BOONE & CROCKETT VS SCI
SCORING
(PART 1)
This article was originally printed
in the February / March issue of Deer Tracking
This article is copyrighted
and may not be reproduced in any form without
permission.
When two major trophy scoring systems collide, the fall out may be confusion and questions. That need not be the case. In fact the collision does not need to happen in the first case. Probably the two most widely used and accepted systems, SCI and Boone and Crockett, each strive to consistently, universally and justly reflect and credit the natural wonder of a trophy. Both have been quite successful in achieving their goals, but admittedly by both systems, neither is perfect. The biggest obstacle is education. An understanding of both systems will make conversion to your preferred system much easier. For example, one may have trouble thinking in terms of metric measurements (Km, Kg, litres, etc), but an understanding makes conversion to imperial measurements easy. Boone and Crockett and SCI put slightly different emphasis on antler qualities which may reflect final scores. Understand both systems and conversion is easy. Boone and Crockett emphasizes balance and symmetry while SCI emphasizes total antler growth. Both systems have their values and in the end, measurement differences are quite slight. For the purpose of comparison, let's stick to discussion of North America's number one game animal, the whitetail deer.
Both systems categorize antlers into two categories (typical and non-typical). The definition of non typical characteristics are the same, but the categorization of a set of antlers may differ. Boone and Crockett places a trophy according to how well it ranks. If it places closer to the "book minimum" as a non-typical, then that is how it is categorized and similarly for "typical" placement. SCI has a 5% rule. If the total of non-typical tine lengths is equal to or greater than 5% of the animal's total typical score, then it is placed in the non-typical category.
B&C penalizes for asymmetry while SCI does not. B&C determines a net typical score regardless of category. This is done by adding up all typical qualities and then subtracting side-to-side differences (ie/ right G2 (9")-left G2 (11")= 2" deduction). If in the typical category, all non-typical inches are further subtracted for a "net typical" score. If in the non-typical category, these non-typical inches are added for a "net non-typical" score. "Gross typical B&C" refers to the typical total before any deductions (remember that non-typical inches are never added to the total for typicals) while "gross non-typical B&C" refers to the grand total of inches for non-typicals.
SCI credits all typical inches and simply notes non-typical inches as additional information if it remains in the typical category. If in the non-typical category, these inches are added. There is no gross or net score with SCI, just "typical" or "non-typical."
Pros and cons of both systems could be argued, but I'll simply point out some observations. The buck in the above examples could be described as a 156 net typical B&C, a 166 net non-typical B&C or a 167 SCI typical. With an additional 4" of non typical growth, the trophy would be reduced to a 152" net typical B&C, or increased to a 170 net non-typical B&C, or a 176 SCI non-typ. Many argue that full credit should be given as in Ex. 2, however, in such a case, it is possible for a perfectly clean, matched and balanced 167" typ. to score identically to a mismatched, unbalanced rack with five inches of non-typical growth. Obviously additional detailed info is required with either system to get a true picture of the trophy scored.
Other differences are slight. B&C measures to the top of the burr (or coronet) in determining beam length while SCI includes the burr. In the case of palmation or webbing between tines, if the tines are indeed determined to be separate tines, B&C measures circumferences between these tines. SCI replaces this "abnormal" circumference with the last "normal" circumference. Normally tine length is measured from the outside of the beam, except with the brow tine with which it is optional. B&C measures all other tines from the outside while SCI takes whichever measurement (inside or outside beginning) is greatest. Other than these few technical differences, only terminology variance remains. A tine is referred to as "G" by B&C and "T" by SCI. A circumference is referred to as "H" by B&C and "C" by SCI.
In the end, categorization and basic asymmetrical credit (SCI) or deduction (B&C) remain the major differences between the two antler scoring systems. Actual measurements are nearly identical. One may hold to a preferred scoring system, but if basic antler scoring is understood, both systems can at least be workably compatible.
Randy Barks
Please report any technical problems with this site to the webmaster