B&C and P&Y Scoring (not fair)
09-24-2012, 06:35 AM
#11
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,358
They are private organizations that can do what they like. They decided that perfect symmetry is important. They get to set the rules. I think they did give in when non-typical was added (assuming it was after the orginal rules).
While I agree that I like to measure every inch and I don't see a big 8 as better than a big 9, I also don't really care about P&Y or B&C record books. They don't show the animla off but the hunter. If they are for the animal then they wouldn't list the hunter.
While I agree that I like to measure every inch and I don't see a big 8 as better than a big 9, I also don't really care about P&Y or B&C record books. They don't show the animla off but the hunter. If they are for the animal then they wouldn't list the hunter.
09-24-2012, 12:52 PM
#12
Spike
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Southern IL
Posts: 41
trust me i agree cuz i shot a but that grossed 158 5/8 but net was 125 1/8 cuz it had a broken G2 and wasnt perfict and it kinda pissed me off but everytime i look at it about my fire place i still see a 158 even tho the paper dont say that
09-24-2012, 03:09 PM
#13
Typical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 575
That's why I think the weight of a rack is much more indicative of the size than even the gross score would suggest. I am not real familiar with the Buck Master scoring system, but B&C and P&Y do not take into account the mass of the tines themselves, so there is bone not being accounted for even in the gross score. As an example, I have seen both the Jordan Buck (former world record typical) and the Hanson Buck (current world record typical) in person and the Jordan Buck is more impressive because of the sheer mass of the entire rack including the tines themselves. While the Hanson Buck is surely impressive, it looks spindly compared to the Jordan Buck. While I am not sure, I would bet that there is more actual bone in the Jordan rack than the Hanson rack. Just some food for thought.
09-24-2012, 05:02 PM
#14
Fork Horn
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Huntsville, Arkansas
Posts: 249
we have to step back and look at it from the point of time in which these scoring organizations started. it is my belief that at the time they were started most hunters favored a symmetrical rack. but now alot more are favoring the all inchs score policy. that is why there are so many organizations now. B&C and P&Y have been around so long i doubt they ever go anywhere.
not to highjack your post..
do you think the spread should be added into the score? it is not inchs of bone.
not to highjack your post..
do you think the spread should be added into the score? it is not inchs of bone.
09-25-2012, 07:32 PM
#15
Fork Horn
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Sharon,Tn
Posts: 134
I also killed a buck that grossed 161 5/8 and netted 137 3/8 because of deductions. Buck field dressed 240lb was aged at 7 1/2 years old. A great mature deer. He has all kinds of character , I feel very blessed to have been able to take him, but like you, it just irks me to no end. I still see a great deer when I see him, then again when I hear someone say they took a 160 class deer, you know just what it is they have taken, especially if it is after deductions.
