|
Post by ridgerunner on Dec 4, 2014 12:30:24 GMT -5
M4Madness is right 100%..I've been through the process with an Official Scorer several times...he is right. His example of the 145 in typical vs 145 typical with 10 inch drop tine is correct..the one buck would score 145 and the drop tine buck would only score 135 in even though he has 10 more inches of rack..he would score 20 inches less than gross , 145 buck plus drop equals 155 gross, but he would only net 135 inches, so the buck with no drop tine would score better at 145.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Dec 4, 2014 12:36:02 GMT -5
Exactly! You are losing double what the abnormals measure when subtracting them from total growth.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Dec 4, 2014 12:48:06 GMT -5
Congratulations ... you got someone to agree with you but it still does not change the fact that there is only one net score .... which is all that I, Woody, Greg and whomever else have said.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Dec 4, 2014 12:59:29 GMT -5
Congratulations ... you got someone to agree with you but it still does not change the fact that there is only one net score .... which is all that I, Woody, Greg and whomever else have said. Just like there is only one gross score -- and it doesn't include abnormal points. I'm just trying to pass time here at work and mean no offense to anyone.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Dec 4, 2014 13:02:16 GMT -5
None taken.
And never said gross included abnormal points ... when talking B&C scoring of course.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Dec 4, 2014 13:02:49 GMT -5
Congratulations ... you got someone to agree with you but it still does not change the fact that there is only one net score .... which is all that I, Woody, Greg and whomever else have said. Yep.... Look at these score sheets and there wording!! From NAW mag....
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Dec 4, 2014 13:06:14 GMT -5
I agree, Greg. I'm just hoping that all understand that if you score the deer normally and ignore the abnormals and come up with a net score, you can then subtract the abnormals last and come up with the one and only true net score.
|
|
|
Post by chubwub on Dec 4, 2014 13:09:46 GMT -5
All this antler scoring reminds me of fantasy football. I'm falling asleep already.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Dec 4, 2014 13:22:39 GMT -5
My local scorer just prefers to score the clean rack first to see what it would have netted without the abnormals. He always jokes with me and says, "If you'd knock those abnormals off with a hammer, it'd score better." Lol!
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Dec 4, 2014 13:57:07 GMT -5
I agree, Greg. I'm just hoping that all understand that if you score the deer normally and ignore the abnormals and come up with a net score, you can then subtract the abnormals last and come up with the one and only true net score. Correction ..... if you score the deer normally and ignore the abnormals and come up with a GROSS score, you can then subtract the abnormals last and come up with the one and only true NET score.... This is how normal Deer scoring is done.... Look at pics above!!
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Dec 4, 2014 14:02:54 GMT -5
Either way yields the same score.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2014 14:43:41 GMT -5
This whole debate makes me want to shoot nothing but clean typicals henceforth!
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Dec 4, 2014 14:53:33 GMT -5
This whole debate makes me want to shoot nothing but clean typicals henceforth! It'd be a lot easier. Lol! The whole B&C net mentality sucks. Stop penalizing racks for being assymetrical.
|
|
|
Post by ridgerunner on Dec 4, 2014 14:53:42 GMT -5
This whole debate makes me want to shoot nothing but clean typicals henceforth! True...what's sad is when you shoot a 160 inch buck with abnormal points, then if it is scored typical it nets 118 inches....lol...that's sickening....so you have it scored non-typical and it scores 154 inches and misses the record books ( 155 non-typical), by one inch...so a 160 inch gross bow kill would not make the Indiana book or The Pope and Young records book ...deer that good should make the books. especially with a bow...but did not make it.. that's when I learned a lot about scoring deer Officially....it sucks
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Dec 4, 2014 15:00:48 GMT -5
Yep, it's a pretty sad day when a perfectly symmetrical 125" beats out a 160".
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Dec 4, 2014 15:01:45 GMT -5
Either way yields the same score. True.... But that wasn't the debate !!
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Dec 4, 2014 15:04:39 GMT -5
Either way yields the same score. True.... But that wasn't the debate !!
|
|
|
Post by ridgerunner on Dec 4, 2014 15:06:54 GMT -5
Yep, it's a pretty sad day when a perfectly symmetrical 125" beats out a 160". lol....no Kidding. I passed up a ton of those 125-135 inch bucks over the years that I would not shoot that would have made the book, to shoot a much better 160 in gross buck, that would not make the books..unreal.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Dec 4, 2014 15:10:04 GMT -5
I kinda look at P&Y and B&C as their club, their rules. I dont have a deer in either of them and dont plan to have a deer in any book anytime soon.
When I score my deer I add up every single fraction of an inch I can squeeze out of him, add the inside spread, and that is what my buck "scored". The official S&W score.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Dec 4, 2014 15:15:32 GMT -5
Yep, it's a pretty sad day when a perfectly symmetrical 125" beats out a 160". lol....no Kidding. I passed up a ton of those 125-135 inch bucks over the years that I would not shoot that would have made the book, to shoot a much better 160 in gross buck, that would not make the books..unreal. I have a 128 1/8" in the P&Y book that I killed in 1997. My archery buck last year grew 164 0/8", but only netted 140 1/8". I didn't even bother paying P&Y their $35 this time around.
|
|