Who's up on the differences? Which system is better for a given species? I think the SCI system is superior for cape buffalo, for example.

Nick,

I am a Master Measurer in the SCI system, which obviously declares my choice. SCI's system proceeds from a few principles to develop the scoring methods, which is good.

I like SCI's credit for mass and length combined in their system, and the fact that they don't get caught up in symmetry as Boone & Crockett does with their deductions for lack thereof.

RW is based on traditional measurements, and is not a systematic approach. In particular I don't like RW's inclusion of animals with only part of the trophy(for example only the longest horn is measured for many animals).

You pays your money and takes your chances on this one.

jim

I'm a measurer for both and feel that SCIs system (especially on Buffalo) is a fairer system. However the Rowland Ward standards/minimums are higher and I rather like that, as I feel that it's just a little too easy to get into the SCI books.

At the end of the day, it's whatever system the client favours. Most of my clients are Brit's who favour the Rowland Ward system, but as I'm sure you know the Americans (etc) are a lot more SCI orientated.

The one species that I believe is measured incorrectly on both systems in Black Wildebeest. As far as I'm concerned the only fair and accurate way to measure these horns is by water displacement.

I prefer the Rowland Ward book for some reasons already discussed. Their standards are higher and I personally like the fact that a one horned animal can make the book (HunterJim and I have gone round and round about this before ). If someone shoots a one horned 70 inch kudu, it should damn well be in the books but it wouldn't make SCI. It would rank as the highest ever shot in Rowland Ward and RIGHTLY SO!
Unlike Shakari, I also prefer the Rowland Ward measurement system for Buffalo as, since only the greatest outside spread matters, hunters are encouraged to take older animals. Even those buffalo with well worn down horn tips may make the book while this hurts you under the SCI measurement system.
I do agree with Shakari that the water displacement method is most appropriate for Black Wildebeest.

JMHO,

JohnTheGreek

John,

I partly agree with you about Buff, but I tend to feel that hard boss, drop and curl should also come into the equation.....and the SCI method makes more allowance for this.

But taken overall I much prefer the Rowland Ward system. After all, why have a record book if everyone can get into it.

Shakari - "After all, why have a record book if everyone can get into it."

I go along with that but, in the case of buffalo, a "width only" approach is sorely lacking if the overall quality of the trophy is to be considered.
I also think John is wrong in saying the RW system encourages the shooting of mature bulls, when the opposite is so often true, with guys taking soft bulls, simply due to good width. Guys comment favorably on spread, length and sweep of hooks and thick bulbous bosses. Why not embrace the system which credits all of these features?

[ 12-05-2003, 01:20: Message edited by: Nickudu ]

Jim,
- Are there certain species for which you feel the RW approach may be better?

[ 12-05-2003, 01:25: Message edited by: Nickudu ]

Nick,

I stand by my assertion that when width is the only consideration, it encourages taking more mature animals. Too many hunters are willing to take youngsters and sacrifice that boss measurement for the inches to be gained in the long horn tips. That is not to say a 45 inch bull might also be a youngster and taken by a hunter seeking to make RW but I would wager this happens less often.

JMHO,

JohnTheGreek

Nick,

It is usualy easier to field judge a head for R-W than many SCI methods, but you can get surprisingly close with experience.

I am getting pretty good on whitetail deer.

I don't agree on having fewer entries makes a "better" record book. Having more entries allows SCI to provide more data back to the hunters, and it raises more funds for defense of the hunter, conservation and education projects. I don't know where the R-W or B&C money goes.

If elitism in the book was best, each species in the best record book would have only one world record entry.

jim

John - "Too many hunters are willing to take youngsters and sacrifice that boss measurement for the inches to be gained in the long horn tips."

You make my point. I think it happens more and more often. They are looking at spread, only. I'll wager a high % of bulls that made RW (42), won't score 100 SCI. I suppose, much depends on what the hunters view of a trophy is.

Jim - "If elitism in the book was best, each species in the best record book would have only one world record entry."

Not sure I get that. ??

Who reads the record books other than the people listed?

It's a good way to get an idea as to where the better trophies of a given species come from, historically or recently. I know guys that have them for this purpose. A good way to familiarize yourself with the myriad of species and subspecies of Africa.

Gentlemen,

I think I prefer R-W, just because not every animal is going to make the book. It's really not too difficult to make SCI with most species.

I do prefer the width measurement for Blue Wildebeest (the same as for Buff, I believe), just because it does encourage the taking of older trophies.

SCI is a very comprehensive measuring method, I just wish their standards were higher.

Do you think we (hunters) are starting to get hung up on scores and not the hunt itself? Will this lead to an increase in prices if one outfitter has access to bigger trophy's?

Jason - "The sci system scores young bulls better than old bull which is wrong IMHO. Old broomed-tip bulls rule!"

Yes, this is what I meant in my above post. So much, depends upon individual preference, in regard to trophies. IMO, no system can hope to accomodate individual preference. Rather, it should strive to encompass the generally valued facets of a quality trophy. With cape buffalo, I feel SCI does a better job of this, than does RW, although the point threshold should be upped a bit. Further complicating the issue are geographics. For example, a classic Masai trophy buffalo will have a different configuration than, let's say, a Botswana buffalo, where horns typically exhibit a "higher" look, with hook tips well above the head. Regardless of score, I would be well satisfied with fine "area" representation, rather than sole adherence to a steep drop configuration (my general preference), more representative, eslewhere.

SCI is designed to get everyone into the book at a dollar cost, SCI likes the dollar can't deny that...

I'm not sure the SCI system is a good thing since for a sawbuck you can just about put a cull in the book, even if its 100th place....Then we have this Gold, Silver and Bronze horse hocky, and thats pathetic IMO.

I don't like width as a measurement of bulls and Greek, there are more soft bossed huge bulls killed today than any other kind, they get full width at 3 years old, then start growing bosses.

Every year more and more 45 inch and better soft bossed bulls are shot, and never reach their true potential, they don't get a chance to get old, this may not be a good thing, I don't know, I have surely killed some of them for lack of anything else to shoot at, at the time, and figured the Lions would get him if I didn't or for whatever lame justification I came up with, but I knew I shouldn't have and always regretted it to one degree or another, but my attention span always came to the rescue...

I have never entered a game head into the books, always figured that hunt was between me and the animal, a personal thing...I also suspect the only people that read your name in the book is you, no ones gives a s--t...Its mostly an ego thing that needs feeding for the most part anyway....

I do see some good come out of the books, its a competition and that may be good if your a competitive sort, but most of all it does lend credence as to where the good heads are coming from geographically, but that is prone to change so it can also be misleading, but is a consideration factor never the less......

I think I will have to pick Rowland Ward if you stood me against the wall and threatened me with execution, it seems to have more class and dignity about it, not as commercial. Only my opinnion and that will get you a cup of coffee anywhere with a dollar bill to go with it.

Ray Said: - "I'm not sure the SCI system is a good thing since for a sawbuck you can just about put a cull in the book, even if its 100th place.... "I don't like width as a measurement of bulls and Greek, there are more soft bossed huge bulls killed today than any other kind ...."
__________________________________________________

The above post is where I'm at. Both systems could certainly be improved. My thing is buffalo and I do think the SCI approach makes more sense.
Actually, it's tough to imagine evaluating anything, via a spread only approach.

Nick,

I was trying to say that if "less is better" is the true measure of a record book, then a book listing only the number one animals would be best.

If I published that Record Book, who would buy it?

The SCI Record Book provides information to hunters about where good animals are taken. If SCI made it smaller, or had fewer entries, you would get less information. If it had fewer entries, it would raise less money for SCI's projects. How can you insist that is a Good Thing?

Instead of railing against the books, how about contributing more money to SCI's projects?

jim

I guess what we need is a record book with SCI measuring systems and a much higher entry level that is more in line with Rowland Ward standards. Oh, and let's not forget the water displacement system for black wildebeest!

...... let's also make sure that it contains the name of the PH & Outfitter as well as the client!

Jim: - "Instead of railing against the books, how about contributing more money to SCI's projects?"

I see no "railing" here, against the books, merely a discussion of methodology. But now you've introduced an underlying decrepancy in ideology via the mentioning of $. The SCI system, by design, is structured to make money and such remains the primary goal. No such venue lies within the RW system.

JRSlate: - "SCI is a very comprehensive measuring method, I just wish their standards were higher."

You got it.

[ 12-07-2003, 04:54: Message edited by: Nickudu ]

Nick,

I was trying to respond to several posts with one post, and I should have been clearer as to which comment was directed where! Sorry about that.

R-W sells their stuff, so there is a financial motive. I don't know if their Record Book is a loss leader or a profit maker, but they are a private company.

I poked around on the B&C website, but it isn't obvious what they are into in the way of defending hunters. They do have conservation education programs, and their FAQ talks about the number of students each year. That is the good news.

SCI's Publication Department runs at a profit. I consider that the good that the organization does outweighs most criticism of their methods. Kind of like agreeing with 80% of what goes on, and objecting to 20%. I still try to reduce the 20% vice dumping the whole thing.

jim

What say we limit this to method? As a Master Measurer, are you in full agreement with the SCI approach to each and every species? What would you change? What do you like about RW? What about buffalo?

My paltry 42" buffalo doesn't make Rowland Ward? Boo hoo.

I looked in my old copy of Rowland Ward, and 47" outside spread seemed to be the minimum.

I do agree with Nick that the SCI method is much better for the buffalo. A thin horned, soft bossed, no drop bull or cow could make Rowland Ward.

The Number One Cape or Southern Buffalo in SCI Edition X is very impressive indeed. Score is 141. Taken in Zambia in September 1998.

This is one of the few times I have paid any attention to the scores. I usually just look at the pictures , and I have spotted a few of my acquaintances in the book. Ho hum ...

What really gets me excited now is the chance to join the "Outer Circle Club" by taking a deformed or broken horned critter of some sort.

Maybe the hunter should really ask himself if he is a real hunter if he is only worried about making the book either SCI or RW.

RW is an old system and was only started for scientific research long ago to get an idea of what animals roam where and what their sizes were.

I think SCI is more in it for the money that why it is easier to get in SCI than RW.

NO matter what happens on the hunt if your animals qualifies it qualifies but did you qualify in hunting the animal in the right ethical way ?

I know and heard of a lot of farmers especially in RSA where they keep some extraordinary big trophies in small holdings and ask big bucks for it only so that the hunter can make the book !

Safari-Hunt - With all respect, you touch on aspects other than what is being solicited here. I'd like your view as to which is the better methodolodgy.

As an aside, I have no record books of any origin, although I have 3 Muledeer and quite a number of African heads that would qualify. My interest in scoring is to know what aspects are valued/credited most, so that I can better decide what is the most desirable configuration. The RW system contributes nothing to this end, other than the most elementary .... spread. The goals and workings of SCI aside, their system in regard to buffalo, makes more sense, to me.

HunterJim - on SCI & B&C

my one complaint with the SCI record buck is that you have to pay to get in. I feel we should be about recognizing the animal first and the hunter second. A book that (a) has low entry scores and (b) you have to pay to get into seems somehow compromised, to my way of thinking.

Of course, for B&C, I have problems with their symmetry deductions . . . however, you don't have to pay to have your head listed, and the emphasis is on the animal (hence quite a few "pickups" = found dead). Also, I prefer their emphasis on free-range animals (I hate TX's high fence syndrome, although I recognize that in some countries, this is the only way to have game).

SCI certainly does more for hunters in terms of legal defense and legislative action. B&C does work on some legislative issues and also seems to spend more money on research grants to help either game management or our understanding of game.

Troy

B&C should not come into the conversation here since it's about African game. However since you mention it lets look at some of their oddities.

No fenced game allowed but 8 dogs under a tree with a bear or lion up there held until shot is OK.

The playing field is not level either. Different rules from state to state. Depending upon the laws of each state. Idaho has hounds and bait legel and washington does not.

No Brown bears in Canada yet the same bear walking from BC to AK becomes a brownie as it crosses the border.

This is just off the top of my head but you get the idea. I'm a scorer for SCI and RW what I find the most interesting about them above and beyond anything else anyone has mentioned so far is the unusual way people refer to African trophy scores.

The majority of my hunters who care about trophy "numbers" want to enter them into the SCI book. However none ( ZERO NADA NOBODY)speak of SCI score when out in the bush or around the fire. 100% refer to the size with the RW numbers. Everyone who says they want a 60" kudu is talking RW, everyone who wants a 42" buffalo, or a 40" gemsbok, a 16" bushbok, a 25" impala are all RW references yet the hunters wish to actaully score them with SCI