That is why I strongly dislike net scoring. I am much more interested in the gross score. If they grew it showed be scored!
Is there truly a flaw in B&C’s scoring system or do bigger numbers simply sound better to the majority of hunters?
We, as humans, possess an inborn trait to create standards to live by. Most are set for us, but some come from within. And like it or not, B&C’s standards were benchmarked in 1950.
Man has always upheld symmetry as a thing of beauty and balance. This undoubtedly was part of B&C’s original motivation for rankings in the typical category. Not to pit trophy hunters against non-trophy hunters or hold “net” scores in higher regard than “gross” scores or vice versa.
Difference of opinion over B&C’s scoring in the non-typical category escalates dramatically. The big question: Why rank abnormal antler growth and deduct side-to-side symmetry differences on the basic frame? Why not allow the buck it's total inches? Should non-typical scores reflect frame deductions or should they be ranked on their total inches?
This dispute over scores is the very reason that the Buckmasters scoring system was created back in the 1980s and is one of the main reasons why
B&C has chosen to list gross score in future publications.
Case in point: Everyone is untitled to their own opinion, and how you choose to recognize an animal's final score is completely up to you.
It is just a number, and regardless what that number might be, I personally wouldn't let that take away any of the significance of the animal or the hunt.
