ORIGINAL: Dirt2
The B&C system works for me. I do think spread should be a component of the system, but I can see an argument against the B&C deduction system.
Personally, I've always thought the serious shortfall of the B&C system is how it deals with mass. It really shortchanges mass for deer and elk, but oddly, for antelope it just about makes mass the whole ballgame.
Maybe we could add some mass measures to the B&C system. How about measuring circumference of the G1, G2, G3 ...
My sentiments exactly (sorry for the trim-job on your post Dirt2).
I vehemently agree with mass of points factoring into the equation, I mean, why should a pencil-thin tine score the same as a tine 2+ inches in circumference? Yes, I know the "H" measurements (circumference of main beams taken at several places for those in the dark) are regarded to account for this quandary...but they fall way short. And scrap
any deductions regarding Non-Typicals. In fact, I discussed this very issue with a B&C Rep. on several occasions.
There is nothing wrong with improving on a system or a design, after all...I like the new wheels better compared to the old.
Bo