Biggest Typical

I wasn't aware that B&S was so much against us as to be so blatant in their hatred. That is why I posted what I did above.

But if the info enlightens some about how B&S is towards us I am glad I made the post.



I never claimed to be a scoring expert. I don't feel I do a disservice to my clients and fellow deer farmers because I don't use MY scores in my advertising. I only use estimated scores on the hoof from people I trust until such time I can get an official score done. That is why I asked people this year to come see my buck to help me with the estimates.

And by the way I don't know if anyone noticed, but the estimates on Updraft were 240" to 250"

The final official score came in at 268 4/8"

I proudly say we didn't give inflated scores and then never give a real score later



Also unlike a few in the industry I don't go around saying some buck don't score what the owner says it does. Why not? Because I am not a scoring expert.



I have considered taking a scoring class. But opted against it and here is why.

First off I won't score my own deer and advertise the score. I prefer to have an unbiased person do the measuring and use those numbers.

Secondly there are too many "judgment calls" that come with scoring some bucks. Therefore I won't leave myself in a position where someone can doubt my judgment in the scoring of their buck, or a buck owned by someone else.



I don't think it is wise for everyone to try and fly themselves somewhere on vacation. I think it is better to let the professionals do it. Even if they fall asleep while doing it

Come on now people that was FUNNY! Lighten up everyone!

Roger, I say take the scoring class and just keep doing it the way you have been. You never know when the knowlege or the confidence that comes with that knowledge will come in handy. I know that I've taken it in the rear because I didn't have the confidence to say "hey, thats not right". Knowledge is power!!!



Maybe its time we came up with our own scoring system. Here's how I'd do it if it were up to me.



Pure typical, scored just like the Hansen buck.

Semi-typical, all typical points count, no deduction for side to side or extras.

Semi-non-typical, typical frame with lots of extras, score everything no deductions

Non-typical, antler with no real main frame, measure using water displacement



I'd also not add in the spread , but leave it as a side note. It's important but air is not antler.



Its not perfect, but it covers all the bases better than B&C .

I did that for our deer association in Saskatchewan, made score sheets ..the whole nine yards,

Due to my articles in Whitetail Heartbeat concerning antler scores I have recieved a lot of private feedback on various scoring issues and from some very knowledgable sources. It is my understanding that the only difference between B&C and SCI on non-typicals is that SCI does not deduct the differences in the typical portion of the rack. (I agree with this approach for what its worth) In fact I recieved an email from someone who wishes to remain anonymous but who is definetly "in the know" who informed me that the SCI score for a buck should be the same as the B&C score without deductions. Here is the email with some personal info deleted as this person is one of the "big boys" and wishes to remain anonymous -



Read your article on Fraudulent antler scores. Glad to see someone

finally speaking out and putting something like that in print. One

thing that I think may be incorrect in your article is how some

people use SCI scoring to get higher scores. I have always thought

that gross B+C and gross SCI should be exactly the same. There is no

difference and no legitimate way of scoring the antlers any different

to achieve a higher score. I just hunted with a guy that served on

the board at Safari Club International. He is an official scorer for

both SCI and B+C and he agreed with me that there should be no

difference in the gross scores for the 2 scoring systems. In my

opinion what it boils down to is people are taking the rules and

interpretations and stretching them in ways that are not legitimate.



Great article though. Hopefully it opens some eyes.





I hope this clears some confusion up about the 2 systems. I know I have learned some things since I began writing on fraudulent scores. I am left with one big glaring question though- Why would anyone complain about me writing about this issue and trying to bring honesty and integrity to this industry? and for those who want to complain, why arent you complaining with a signed letter to the magazine that could be printed??? Hmmm

Don I agree there should be no difference in the gross scores. I would like to add though that the higher of the scores isn't always the wrong score. I have been to a few SCI classes and you would be amazed at the people that goto and take the class with out reading or understanding the rule book. In my opinion there should be a writen test and per scored antler they have to measure within a presentage of the score to become offical scorer. Just my 2 cents. Everyone needs to be on the same page. If were not we all look foolish.

Don, you are right but only with the typical's. SCI will give you a higher score on the non-typical's the way that SCI scores palmation and webbing is different then B&C. Shoot me a e-mail with your # if you would like me to explan it to you.

Steve, SCI does give a writen test to be came a offical scorer and to be come an master scorer you have a hands on test scoring 25 mounts and have to be within 3% on each mount.

The writen test is a joke. You get to use you rule book and you take it at home. If you don't pass the test its just sad. As far as being a master measurer I think that is a great idea. I think they should do something similar to become an official scorer.

I guess I'm a bit confused?????????????? Many say that this vein thing- figure 8 thing on SCI allows for taking some tines back basically twice. I do not score that way on my farm or at the ranch but that seems to be the way many bucks are coming out bigger..........If there is no difference then whats the difference between BC and SCI systems?????????? One master scorer says this the other says that.....soso confused or is it my learning disability? Seems to me the SCI system is too open to subjective interpretation or personal interpretation.......Not cut and dry enough!

I Support the SCI organization but score my deer B&C. It is nice to have both scores available. I personaly agree with the way B&C scoring system works so you know there is no tines split at top and being measured 2 or 3 times on the same point.



Set aside from that check this deer out. Earlier it was posted that no one thinks there is a deer out there this year that will beat the Hanson Buck B&C Net Typical. This buck has a true B&C score of 218" NET Typical. He lost his G6 on the one side with the net score and had very little balance deductions. He is completely clean and symetrical with only 7" balance decutions includeing his G6. Hard to see how big this deer actually is in the pictures. Every one who has held his antlers has said that he is way bigger then the pictures show.

Wow , now that is one really big typical ,and with all the talk of body size man this deer has both glad to see someone finally grew a really big typical buck .So whats the inside spread ? looks to be mid 20's and just how old is this buck , he is not some 6 or 7 year old Texas deer is he?He is just so big in body and frame ,again wow.

What happened to "Shock n Awe" being the new record typical, as posted on Whitetail Exchange Wednesday Night Sales the past several weeks and now nothing is being said at all. Is this deer going to to be in the NADeFA typical scoring contest?

Holy Cow, who is this???? (referring back to the buck a few posts back)

Why are some people measuring both split tines all the way down to the bases (beams)?

When my bucks were scored the split tines weren't measured that way.

They decided which tine was the "mainframe point" and measured that one from the beam to the tip. The other point, (or the other split) was measured from the tip to a point level with the edge of the main point. If that explanation made sense.



By the way.

Great looking buck a few posts back.

Has anyone measured a rack using water displacement? It would be interesting to know what they measured in cubic inches.

I realize that. I would just be curious how different bucks would compare when you also included the water displacment measurement. That way, similar looking racks would be easy to tell which was bigger. I have no idea what the cubic inches on a decent sized rack would be.

Rocking H- He is a 3yr old so he is still a baby when talking about typicals. He was about 23 inches i beleive inside. He is all northern Genetics He has Larry, Dreemer, Flip, and max's sister in the pedigree. He is a combo of Clean typicals on top with blood flow on the bottom. He also has a womb brother that is a nice typical and a 7/8ths brother that is big and typical. This breeding has proven to produce big typicals 3 times on one farm.



STDF- I actually own Shock n Awe and Rambo (The buck in the photos). We was estimateing that Shock n Awe was bigger then Rambo. When we scored Shock n Awe we found that he was the biggest Net Typical ever raised. Knowing Rambo was huge we still thought Shock n Awe was a little bigger Net Typical. When talking about clean typicals I knew both bucks were special, but my goodness Rambo was huge! When I walked up to him I couldnt believe it. I thought it was impossible to getWe had him down for the first time on the 22nd when collecting.



Also we are planning on entering Shock n Awe and Rambo into the NEDeFA contest



Predator 3- Shoot me an Email so i can attach you the score sheet to look at. For some reason I can't get the actual score sheet on deerfarmer.