Unfair antler scoring system?
11-19-2008, 06:56 PM
#11
Typical Buck
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 721
RE: Unfair antler scoring system?
I understand the OP's point completely. I've always thought it would be cool to have a secondary scoring system based on cc's of bone mass period. A water displacement measurment would show exactly how much bone mass each deer produced. It would give complete credit for the thickness and mass of each and every tine. While it wouldn't factor in symetry, I could give a rat's patooty about net score. The P&Y method would still satisfy that crowd.It would definately be aninteresting and revealing system.
11-19-2008, 06:57 PM
#12
Nontypical Buck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Milwaukee WI
Posts: 1,161
RE: Unfair antler scoring system?
ORIGINAL: gmil6184
You know that the quotation mark stands for inches right? So the scoring system is perfectly fair, a buck that has three times more bone on its head will have three times the score. If the fork horn in your example scored a 50" it would mean it has 50 inches of antler, if the 6 point in your example scored an 80" it means he has 30 inches more antler then the fork horn. Were you under the impression that the quotation mark stood for pounds (as in body weight)? If not I guess i really don't understand your complaint...elaborate please.
You know that the quotation mark stands for inches right? So the scoring system is perfectly fair, a buck that has three times more bone on its head will have three times the score. If the fork horn in your example scored a 50" it would mean it has 50 inches of antler, if the 6 point in your example scored an 80" it means he has 30 inches more antler then the fork horn. Were you under the impression that the quotation mark stood for pounds (as in body weight)? If not I guess i really don't understand your complaint...elaborate please.
I don't think you are visualizing what I'm saying. Let me give you a different example. A 12oz soda can measures about 8" around and is about 5 inches tall. If you increased the size of that can proportionately to make it a 24oz can, it certainly would not be 16" around and 10" tall because something like that would probably hold half a gallon which is 64oz.
Here's another: a guy who is 6ft tallwith aslim build probably weighs 160lbs. Another guy who is 6' tall and is 4 feet wide probably weighs 500lbs. If you are measuring in mere inches the skinny dude has a fighting chance. If you are measuring in pounds, he gets squashed.
Pertinent to antler scoring, I think that there's a whole lot of bone material underneath those inches of a 200" rack that outweighsa 100" by 3 fold yet does not have 3 fold the score. Anyone follow or am I totally off in my thinking?
11-19-2008, 07:50 PM
#13
Typical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: NORTHWEST PA
Posts: 717
RE: Unfair antler scoring system?
Why not get 4 measurements for the spike, thats its main beam right,
so the 10 points shouldn't get 5 measurements then right!!!!
can't please everyone all the time??????????????????
so the 10 points shouldn't get 5 measurements then right!!!!
can't please everyone all the time??????????????????
11-19-2008, 07:56 PM
#14
Typical Buck
Join Date: May 2005
Location: SE PA
Posts: 657
RE: Unfair antler scoring system?
I DO NOT have problems with deductions whatsoever. There are several aspects that go into calculating a bucks score mass/spread/tine and beam length......and SYMMETRY. It's not as if gross is completely ignored,the sysptem serves to reward the bucks that are symmetrical, just like it rewards those with tons of mass, length, ect.
As far as an alternative scoring system weight could never be an option because of the variety of sizes of the attached skull cap. However, a water-displacement system would be able to measure the exact amount of bone an animal had on its head. I believe, being as humans are an intelligent race, it would only take us a limited time til we were able to say "that bucks 18mm (the amount of water displaced)" the same way we have evolved to be able to look at a picture and instantly reply 130". However, this will never happen just a way to reward the deer for everything he grew.
As far as an alternative scoring system weight could never be an option because of the variety of sizes of the attached skull cap. However, a water-displacement system would be able to measure the exact amount of bone an animal had on its head. I believe, being as humans are an intelligent race, it would only take us a limited time til we were able to say "that bucks 18mm (the amount of water displaced)" the same way we have evolved to be able to look at a picture and instantly reply 130". However, this will never happen just a way to reward the deer for everything he grew.
11-19-2008, 08:11 PM
#16
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Where the ducks don't come no more
Posts: 4,420
RE: Unfair antler scoring system?
I think that this might be an issue if we routinely had spike and fork horn bucks qualifiying for P&Y or in my case B&C. In the case of B&C (for which I am a measurer), it takes one TERRIBLE 8 point whitetail to even qualify for awards.... and a truely world class 8 point to make all time. Honestly, I'm not 100% sure if more than a dozen have ever been entered. That picture of that huge Iowa 8pt that went around here a week or so ago.... that one will probably clear 170 net, if I recall his symettry correctly.
As to volumetric measurements, I think in my lifetime (granted I'm pretty young at almost 26) we will see the use of laser and computer technology to calculate total volume.
I think that if I shot a 170" deer and you told me you were going to take the finished mount and lower the top half into water I'd likely grit my teeth and roll up my sleeves to bet you that you didn't have a hair to do it with.... The only way you could do that is to have the horns separate from the skull.... and guess what.... soon as that horn is free from the skull plate or that skull plate splits..... can't score it. Personally, I'll take the current in place system anyday of the week until the laser systems shows up and replaces me and my masons slide and steel cable.
As to volumetric measurements, I think in my lifetime (granted I'm pretty young at almost 26) we will see the use of laser and computer technology to calculate total volume.
I think that if I shot a 170" deer and you told me you were going to take the finished mount and lower the top half into water I'd likely grit my teeth and roll up my sleeves to bet you that you didn't have a hair to do it with.... The only way you could do that is to have the horns separate from the skull.... and guess what.... soon as that horn is free from the skull plate or that skull plate splits..... can't score it. Personally, I'll take the current in place system anyday of the week until the laser systems shows up and replaces me and my masons slide and steel cable.
11-19-2008, 08:18 PM
#17
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location:
Posts: 1,324
RE: Unfair antler scoring system?
ORIGINAL: fingerz42
Think of it like this... A spike gets credit for 4 H measurements when it really should only get 1. I think Hoytail is correct on his thought process... those smaller bucks get alot more credit than what they are worth...
Think of it like this... A spike gets credit for 4 H measurements when it really should only get 1. I think Hoytail is correct on his thought process... those smaller bucks get alot more credit than what they are worth...
11-20-2008, 10:12 AM
#19
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 7,208
RE: Unfair antler scoring system?
The only thing I hate is deductions. If you want to show or reward symmetry, have that as a separate number. 150" with a symmetry rating. (1 being 0 deductions & the farther away from one, the more asymmetrical)
11-20-2008, 10:19 AM
#20
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Plum Boro, PA
Posts: 1,423
RE: Unfair antler scoring system?
ORIGINAL: rybohunter
The only thing I hate is deductions. If you want to show or reward symmetry, have that as a separate number. 150" with a symmetry rating. (1 being 0 deductions & the farther away from one, the more asymmetrical)
The only thing I hate is deductions. If you want to show or reward symmetry, have that as a separate number. 150" with a symmetry rating. (1 being 0 deductions & the farther away from one, the more asymmetrical)
I like deer with deductions