Score this deer... Part 1 in a series.
12-22-2007, 01:18 PM
#22
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Central Minnesota
Posts: 9,445
RE: Score this deer... Part 1 in a series.
ORIGINAL: FRALEY
B&C will now include the gross score in the booksso you get the whole picture with only the net score of course counting.
B&C will now include the gross score in the booksso you get the whole picture with only the net score of course counting.
ORIGINAL: Schultzy
Until they change there scoring system everything should be net like they have it. Gross doesn't mean a darn thing when it comes to P@Y or B@C. Like it or not thats the way it is and I don't see it changing.
Until they change there scoring system everything should be net like they have it. Gross doesn't mean a darn thing when it comes to P@Y or B@C. Like it or not thats the way it is and I don't see it changing.
12-22-2007, 02:44 PM
#23
Site Buck Guru
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Racine, Wisconsin
Posts: 5,922
RE: Score this deer... Part 1 in a series.
The gross score tells the true size of the buck. The net score is is doubling the smallest measurements of each side then subtracting the abnormal points. You don't get an accurate picture of the bucks true size.
Here's a 115" net buck, 9 points. Sounds like a decent 2 1/2. then when you see it in person and realize that there's 138" of horn on its head and it dressed at 220 lbs and was 5 1/2, then you see that the gross score more accurately describes the deers true size.
Here's a 115" net buck, 9 points. Sounds like a decent 2 1/2. then when you see it in person and realize that there's 138" of horn on its head and it dressed at 220 lbs and was 5 1/2, then you see that the gross score more accurately describes the deers true size.
12-22-2007, 03:01 PM
#24
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Indiana (southern)
Posts: 6,146
RE: Score this deer... Part 1 in a series.
Is that doubling also Greg [8D]
sorry, i could not resist!! LOL!!
sorry, i could not resist!! LOL!!
ORIGINAL: GregH
The gross score tells the true size of the buck. The net scoreis isdoubling the smallest measurements of each side then subtracting the abnormal points. You don't get an accurate picture of the bucks true size.
Here's a 115" net buck, 9 points. Sounds like a decent 2 1/2. then when you see it in person and realize that there's 138" of horn on its head and it dressed at 220 lbs and was 5 1/2, then you see that the gross score more accurately describes the deers true size.
The gross score tells the true size of the buck. The net scoreis isdoubling the smallest measurements of each side then subtracting the abnormal points. You don't get an accurate picture of the bucks true size.
Here's a 115" net buck, 9 points. Sounds like a decent 2 1/2. then when you see it in person and realize that there's 138" of horn on its head and it dressed at 220 lbs and was 5 1/2, then you see that the gross score more accurately describes the deers true size.
12-22-2007, 03:09 PM
#26
Dominant Buck
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location:
Posts: 21,043
RE: Score this deer... Part 1 in a series.
So what would the gross be on that buck in GregH's photo be.....as a non-typical? As a typical?
Greg...you say the buck in your photo has 138" of bone on his head. Is that his "gross"? Only reason I ask is.....why can't the buck in Scott's example get credit for every inch of antler on his "gross"? I honestly don't know.
What's the difference in the "gross" on that buck.....and "gross" on the one in Scott's photos? Why would we not add the abnormal points in Scott's to get it's non-typical "gross"?
Just trying to understand.
Greg...you say the buck in your photo has 138" of bone on his head. Is that his "gross"? Only reason I ask is.....why can't the buck in Scott's example get credit for every inch of antler on his "gross"? I honestly don't know.
What's the difference in the "gross" on that buck.....and "gross" on the one in Scott's photos? Why would we not add the abnormal points in Scott's to get it's non-typical "gross"?
Just trying to understand.
12-22-2007, 03:09 PM
#27
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Central Minnesota
Posts: 9,445
RE: Score this deer... Part 1 in a series.
ORIGINAL: GregH
The gross score tells the true size of the buck. The net score is is doubling the smallest measurements of each side then subtracting the abnormal points. You don't get an accurate picture of the bucks true size.
Here's a 115" net buck, 9 points. Sounds like a decent 2 1/2. then when you see it in person and realize that there's 138" of horn on its head and it dressed at 220 lbs and was 5 1/2, then you see that the gross score more accurately describes the deers true size.
The gross score tells the true size of the buck. The net score is is doubling the smallest measurements of each side then subtracting the abnormal points. You don't get an accurate picture of the bucks true size.
Here's a 115" net buck, 9 points. Sounds like a decent 2 1/2. then when you see it in person and realize that there's 138" of horn on its head and it dressed at 220 lbs and was 5 1/2, then you see that the gross score more accurately describes the deers true size.
12-22-2007, 03:14 PM
#28
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Central Minnesota
Posts: 9,445
RE: Score this deer... Part 1 in a series.
You add the abnormal points to the net score of the typical part of the rack to get the non-typical score. I think I explained that right. I don't know why otherwise GMMAT why they do it like they do. Its just the way it is.
12-22-2007, 03:46 PM
#30
Dominant Buck
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location:
Posts: 21,043
RE: Score this deer... Part 1 in a series.
Greg...you say the buck in your photo has 138" of bone on his head. Is that his "gross"? Only reason I ask is.....why can't the buck in Scott's example get credit for every inch of antler on his "gross"? I honestly don't know.
If greg's photo has his deer getting credit for every inch of antler on his head.....why can't the one Scott pictured? Why do we have to subtract the abnormal points? Doesn't he get credit for them in his "gross"?