Biggest Typical

Aren't there sets of wild sheds that have beat Milo's I know I recall seeing them in past issues of N.A.W.

Dean

richieoo33 I must have seen different pictures

B&C scoring was developed by one guy's opinion...Prentiss Gray... as to his idea of measuring. The Boone and Crockett club also emphasizes conservation of hunting land and fair chase so that would take care of any high fence animals. As far as measuring antlers, anyone could come up with their own way of how they think a rack should be measured and if it is accepted by enough people, that would become the standard. Maybe the high fence industry should develope their own measuring system.

Their actually are a set of sheds bigger discovered by none other than the great Tim Condict in Nebraska, I could tell the story but he tells it much better, he has a replica that I held WOW!! The problem with a new scoring system is that most hunters are only familiar with one system and if you try to sell them a hunt based on your own scoring system, good luck. I don't know if the only reason for the SCI scoring system is just the suport of our industry, it has alot to do with higher scores. If a new scoring system came out that supported our industry but the deer didn't score as high, who would jump on that system. Just a thought

Sam - You do not need to explain it to me as another friend has and I understand it now. I still find it hard to beleive that you would have to deduct the same inches 2 times from the same rack. So, in short.... you are penalized (x 2) for every inch that is non-typical. So, I guess Hardcore is 361" Gross SCI, 295" Typical SCI, 262" Net Typical SCI and about 15" Net Typical B&C



Mr Johnson - As far as I understand, SCI gross is the same as B&C gross for the most part.



I have heard others suggest a separate scoring system for deer farmers. I don't know how we could get that implemented.



Are gross SCI and gross B&C pretty much the same thing?



I didn't think you could get higher scores with SCI! And they ARE supportive of our industry. B & C CLEARY IS NOT! Check out their web-site.

Holly, gross SCI an gross B&C are pretty close for the most part but there can be big difference when a rack has a lot of webbing or palmation.



Also Hardcore gross and net SCI would be the same SCI does not deduct for side to side difference.

I am a SCI scorer but do not no much about B&C. But I don't think that with B&C that you would deduct the extra's 2X just once.



you would take the gross score then deduct the extra's giving you the gross typical score then deduct the side to side difference's for your net typical score.

I could be wrong but that is my understanding of it.



With that said I still don't think a buck like Hardcore would be excepted as a typical with B&C because of the % of non-typical points, but he could be entered as a typical with SCI because they let the owner of the buck choose how they want it entered. (typical or non-typical) you can only choose one

Holly I am assuming when you are listing Hardcore's 295" typical SCI score and 262" net typical score you are discarding the T7, T8, and the T9. Actually Harcore would not loose the T7, T8, and T9 as a SCI typical. All tines classified as typical do not get deducted. Nor is there a side to side deduction on the typical tines. You simple discard the non typical tines. They are however recorded in the supplemental information section on the score sheet. Also B&C does not subtract inches more than once.



Matt K, The largest typical sheds were found on the Good Night Ranch in kansas in 1992. They scored 217 4/8" B&C here is a picture.



Randy were typing at the same time but your one typing finger is faster than mine. B&C also lets you choose either way.

thanks Paul I was not sure on that.

Holly (and others),



You do not deduct the extras twice. Only once. But you NEVER add them in to start with.



As an example say a buck is 250 Gross SCI and has a 200 inch typical frame and the 200 inch typical frame has 20 inches of side to side deductions. What does he Net Boone and Crocket?



The 250 is NEVER used. You start with the 200, subtract the 20 inches for side to side differences, and then subtract the 50 inches of extras which means the buck will NET about 130 TYPICAL Boone and Crocket. Of course a buck like that will be scored as a Non-Typical. They even deduct for that. You would take the 200 and SUBTRACT the differences and then add back the extra points. So he would NET 230 NON-TYPICAL.



I was quite envolved in Boone and Crocket at one time. Now I call it Boone and Crock of Sh%$#.



REMEMBER, THE ONLY REASON WE ARE EVEN TALKING ABOUT IT IS BECAUSE THE TOPIC CAME UP OF A CLEAN, EVEN TYPICAL. TO MEASURE "CLEANESS AND TYPICAL" THE BOONE AND CROCKET "NET TYPICAL" MEASURING SYSTEM CAN BE USED. Since it penalizes for any extras, it must have been developed with the clean even typical in mind.



We all agree that Hardcore is the one of the best typical deer ever raised. (Thats why we A.I'ed with him last fall) But he would be entered as a Non-Typical (as would Maxbo) in the Boone and Crocket Record books (if allowed).



Holly was nice enough to send me the Hardcore Scoresheet. I'll play with it and give you his scores in the different systems: I'll post it as SCI Non-typical (This is the score that most breeders use), SCI Typical, Boone and Crocket Net Typical and Boone and Crocket Net Non-Typical.



Again, I think Hardcore is one of the best deer ever raised. The only point here is that we have gone a very different road than the clean typicals like the World Record Milo Hansen Buck. Our industry is simply not geared toward the even, clean typical buck. Some are breeding for it, but most (including myself) are breeding for that typical frame underneath (like Hardcore)...... But it is interesting to see if there is a buck out there that can beat the Hansen buck for that clean, even scoring system called "Boone and Crocket Net Typical"



I'll work on it,



Sam

Why not use the SCI scoring as the standard.....forget about the B&C since there is really no good way to compare wild deer to high fence deer.... and then add a volume measurement in cubic inches for use among the industry to get a real feel as to the size and mass.

I'd still like some more clarification on SCI scoring. I thought read something on here one time where they said if a buck has more than 5% of his score non-typical you add that 5% back into the score. (not sure if it was 5% or not, but I know I saw something about that on here) Can someone educate us that aren't that familiar with SCI?

Sam I agree one hundred percent. My motive for this thread was that a friend of mine bet me that there were no pen deer that would out score the Hanson buck net typical B&C. Its not looking good for me.

Hardcore's scores:



Non-Typical SCI - 361 3/8 (WOW)



Typical SCI - 361 3/8 minus 66 1/8 = 295 2/8 (WOW)



Boone and Crocket NET Non-Typical - 295 2/8 minus 32 4/8 (Side to Side differences) plus 66 1/8 (extras) = 318 7/8



Boone and Crocket NET Typical - 295 2/8 minus 32 4/8 (Side to Side differences) minus 66 2/8 (extras) = 186 5/8



Big CLEAN typicals are very rare in nature and even rarer in the breeding pens!



This is just to make a point about big clean typicals. Another good point is that Boone and Crocket sucks at reflecting what a deer really looks like. I vote Hardcore the number one deer of all time! Thanks Holly and David for such a great deer!



LETS SUPPORT SCI!



Sam

I was just looking over the SCI scoring sheet and from one I can tell on the non-typical score sheet, you basically get a true gross score with 4 circumferences and no deductions. Is this a fair statement? If so, that is pretty much how I've always scored my deer and just put B&C after it.

Steve here is a copy of the SCI typical scoring instructions from my manual. Hopefully you can read it. Below the skull it reads. Antlers with non-typical tines will be accepted as typical only if the total length of non- typical tines amounts to less than 3% of the typical score.

SCI and Boone and Crocket are very similar in the way the measurements are made. The only exception occurs when you encounter a lot of palmation. I won't go into SCI's new rules for that.



On deer without palmation the numbers should be about the same. The only differences are what you do with the measurements. We buy and sell based on Non-Typical SCI which some would also term gross B&C with "No deductions". Those numbers should be the same. On Hardcore, they would both be 361 3/8.



When palmation occurs, you open up a whole new can of worms! SCI decided to give deer the credit thay deserve for growing the extra antler. The rules and system are a little to complicated to talk about here. So without going into the new rules lets just say that palmated deer will score more on the SCI system than on the Boone and Crocket system.

Paul I still think the antlers from nebraska are top I think they were estimated at 218 1/8 ( inside spread is a guess) regardless both huge and worth the price of admission to hear Tim tell the story.

Sam now if that don't show that B&C system needs a major overhall I don't know what does. Hardcore's one side score's around 186". Matt they were cheating the spread.

Thanks for clearing that up for me guys.

One more thing on the scoring systems. Buckmasters, Pope&Young and B&C all score exactly the same way with the exception that Buckmasters does not count inside spread. The only thing with SCI is that on a non typical there is a lot more room for judgement call. The rest of them are cut and dry. Recently at our SCI class we scored some non typical antlers about four different sets. Each time we broke into groups we never had two groups which came up with the same scores. (Sam and Darren just to let you know our group was right).