Hmmm,
First of all, they're both great fish, but are they Nickles? That's the question. My first thought was that the fish posted by Sportspal was just shy of 5lbs, but Matt's fish with it's girth is over 5lbs. It IS hard to tell from just a photo. Here's an example of a bad photo. While I can definately 100% attest to the fact that this fish was 5.1, cause I weighed it, the photo sucks and it does not look like a 5lbs fish from the photo.
Let's compare and see if there is a difference through just a look with the 2 most recent submissions.
If you look at the fish closely, they are both being held much the same, however Matt's fish looks a lot more "chunky" than the one that Sportspal is holding up. If you look below, the 6lb fish that I caught, and weighed, looks very similar to both, but actually looks shorter. Can you see the difference?
It's very hard indeed. Are they all over 5lbs? Difficult to say from the photo. So what have we learned? The only thing I can think of is that a photo, if not taken favourably to the fish, cannot really be used unless it is accompanied by a scale weight, and while this is all on the honour system for fun, it's still easy to fake a weight I suppose. Perhaps a new kind of criteria is needed to vote on, other than just sight. I'll need to think on this further I guess.
5'10"-5'11", 250-260lbs. Definately bigger than a nickle though! 
