Spread is counted in the score.

Longer main beams does not always result in a wider spread.


I myself use the B&C scoring system because it is the most generally accepted scoring method.

O.K you got me. I don't think P&Y & B&C are the fairest , side to side diffs being a deduction. (i.e. shorter main or tine on one side) But the system was desinged for
symmetry or typical. With that being said why do they still deduct in a non typ. category for a side to side or tine length diffs. The spread width I just don't know how they came up with it. We could pick any of these systems apart ,but a true trophy has nothing to do with a "SCORE".

I agree with you Recurve ...the "Trophy" is in the eye of the beholder ..... or something like that !

I agree, main beams can be very long but if they don't widen out your hooped on your spread score.

I think the Buckmasters scoring system is not near as credible as B&C. B&C is THE scoring system. it's worked for all these years without a problem. Sure, there are alot of deductions for typicals. I know in Alberta they had problems with the Zaft buck because Pope and Young ruled a tine non typical whiched kicked the score down considerably. However, the province of Alberta recognized it at the score before the deduction. Either way, i pretty much think you're not going to get any sympathy from me Doc Death. none whatsoever.

slayer

DeerSlayer I do not recall anywhere in this posting asking for any sympathy ... you mind explaining that remark?

Very true.It is my opinion that buckmasters only came up with their own scoring system to gain publicity for themselves.

Without a doubt the B&C/P&Y is credible and most accepted scoring system for scoring animals. The fact they use an inside spread into the measurement doesn't bother me, nor do I buy into the idea it makes it less credible as their min. standards are higher than BTR...so really it becomes somewhat moot. I see no need to even consider the BTR scoring system and agree with Stubblejumper, seeing it as nothing more than publicity for JB/Buckmasters.

The B&C system works for me, although I'm not a fanatic on this issue. 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. (I shot an antelope a couple years ago that I knew was good, but I had backpacked him out 3 miles to the car before I began to realize I had a B&C contender. He was super massive but just barely 14" long.)

My own wildcard system would be simple water-displacement. How many cubic inches of volume does the rack possess, that's the whole system. (Of course that still leaves out spread, so I'm going to stick with B&C for now.) Maybe we could add some mass measures to the B&C system. How about measuring circumference of the G1, G2, G3 ...

Regardless of our mutal dislike of JB/BTR, their system is a decent system, in that it scores
"bone only," no deducts, or "air measurements!"
I'd rather go with P&Y, or B&C though. They are basically the same scoring systems, and they are time honored! Most people know what you are talking about with P&Y, and B&C! That alone makes them better systems. And I have to agree, a 20" rack looks more impressive than the same buck with a 15" spread!