Boone and Crockett OR BTR ..which is more fair?
03-10-2005, 06:05 AM
#11
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: fort mcmurray alberta canada
Posts: 5,667
RE: Boone and Crockett OR BTR ..which is more fair?
I'm pretty sure that B&C doesn't add the spread into the score either
...arnt you getting a double score for the same bone considering that the length of both main beams are what makes the spread??
I myself use the B&C scoring system because it is the most generally accepted scoring method.
03-10-2005, 06:18 AM
#12
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Jackson,Michigan
Posts: 953
RE: Boone and Crockett OR BTR ..which is more fair?
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".
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".
03-10-2005, 07:03 PM
#14
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Pirate on the river Saskatchewan
Posts: 2,167
RE: Boone and Crockett OR BTR ..which is more fair?
ORIGINAL: stubblejumper
Longer main beams does not always result in a wider spread.
Longer main beams does not always result in a wider spread.
03-10-2005, 07:12 PM
#15
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,846
RE: Boone and Crockett OR BTR ..which is more fair?
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
slayer
03-10-2005, 08:54 PM
#17
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: fort mcmurray alberta canada
Posts: 5,667
RE: Boone and Crockett OR BTR ..which is more fair?
I think the Buckmasters scoring system is not near as credible as B&C
03-10-2005, 09:49 PM
#18
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Saskatchewan Canada
Posts: 6,921
RE: Boone and Crockett OR BTR ..which is more fair?
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.
03-11-2005, 03:59 PM
#19
Typical Buck
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 590
RE: Boone and Crockett OR BTR ..which is more fair?
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 ...
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 ...
03-11-2005, 06:33 PM
#20
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Port Neches, Texas
Posts: 5,514
RE: Boone and Crockett OR BTR ..which is more fair?
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!
"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!