I was wondering which scoring system most African hunters prefer, Rowland Ward or SCI. I'm not real familiar with either, but I understand that they are different in the way the animals are scored. Anyone have any opinions?
Jerry

Rowland Ward, I am from the old school.

Most PHs will refrence bench-marks for scores in RW terms.

IMO I suspect that SCI probably receives more entrys annualy and is a more comprehensive formula of accurately measuring the trophy.

Can someone provide a link to how to measure for RW?

Kevin,

What do you want to score, they measure the length of the longest horn or antler. Some trophies like wildbeest and cape buffalo score the width

Any questions, I'm a offical scorer for R&W

Their web site: http://www.rowlandward.com

My Blue wildebeest from the other active thread.

I believe the minimum RW measurement for blue wildebeest is 28 1/2 inches. This is the greatest width outside at right angles to the axis of the skull and in a straight line.

One PH told me the SCI measuring system was set up so that "those who wish to see their names in print can do so, without meeting the minimum requirements of the true measure of a trophy as in RW!"

R&W has been around for over a century and it has its prestigious startes in colonial England and is the standard by which much of African trophy history is based in. It usually takes pure length of one horn or weight of one tusk as the entry criteria. It does not take into consideration circumference as a criteria. A one horned or tusked animal can make it in.

SCI has strived to get more hunters into the book by having criteria that takes both horms length and circumference into the total measurement. It is harder to assess in the field due to more factors. Both are well accepted trophy standards.
R&W on first blush is harder to meet the minimums than SCI. SCI breaks down trophies into Gold, Silver, and Bronze classifications based on where they fall in the book.

Both are reputable trophy organizations.

I am proud to have entries in both. Fewer in R&W than SCI.

Robert

RW for sure as I believe their entry criteria strongly encourage the taking of older animals. Further, I love the idea that one can shoot a 60" one horned kudu and make RW while some hypothetical "hunter" embracing the SCI methodology would let him walk.

JMHO,

JohnTheGreek

I asked this to a lot of old timers like the boeros brothers from my town and whose names were a lot of times in rw and all the old hunters concluded that the rowland ward is the best ,i consulted 20 hunters of more that 50 years old the yougers here dont know anything about rw.juan

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
One PH told me the SCI measuring system was set up so that "those who wish to see their names in print can do so, without meeting the minimum requirements of the true measure of a trophy as in RW!"

When you look at the standards I find your quote easy to accept.

Why would you care if your trophy is even in a Record Book? Maybe Saeed is right. "Just see your name in print?"

Does R&W or SCI allow for anonymous entries?

The reason I ask is that one of my pet peeves is that B&C won't allow it. I value the record books as a reference material, but find the whole idea of "seeing your name in print" or the competitive aspect of it so distasteful that I will not enter my own trophies. I feel like a hypocrite (ie. reading and using the books, but not entering my own trophies), so I thought a compromise of entering the trophy anonymously would alleviate that. Unfortunately, B&C will not allow it, so a hypocrite I remain.

Canuck

I believe the books are very important because it will give you the information of the trophy and where was taken,furthermore i strongly believes that the prize system of the sci like for example pigs and peccaries of the world ,or prizes to diferent weapons is very important becuse the hunter will work in different terrains from the desert to the snow from the plains to the mountains to complete the number of animals ,this will make the jaeger a more complete outdoorsman,its the same with the different weapons like rifle ,handgun,bow and spear or knife ..juan

To amplify on Canuck's point, who really is going to look at those entries other than the person that enterted the trophy? Both systems have inherent flaws as do their American counterparts. In the end isn't it just an ego thing?

quote:

Originally posted by juanpozzi:
I believe the books are very important because it will give you the information of the trophy and where was taken,furthermore I strongly believes that the prize system of the sci like for example pigs and peccaries of the world ,or prizes to diferent weapons is very important becuse the hunter will work in different terrains from the desert to the snow from the plains to the mountains to complete the number of animals ,this will make the jaeger a more complete outdoorsman,its the same with the different weapons like rifle ,handgun,bow and spear or knife ..juan

I will agree with that also. I have my share of gripes with SCI, but their scoring system is well thought out, and very comprehensive. The various slams and inner circles require a wide range of hunting experience, and it does give credit to the animal by scoring everything that it "grew", length of both horns, base measurements, width, etc. Personally, I would think that a kudu that had two 60 inch horns should score higher than one that had one 61 inch horn and one 56 inch horn, and the hunter who has hunted all the spiral horn antelopes probably has a better all around hunting experience than the hunter that has shot 10 buffalo and nothing else. Also, I know that a lot of people check out the record book other than just the people with their name in it.