Mark,

As usual you're spot on!

Early on in my African safari experience, the SCI record book was very helpful to me for estimating what a representative African trophy should be.

Safaris are very, very expensive, and I don't want to waste my money on shooting rubbish. Each safari is a trip of a lifetime.

Also, my PHs knew I was well informed by the SCI record book, and IMO they worked harder for me to get those SCI quality trophies. This puts pressure on the PH - pressure they don't necessarily like, but I have been guided by some OUTSTANDING PHs, to whom I'm very grateful. I also tipped them very well, for their hard work.

My philosophy is like yours - hunt for fun, to eat, and for conservation, but why not add to the excitement by getting a first-rate trophy as well. Trophies eat just as well as the non trophies - at least, in my experience.

I wish I could bring my meat home from Africa - what an inter-safari feast that would be. At least the locals get to enjoy and benefit from that meat.

Regards, AIU

AIU,

Agreed and we worked damn hard to get the most desirable animals out of my area. The buffalo hunting was hard but first class and we came away with worthy trophy of which we were proud of.

Hunting is about striving or pushing yourself for the best possible outcome and this includes the quality of trophy whether it be the hunt, size, shape or character of horn.

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:
AIU,

Agreed and we worked damn hard to get the most desirable animals out of my area. The buffalo hunting was hard but first class and we came away with worthy trophy of which we were proud of.

Hunting is about striving or pushing yourself for the best possible outcome and this includes the quality of trophy whether it be the hunt, size, shape or character of horn.

Hi Andrew,

We did work hard - especially you!! You worked not only hard, but also smart, making very good decisions.

Indeed, I want to come back someday - when you get some big cat quota. Andrew, we could have harvested some trophy big cats, almost by necessity in self defense.

Warm regards, Noel

I remember very clearly the day Roy picked me up from Vic Falls airport, on the drive to Matetsi.

He asked what "trophies" I was most interested in.

I told him none.

I came to hunt, and I will hunt and shoot whatever is on my license.

I did not know the idea of going all the way to Africa just to "collect" a certain animal of a certain size.

That same idea is still with me today 35 years later.

The thread seems to be moving off at a tangent.

Record books are here to stay, we agree with that.

What we would like to debate is an alternative method for scoring buffalo, because the current SCI system is biased towards younger animals.

How would we get more recognition for the older dagga boys, which is a sought after trophy for many hunters, and a way in which the conservationist in all of us can assist in the non-harvesting of younger bulls?

A method recently suggested......

1. Take the greatest outside width (as per Rowland Ward)

2. Measure both boss widths and double them.

3. Add them.

Simple, and puts emphasis where it needs to be; older, big bossed dagga boys.

No hunter simply stalks up a herd of buffalo and take a random shot at any animal in the herd !

There is usually a selection process involved before a specific bull is selected for the kill.

This de facto implies that a "good bull" is selected which implies that some or other parameter is selected for, usually size or a "good representation" of what a typical adult would look like.

Something to add regarding Rowland Ward. It was never intended as a reward system for the individual hunter but has always been a record of animals based on horn size. That is why pick ups are also included.

quote:

Originally posted by Neil-PH:
A method recently suggested......

1. Take the greatest outside width (as per Rowland Ward)

2. Measure both boss widths and double them.

3. Add them.

Simple, and puts emphasis where it needs to be; older, big bossed dagga boys.

When compared to the suggested scoring system that I've posted a link to - without implying any particular support for the method, I like the simplicity of this one.

The real value of this system may lie in the fact that the measurements are available for all currently registered trophies in both RW and SCI books! This is not the case with the Gandy & Reilly suggested method!

Neil-PH, can you please post a reference to the publication of the method suggested in your posting. Although every required detail is in your posting I, as a scientist, would like to read more about it, to, for example, see if it was published in a peer reviewed and recognized journal! It will also show [hopefully] what the scientific response to the suggestion was/is.

In good hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
No hunter simply stalks up a herd of buffalo and take a random shot at any animal in the herd !

There is usually a selection process involved before a specific bull is selected for the kill.

This de facto implies that a "good bull" is selected which implies that some or other parameter is selected for, usually size or a "good representation" of what a typical adult would look like.

Something to add regarding Rowland Ward. It was never intended as a reward system for the individual hunter but has always been a record of animals based on horn size. That is why pick ups are also included.

ALF,

You are right.

First and foremost is we look for any bull that as a broken horn.

If he is old enough, we shoot him.

If there is no broken horned bull, we pick the oldest, regardless of what his horns loo like.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
No hunter simply stalks up a herd of buffalo and take a random shot at any animal in the herd !

There is usually a selection process involved before a specific bull is selected for the kill.

This de facto implies that a "good bull" is selected which implies that some or other parameter is selected for, usually size or a "good representation" of what a typical adult would look like.

Something to add regarding Rowland Ward. It was never intended as a reward system for the individual hunter but has always been a record of animals based on horn size. That is why pick ups are also included.

ALF,

You are right.

First and foremost is we look for any bull that as a broken horn.

If he is old enough, we shoot him.

If there is no broken horned bull, we pick the oldest, regardless of what his horns loo like.

Alf: +1

Saeed: +1

Saeed,

So you do hunt for trophies although they may not be trophies in the record book sense.

"I did not know the idea of going all the way to Africa just to "collect" a certain animal of a certain size."

I actually think most safaris are arranged in Just the manner you described. If a guy comes to me wanting a buffalo hunt his major target is the buffalo and a lot of folks want to know what their expectations are for size.

Personally I usually have one particular animal I'm most interested in when I go on safari. I always try to take some species that I have not taken before and if that makes me a "Collector" I'm good with that. The different experiences that the hunts for each new species offer are really what I'm after. I understand that many are perfectly happy hunting buffalo or elephant etc on each safari but that's not for me. If I do specifically hunt a particular species a second time I'm always looking for it to be bigger than previous one. Sometimes that works and sometimes not. That's hunting.

Mark

quote:

quote:Originally posted by ALF:No hunter simply stalks up a herd of buffalo and take a random shot at any animal in the herd !There is usually a selection process involved before a specific bull is selected for the kill.This de facto implies that a "good bull" is selected which implies that some or other parameter is selected for, usually size or a "good representation" of what a typical adult would look like.Something to add regarding Rowland Ward. It was never intended as a reward system for the individual hunter but has always been a record of animals based on horn size. That is why pick ups are also included.


ALF,You are right

.First and foremost is we look for any bull that as a broken horn.If he is old enough, we shoot him.If there is no broken horned bull, we pick the oldest, regardless of what his horns loo like.

What about foregoing the herd and looking for a dagga boy or a group of dagga boys?

quote:

Originally posted by Neil-PH:

quote:

quote:Originally posted by ALF:No hunter simply stalks up a herd of buffalo and take a random shot at any animal in the herd !There is usually a selection process involved before a specific bull is selected for the kill.This de facto implies that a "good bull" is selected which implies that some or other parameter is selected for, usually size or a "good representation" of what a typical adult would look like.Something to add regarding Rowland Ward. It was never intended as a reward system for the individual hunter but has always been a record of animals based on horn size. That is why pick ups are also included.


ALF,You are right

.First and foremost is we look for any bull that as a broken horn.If he is old enough, we shoot him.If there is no broken horned bull, we pick the oldest, regardless of what his horns loo like.

What about foregoing the herd and looking for a dagga boy or a group of dagga boys?

This is covered very well by Boddington in his book ``Buffalo!``.He explains how it can be very difficult to track two or three sets of tracks compared to a larger group of animals and it can take alot of time too.He goes on to say that the PH will know how to best allocate your hunting days and will use a style best suited to accomplish your goal.

quote:

This is covered very well by Boddington in his book ``Buffalo!``.He explains how it can be very difficult to track two or three sets of tracks compared to a larger group of animals and it can take alot of time too.He goes on to say that the PH will know how to best allocate your hunting days and will use a style best suited to accomplish your goal.

Without a doubt, however the skill to track and follow through difficult terrain is but one other aspect to an adventurous safari. Remember we want to hunt a buffalo, not shoot an animal.

quote:

Originally posted by Neil-PH:

quote:

This is covered very well by Boddington in his book ``Buffalo!``.He explains how it can be very difficult to track two or three sets of tracks compared to a larger group of animals and it can take alot of time too.He goes on to say that the PH will know how to best allocate your hunting days and will use a style best suited to accomplish your goal.

Without a doubt, however the skill to track and follow through difficult terrain is but one other aspect to an adventurous safari. Remember we want to hunt a buffalo, not shoot an animal.

true

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
Something to add regarding Rowland Ward. It was never intended as a reward system for the individual hunter but has always been a record of animals based on horn size. That is why pick ups are also included.

SCI also includes picked-up heads. It also includes the name of the hunting company and/or PH, which Rowlard Ward did not the last time I looked at its book. It seemed to me that SCI also provided more information than RW on where an animal was taken.

Let's not fool ourselves, though. Record books ARE published for hunters and not to glorify the animals listed in them. Otherwise, these books would list only an animal's measurements (such as the CIC of Europe does) and not include the name of the guy who killed it.

If you need more proof, just follow the money. Animals do not pay entry fees and buy books.

Rowland Ward, the 19th century British Taxidermist who first published records of the hunting prowess of his clients in 1892, was above all a shrewd businessman. By puffing the egos of his customers and publishing the first and only such book around, he ensured repeat business and attracted new clients.

Bill Quimby

I will state again: Rowland Wards records of big game was never intended to be a reward for hunters.

To this day you receive no honour, no award, simply that your name is entered with your trophy's data and the data is ranked. A small certificate is issued with no rank on it only the data and species entered.

At it's inception it's intent was to be a natural history record of species ( important is that species were assigned based on a accepted natural history classification system and not based on some random artificially created, non existent classification system as SCI does) and the listing was done by data size. It was used and utilized by Museums and natural history students as a reference work.

The natural progression however was that there was now a record book where ordinary hunters names were entered next to the species and thus became a badge of honour as "celebrity hunters" entered their trophy data. Your name was entered next to that of Queens and Kings with ranking based on physical data.

With the "Americanization" of big game hunting in Africa between the wars and for the short period ( 20 years )after WW2 Rowland Ward Became to some extent a item to which some hunters applied status value, though it gave no privilege or honour, no club to belong to, no banquet at the end of the year where hunters are honoured for achievement. Some American hunters sought more than what RW was giving and thus the SCI trophy competition with all its typical American statistical treatment was born. Hunting as a sport suddenly became like Baseball and Football commentary , a never ending exercise in data and numbers complete with rankings and levels of participation.

Through all of this RW remained simply a list based on data to which a name of ownership is assigned.

The value of the list being that other hunters can see where the best representation of species can be found for hunting.

quote:

Rowland Wards records of big game was never intended to be a reward for hunters.

To this day you receive no honour, no award, simply that your name is entered with your trophy's data and the data is ranked. A small certificate is issued with no rank on it only the data and species entered.

The value of the list being that other hunters can see where the best representation of species can be found for hunting.

Yup, none of the Inner Circle Diamond/Gold, etc. BS Awards!

ALF:

This debate could go on without either of us agreeing, so I'll end my participation by saying taxidermist Rowland Ward's stated intent and his actual motivation and the long-term effect of his record book obviously were not the same.

That small certificate you mentioned, along with ordinary hunters having their names listed with kings and queens are indeed "badges of honours" and status symbols that can corrupt (and have corrupted) some hunters who seek personal glory. My earlier post about Iran's Prince Abdorreza was just one of many I could cite about hunters crossing ethical lines, just to have their names published higher in Rowland Ward's records.

Mr. Ward's Records of Big Game is not the only record book to provide valuable data for scientists and museums, nor are all of its animal classifications endorsed by the majority of today's taxonomists.

Bill Quimby

There is nothing wrong in wanting to shoot big trophies as long as the hunt is performed correctly, it also doesnt make you a better hunter to not measure your animals. I mean people look for big maned lions and they are not measured like that, people like hunting for big tuskers and I can bet whatever you like that the record wont be broken again. Big animals with great genetics are fascinating and beautiful and if someone wants to satisfy their curiosity on how big it was then so be it! Measuring is not bad and the 50 inch sable taken with Andrew and the 49 inch buffalo Saeed took are good examples.

Lots of common sense answers here.

There is a world of difference between RW and SCI.

One was started to keep a record of trophies.

The other was started to glorify the hunter - just look how it had gone off on a tangent to have all these silly circles, where the over riding requirement is how much money one can spend to glorify himself.

It got to the stage where it has become rather obscene!

The history of RW records book is actually very interesting in that it was a first.

Not only was it a first it was, as with many things like the Stanley, the Nortfolk and the Muthaiga Country Club as examples, "essential items" in the "original" African hunting scene.

It goes hand in hand with african guns, gun oil, leather and canvas. They are inseparable ! You cannot pretend to speak of "Africa" as a hunter without visiting the pages of RW !

There was nothing like it , published for the first time in 1892 it was the only guide to African animals out there, there were no other guides available pertaining to african game, something that remained that way until the end of WW1! and more importantly it was at a time when the pioneers of our great museums of natural history were collecting specimens for their respective collections.

The actual publication of the book took many turns owned and funded by various sources. For the most kept alive by private hunting enthusiasts and individuals who sought to keep the heritage alive.

After Hunting closed down in Kenya and with it taxidermy, RW first ending up in England finally found its way to South Africa and a old time Kenya PH by name of Steve Smith ( " The hunter and the go away bird" ) Steve died in a car crash in 1993 and his Daughter ran a retail business under the RW banner out of Sandton City in Johannesburg selling curios, old and new hunting books and printing some of the original RW publications like their hunting journal and the Records of Big Game.

They published signed and numbered copies of limited prints used in Rae Smithers landmark book titled Mammals of the Southern African Subcontinent .

These hold special value to me as Prof Smithers was my Zoology Professor at the University of Pretoria South Africa as a undergraduate student

I have a signed numbered named subscribers copy of the Centenary edition of RW ( 23rd edition) bound in Elephant Leather. No. 42 of 100 copies published in 1992 a year before Steve's death.

In this edition my wife entered under my name a Wildebeest named "Tiny" and and a good representation of a Waterbuck both shot in "MY Africa" with my trusty 375 Brno. Both are exceptional trophies (30 inches and some for both ) they are special because they come from our own conservancy.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
The "trophy" system is already out of control.

So many animals are bred, or captured, and are transported to suitable locations for our self-worshipping nut can fly out immediately and kill it,
to add to his high ranking SCI "trophies".

The extensive [& enormously expensive] efforts gone to self -agrandise by society/the human race , is nothing new.
the Romans would capture & transport an enormous array and number of animals from the far reaches of the empire{africa},
just so they could create a staged spectacle at the Colosseum, showcasing arena hunts of 'man vs beast'

So popular was hunting in ancient Rome that mosaics and paintings often depicted this pastime as a heroic activity.
As the Roman Empire grew to encompass the entire Mediterranean basin, its citizens traveled throughout the region to hunt
and bring back animals. to be killed in Rome and other cities. The colosseum games continued for more than 400 years in
more than 70 amphitheaters, the largest seating up to 50,000 people.

Animals gathered included;;

alpine Chamois, ibex,
elephant,hippo,rhino,buffalo
ostrich, antelope,
tigers,lions,leopard,cheetah,hyena,panther,jaguar
wolves,
giraffe,
Stags,
bears,wild boar,bulls
crocodile,
apes


The trade in wild animals was highly lucrative. Animals were sourced from the far reaches of the Empire especially Africa, Egypt and Asia.
The natives of these areas would have captured and caged these animals. The animals would then have been sold to animal traders who arranged
for their transport to Rome and also to other amphitheatres throughout the Roman Empire. The animals were then delivered to the Beast Masters.


Canned hunting in those days was the socially & morally acceptable norm,
participants included the trained professional animal killers, also ordinary citizens of Rome who were also permitted to sometimes get into
the ring and do some killing,...and of course the Emperors themselves, some of who are on record for killing hundreds of animals in enclosures.
It was all mostly about personal pleasure in bloodthirst killing for entertainment & self agrandising.

and people who thing they are superior to those kind of people, should remember that no matter how moral you claim to be in your hunting methods,
you are still killing for personal pleasure....and in the process using modern weapons that take much advantage away from primitive animals.

Imagine taking on all the african DG species in the Colosseum armed with primitive sword or spear...
(VS) an unCanned hunt using your favourite modern DG .xxx bore rifle.

I find the comments about self aggrandizing odd?

So it's ok to go all the way to Africa, pay a huge amount of money to shoot a animal, take pictures, lots of pictures, some make videos and send them all over the world do the whole pack 'n dip thing , the taxidermy etc and it's ok ! Some actually have trophy rooms, huge trophy rooms, they collect tails and stuff hang at conventions where these animals are displayed !

But now you go and enter your name and data in a book and suddenly it's "man vs beast" and "self aggrandizing" odd lot we are ?

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
I find the comments about self aggrandizing odd?

So it's ok to go all the way to Africa, pay a huge amount of money to shoot a animal, take pictures, lots of pictures, some make videos and send them all over the world do the whole pack 'n dip thing , the taxidermy etc and it's ok ! Some actually have trophy rooms, huge trophy rooms, they collect tails and stuff hang at conventions where these animals are displayed !

But now you go and enter your name and data in a book and suddenly it's "man vs beast" and "self aggrandizing" odd lot we are ?

Good point.

If any of you cannot see what SCI has turned hunting into, God help us.

Saeed,

The SCI was created by (and continues to be defined by) people - in this case people who are hunters who saw the need to organize, socialize, and promote their cause.

The SCI reflects the beliefs and attitudes of those hunters, who are active in it and govern it. Other hunters of like mind join and participate. The SCI hasn't turned hunting into anything different than what hunting was already.

Your logic is like saying the Republican Party is responsible for turning people into republicans, or the Democratic Party is responsible for turning people into democrats.

People with liberal big government democratic beliefs join the Democratic Party, people with conservative, libertarian, or traditional believes join the Republican Party.

Obviously, you're not in the belief camp of the "SCI Party." No law says you have to join.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
If any of you cannot see what SCI has turned hunting into, God help us.

IT is what it is.
We could keep constantly complaining about many things in society that if we investigate them,
are far from meeting our ideal models of what they should be.

I know from over the yrs that just complaining about pompus or inept doctors,, -or- corrupt Politicians or Police officers
don't change anything no matter how much we whinge and whine....those types will ALWAYS be around bcause of the entrenched
systems they are in-that go to efforts to cover/protect for their own kind regardless,... so they all don't suffer.

There is A huge blow-up now in our greyhound racing industry concerning the illegal use of live baiting in the training of dogs.
IT has been widespread and epidemic for yrs!!,
but dog racing industry officials and the Gov. are now playing niave-pretending that they never really knew about it happening....
When the current investigation and media beaT- up dust soon settles, you can bet that in couple of yrs people will forget it all
and widespread illegal live-bating dogs will resume.
-Where ever there is 'money-money-money' and/or positions of power & authority involved in an industry, theres is usually ongoing
corruption,denial,coverup and conscious complacency,at several levels....and if the gov. happen to be getting something out of an industries kitty,
you can then also expect collusion.

quote:

Originally posted by fairgame:
Best buffalo scoring method is the width of a smile.

Is that not truth?

I am an experience hunter I think. I have never measured any horns I have hunted and rank my animals according to how much fun/excitement I had while hunting them.

Shot my first birds last fall Eider and grouse. Even though the "trophy" was eaten in both cases it was super fun. I guess I just love hunting.

quote:

Originally posted by Svinejakt:
I am an experience hunter I think. I have never measured any horns I have hunted and rank my animals according to how much fun/excitement I had while hunting them.

Shot my first birds last fall Eider and grouse. Even though the "trophy" was eaten in both cases it was super fun. I guess I just love hunting.

That is how it should be.

Sadly, hunters like you and me won't make the DESIREABLE list at SCI

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

That is how it should be.

Sadly, hunters like you and me won't make the DESIREABLE list at SCI

Saeed,

you or I don't have to like or agree with the attitude of some in SCI,
But Each person is entitled to hunt for their own personal reasons and nobody elses.
as such we have people who see hunting as a competitive sport,...now, like it or not
they ARE and always will be A segment of the hunting fraternity.

Just remember, there are people who accuse you of being part of the 'SniPing' rather than
genuine hunting fraternity of hunters.

But that don't stop you doing it, nor will you stop people seeing hunting as being a competitive sport.

Some people don't like either Sniping or competition in hunting...whereas others will gladly
LR snipe an animal if they have to, ..just to win the SCI hunting awards competition....

quote:

Without a doubt, however the skill to track and follow through difficult terrain is but one other aspect to an adventurous safari. Remember we want to hunt a buffalo, not shoot an animal.

I quoted this above.

It is true that many hunters hunt for different reasons and use different methods and seek different quality experiences, but I do think if we could all hunt rather than shoot, we could enjoy the whole experience just that little bit more.

quote:

Originally posted by Neil-PH:

quote:

Without a doubt, however the skill to track and follow through difficult terrain is but one other aspect to an adventurous safari. Remember we want to hunt a buffalo, not shoot an animal.

I quoted this above.

It is true that many hunters hunt for different reasons and use different methods and seek different quality experiences, but I do think if we could all hunt rather than shoot, we could enjoy the whole experience just that little bit more.

May be we should start hunting without rifles then?

quote:

May be we should start hunting without rifles then?

If it improves the experience for you, so be it.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
You might be right.

But, looking at what SCI has done about "trophy hunting", it has become so bad I am convinced so many of the so called "trophies" in that record book have been shot in a manner not many of us would accept as either ethical or might be illegal.

All for the purpose of having one's name in the record book.

Many of those who hold record book trophies are only in it to compete with others of the same mentality.

They have absolutely no interest in hunting for the sake of hunting as the rest of us.

You are chasing your own shadow.

One thing is sure, the SCI method incorporating the "curl" in the score writes off most aging buffalos and gives an exclusive advantage to bulls in their prime.

The idea to score based on spread and twice the bosses would tilt the scale the way it should: towards more than mature bulls and dagga boys.

On the other hand, my experience with "collectors" and "award chasers" is that a good number of them (not all of them, fortunately) have no real interest in the hunt or the beauty of the scenery, but only care about ticking names off a list. I have seen "hunters" spending all their free time poring over Excel spreadsheets of their trophies, without once lifting an eye to their surroundings...

Yes, they are the ones footing the bills, but it is sad, and I for one do not enjoy such hunts in the least.

quote:

Originally posted by Philip A.:
One thing is sure, the SCI method incorporating the "curl" in the score writes off most aging buffalos and gives an exclusive advantage to bulls in their prime.

The idea to score based on spread and twice the bosses would tilt the scale the way it should: towards more than mature bulls and dagga boys.

On the other hand, my experience with "collectors" and "award chasers" is that a good number of them (not all of them, fortunately) have no real interest in the hunt or the beauty of the scenery, but only care about ticking names off a list. I have seen "hunters" spending all their free time poring over Excel spreadsheets of their trophies, without once lifting an eye to their surroundings...

Yes, they are the ones footing the bills, but it is sad, and I for one do not enjoy such hunts in the least.

Regardless of the actual scoring method - the SCI record book aims for inclusion, so that more trophies taken (including those aged low-scoring bulls) will be recorded; recording the date, guide, hunt location and hunter themselves, for all to see - an excellent record for posterity and the benefit of conservation of that species. Sure they will be further down the list - but who cares - those hunters recording their aged low-scoring bulls (and other species) in the record book obviously dont care!!

quote:

Originally posted by Neil-PH:
A method recently suggested......

1. Take the greatest outside width (as per Rowland Ward)

2. Measure both boss widths and double them.

3. Add them.

Simple, and puts emphasis where it needs to be; older, big bossed dagga boys.

What about the "helmet heads" without any outside width? For sure will never make a record book but are the cat's ass of buffalo "trophies" if you ask me.

A list of trophy a compartive sistem to decide what is better or also simply if a trophy is rapresentative is something natural and correct, for me, if this don't is the center of the world. But make a scoring method for cape buffalo that can be "correct" for all buffalo is for me impossible. Looking at this immage.... http://www.weltweit-jagen.info...8ffel.jpg?1323872380 tell me, what is the best one? And how you can numerically evaluated it the best? if I have the possbility of shoot anyone of these in same herd probably i would shoot one that isn't the best nor in RW nor in SCI. Another one maybe would shoot another, and is only a question of preference.
In other animals a numerical valutation is possible. ( for my knowlege the best trophy evalutation sistem in the chamois under CIC, that give also credits for age)but in many animals is simply a matter of points of view. In cape buffalo, when is of decent dimension, with decent boss and good age is a matter of "I prefer boss respect spread" or "i prefer curled points" o "I prefer dropping horns" etc etc etc. only my 2cents.