. And when I stretch out my arms, that fish is just a little longer. I'm not at all certain on the girth, but let me assure you that it is a very deep mount.
Totally reasonable to question the validity of the mount/fish.
And whatever Ramsell is selling, I'm not really buying. He has a very difficult and I believe self-appointed task of trying to determine a true world record. But his style just isn't for me. Immediate apologies if his position wasn't self-appointed.
Personally I've seen a musky on a lake up north that was longer than the width of the boat I was fishing in. I was fishing in a Lakeland 1672 boat. 16 feet long. 72 inches wide. My buddy had the fish follow and it went under the boat slowly. I saw head on one side of the boat, tail on the other. And granted, it was at the front of the boat where I don't think the boat was 72 inches wide. But she was a big one. A really, really big one.
Later that year, my dad and I saw the same fish on a different spot. Dad casted to what he thought was an old telephone pole in the water. The "pole" moved and followed his little bucktail for about 6 feet. Freaked my dad out.
Now those sightings occurred over 20 years ago. Fish is long dead. But I'm a believer that there are lakes capable of pushing out a true super lunker.
I'm 6'1" and have a wingspan of roughly 74-75 inches (I just had someone measure my wingspan after reading your post). So, this musky at Trig's, which I haven't seen yet, is a 70-72 inch fish perhaps? That's a real whopper. I've seen current photos of musky in the 57-58 inch class, but that's really about it. I saw the elegit 64-incher caught on Green Bay near the river mouth out of season. Ramsell says that the largest verified musky ever recorded was 68 inches long. There are various stories of fish being longer than this, too. Of course there are the Louie Spray and Cal Johnson photos of fish of the 63-inch class, but those are so damn heavily disputed, especially the Spray fish, which most people deem as a complete load of BS.
I know the fish you're talking about at Leif's Café in Eagle River. There's also a Gelb fish at Log Cabin in Conover. Another 50+ pounder I believe. Another monster. I don't remember the girth of either of those fish, but I would assume it was 28-31 inches.
Using various weight calculators, I plugged in a fish with dimensions of 72x30. I used the following websites: outdoorsfirst.com, one-vertex.com, and huntfishsport.com. Various websites I found provided weight estimates through the use of three formulas:
86.33 pounds (Casselman/Crossman Formula) 81 pounds (standard formula) 77 pounds (Ramsell/Wilkinsin formula)
When I tried plugging in larger numbers for the length, such as 73x30 or 74x30, I got the response "Please use valid data" and it wouldn't compute an estimate. I laughed. It wouldn't let me calculate weights if I went over 72 inches in length. When I plugged in larger girth measures, it started to give weights again. For a musky that's 72 inches in length, I had to plug in a girth measurement of 34 inches to crack the 100-pound mark, regardless of formula. A 33-inch girth came really close, too.
To visualize it, find a 6 foot person. Ask them to hold their arms out horizontal to the ground.
Then step away. The 102 pound musky at Trigs is at least that long.
That'll get you the length.
For the girth, go into Leif's Cafe on Highway 45 going north out of town. Look at Gelb's 53 pound fish. Then apply that girth to a fish that is around 20 inches larger.
It is a tank.
I remember reading the article about how that fish came to be. Surely could have been a hoax, also could have easily as been real.