you're "rule" doesn't apply when a hunter is hunting a specific animal imo. it doesn't matter if there are low deer densities or not. if the animal is there and it is being hunted specifically, then it becomes one vs. one. no matter what the deer population is imo...agree or not?

bye the way, excellent post SA

Doesn't this smiley look like Chuck?
I think if you kill a world record you can say and do pretty much what you want too.
Elkshed

As you say, Primos and Jordan don't have any world records. Neither do Carlton and Jones and Lapinski, etc., etc., etc. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm why? Just for the sake of argument, for the sake of fair thinking, since none of us really know Chuck Adams, isn't cheating a real possibility?

Think about it - 5 world records, 112 PY entries. Wow!

A basic scientific principle in my own simple words is: a primitive, unrefined system displays great variance, while an advanced, refined system displays little variance. Why did Babe Ruth hit more homeruns in a season than entire competing ballclubs? Because baseball in the '20s was a primitive, unrefined system, especially for homerun hitters. Barry Bonds, even in his 73 homer season never came close to surpassing even one team in homers, because baseball in the '90s is highly refined.

I didn't know Chuck Adams from Creepi Crespi 3 years ago when I picked up bowhunting, but when I read that record - 5 world records and 112 PY entries - it immediately brought up some questions for me. If you told me a guy compiled that record back in the pioneering days of bowhunting, back in the time of Howard Hill and Fred Bear, I'd buy that, no problem. Bowhunting was unrefined and underdeveloped in that time, so you would expect a high variance environment that could allow one guy to set 5 world records and put 112 animals into the books.

But I argue that modern bowhunting is not a primitive system. You've dozen of pure professionals out there, and literally thousands of semipros. Look at the advances in technology and game management and hunting tactics. Modern bowhunting is a highly advanced system, the kind of system that should not display the kind of wild variance reflected by Adams' records.

For this reason, I suspect Chuck Adams of cutting some corners.

Chuck using a compound DOES help tremendously in achieving the Super Slam .... you want to turn this into a compound bashing thread ? I'm all for it !

But bottom line .... Jordan was Jordan because he had a natural gift, he had a desire to use it, a determination to succeed and a will to win.

Without any of those 4 strengths he would have been an average player going through the motions saying how he could have been the next Dr J if only .... and then made excuses for it.

Chuck is bowhuntings Jordan. He is to bowhunting what Lance is to cycling - an icon of someone who succeeds like the rest of us only dream to.

Love Chuck. Worship the trophies of Chuck. Embrace Chuck.




Love Chuck

what principle is this? what kind of background do you have? i'm just curious, that's all...

Chuck, was already a legend when I started bowhunting in 87 and had already put together a pretty impressive list of accomplishments at that time and was well on his way to the Super Slam.

Dirt2,

Maybe that is why you're suspicious, but I think you have it backwards. Bowhunting is very unrefined, especially when compared to baseball in the 1920's. Those were teams and individuals with very specific and similar goals. Now if we were talking about the likihood of a good hunter doing what Chuch has done, by just showing up at hunting ranches, I could see your point, but as far as I know Chuck Adams may be the only person who has ever had his exact goals. There is no way in the world that you could accomplish what he has done, without very specific and well thought out goals. The liklihood is that very few, if any, have even tried to do what he has done. With the Babe, there were hundreds trying to do the exact thing at the exact time, and couldn't. Besides, some things just don't follow the rules. Like with the Babe and Lance Armstrong. Try explaining Cal Ripkens consecutive-games-played steak or Joe DiMaggio's 56 game hitting streak. Sometimes people surpass what is considered possible. Do you really want to try to spread ill-will on a person because of some rule, that you may not even have right?


Silent, thanks...

I wouldn't compare Bill Jordan with Chuck Adams. I've seen the videos, I would guess he doesn't kill as many trophies as chuck does because he just isn't that good. I'm not saying he sucks or anything. I'm sure he is a way better hunter than I am, but I don't think he is as good as chuck adams in any aspect of the sport.

On the other hand, and in defense of Jordan and others like him, they are successful buisiness men. They have an entirely different life and goals. They have money which helps, but they are busy running a company instead of out 365 days a year chasing down a record. There goal is to make money by producing videos and camo clothing, which they are VERY good at in my opinion. And, you have to remember all these hunts they go on, they are not by themselves, they have at least one camera man with them, if not more on some hunts. That cuts the odds down quite a bit.

And as far as chucks shooting ability, I think it's much better than average. Didn't he compete at one time or something. I don't know this for sure, but I thought someone told me this once. From what I understand he is an excellent marksman on top of being a great hunter. As is Ted Nugent, I don't really like the guy, but I won't deny he has skill beyond what I could dream of having with a bow and arrow.

Paul

well, since someone brought it up...

i can't even begin to imagine how you are trying to s-t-r-e-t-c-h this pseuso-scientific "principle" to fit your horn envy.


i mean, seriously, please define "system," "refined" and "variance." how can you define system in such a way to encompass bowhunting, baseball, etc? by your own "principle," you've already defined bowhunting as "unrefined" if you are considering chuck's world records, p&y's, etc. to be displaying "great variance." i mean, huh? help me out here...the babe ruth analogy, i just don't get...you're calling present day baseball refined...here is a stat. randy johnson has pitched more perfect games than any other pitcher in major league baseball over the past 4 and 1/2 seasons combined! that's thousands and thousands of games...so, now by your principle, is baseball considered unrefined as far as pitching is concerned? or can we explain this "wild variance" as cheating? i just don't get it...it seems to be a convenient (although confusing) way to disguise horn envy to me...

give chuck his props...don't tear him down for his accomplishments...