|
Post by scrub-buster on Dec 4, 2014 16:42:38 GMT -5
This whole debate makes me want to shoot nothing but clean typicals henceforth! It makes me want to not let anyone with a tape measure come anywhere near a buck that I killed.
|
|
|
Post by ridgerunner on Dec 4, 2014 18:04:02 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. There ya go...I agree with ya there...the total inches is what the buck grew that's the score...nets are for fishing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2014 18:45:21 GMT -5
The gross score is the ONLY score that truly reveals the size of the rack. When the human eye takes in the rack of a huge buck, the last thing it does is start deducting inches. If the good Lord put it there, it ought to count!
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Dec 4, 2014 19:06:09 GMT -5
So why does so many people knock the Buckmasters scoring system? That mess I just scrolled through gave me a headache.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Dec 4, 2014 19:11:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Dec 4, 2014 19:15:03 GMT -5
So why does so many people knock the Buckmasters scoring system? They don't include the inside spread in their scores, though they do include what they call a "composite score" to show it in the margin. If they would use their method of counting every inch the rack grew and the inside spread, their method would be perfect. There shouldn't be typical and non-typical categories, only what it grew plus inside spread. I don't foresee either B&C or P&Y going that route and doing away with their antiquated scoring system for one simple reason -- it would ruffle the feathers of the high-ranking entries when they were shuffled around.
|
|
|
Post by M4Madness on Dec 4, 2014 19:16:56 GMT -5
That's their only flaw. They say that it doesn't matter, but if you take a set of sheds and give them a 10" inside spread, then a 30" inside spread, the wider spread is the more impressive one, if you ask me.
|
|
|
Post by alduflux on Dec 5, 2014 0:08:12 GMT -5
Regarding scoring systems: I think it is important to understand that each system serves its own purpose in placing value on a deer. I think each scoring systems has its own merits. BTR is pure antler. There is merit in that. B @ C is a measure of symmetry or perhaps one could say how "pretty" a deer is. There is merit in that also.
Personally, I am a B @ C guy. I care more about how a deer looks on my wall then how much antler it has. I would take a perfect 140 any day over a 160 with tree branches for antlers.
A similar argument is which is more important for an athlete: height or weight? Both are different ways of measuring size and shape. The answer depends on if you want your athlete to be a Offensive lineman or a basketball center.
To each his own.
|
|
|
Post by johnc911 on Dec 5, 2014 4:05:42 GMT -5
That buck reminds me more of the Jordan buck than the Hanson buck. I have always liked the looks of the Jordan buck better. 206 1/8" with only 3 2/8" of deductions. I see about 12" of abnormal points in the pictures. Plus the side to side deductions. Still an amazing buck no matter what the numbers add up to be. The Jordan buck By far my favorite buck of all time !!
|
|
|
Post by johnc911 on Dec 5, 2014 4:06:58 GMT -5
This whole debate makes me want to shoot nothing but clean typicals henceforth! You started it lol
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Dec 5, 2014 8:58:50 GMT -5
This whole debate makes me want to shoot nothing but clean typicals henceforth! It makes me want to not let anyone with a tape measure come anywhere near a buck that I killed. That would be my plan!
|
|
|
Post by freedomhunter on Dec 5, 2014 10:08:16 GMT -5
I would have hidden that thing away with only a few close friends knowing that I killed it, along with a co. Really no reason to bring it out until it is officially scored.
|
|
|
Post by onebentarrow on Dec 5, 2014 12:50:15 GMT -5
That buck reminds me more of the Jordan buck than the Hanson buck. I have always liked the looks of the Jordan buck better. 206 1/8" with only 3 2/8" of deductions. I see about 12" of abnormal points in the pictures. Plus the side to side deductions. Still an amazing buck no matter what the numbers add up to be. The Jordan buck By far my favorite buck of all time !! My favorite buck My second favorite buck as I was there when he got it. I do not care who shoots.what, what method they use to score it, where they shot it. As long as it was legal and fair chase more power to them. After reading some of the comments in this thread (to me)they could have been taken from the civil war thread.he used this method no he used that method he was guided (like if your had more money than u knew what to do with u wouldn't) why do u care so much. It is JUST a deer (granted a big one) you did not kill it or are u just jealous that it was not you and your name is not gona be at the top of "The Book". I looked at the pictures a couple times and said "Wow great buck" then went on about my business. Nothing I say or do will change any of the facts about the Takeing or scoring of the deer so I moved on. Sorry about the rant Onebentarrow
|
|
|
Post by hornzilla on Dec 5, 2014 15:35:52 GMT -5
I personally think a score of a deer is about like a guide I had bear hunting once told me. He said he wouldn't weigh a bear any more for his hunters. Because everyone that killed there bear was perfectly happy with there 300 pounder. Then they weighted them and it was 125 they were disappointed.
|
|
|
Post by Sasquatch on Dec 7, 2014 10:30:52 GMT -5
Unbelievable deer,but like the numerous deer that are potentially bigger than the Hanson buck , it will have deductions. ( but who cares! ) The Hanson buck, like the Jordan before it, is the true freak because it has almost no deductions.
|
|
|
Post by zoltangoode on Dec 7, 2014 13:39:35 GMT -5
So why does so many people knock the Buckmasters scoring system? They don't include the inside spread in their scores, though they do include what they call a "composite score" to show it in the margin. If they would use their method of counting every inch the rack grew and the inside spread, their method would be perfect. It is interesting that Buckmasters do use their composite score (every inch plus spread) often when reporting on deer. Their online database displays it and it is "sortable" as well, even though the true BTR score does not include air. The composite score is also displayed on the hunter's wall certificate as well. I am not sure that it used to be shown years ago. A BTR official explained to me one time that "guys want the largest number, so we started showing it."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 1, 2015 14:46:57 GMT -5
The Gross Score is what actually tells you how many inches of Antler a buck actually has. The Net score gives you a score after man made deductions.
Here is a question, which Buck is larger ?
There are 2 Bucks that both gross score 150 inches. So they both have 150 inches of antler.
Now one buck has better symmetry and only 3 inches of deductions, and Net scores 147. The other buck has worse symmetry and has 10 inches of deductions. So it has a Net score of 140 inches.
Which buck is larger ? This is what a lot of people don't like about Net Score. It simply does not always show which buck is bigger.
|
|