It's been an odd paradox to me over the years I have been a PH now that almost 100% of the American hunters use the RW numbers to talk trophy size but only care about SCI for entries.

I cannot recall a single hunter talking about shooting a 55" impala or a 128" Kudu both SCI type scores. Yet they all speak of the 25" impala or 55" kudu which are RW numbers.

RW is by a margin a more difficult book to get into. However they accept deformed or broken horns without penalty. As an example, I'm not sure how many of my hunters would choose to shoot an Impala with one 27" horn and the other broken in half. Yet that would rank very high in the RW book. Same goes with a Kudu. I'm not sure I could get a hunter to shoot a Kudu with a 60" horn on one side and a 20" horn on the other. Yet that too would be a high ranking Bull in RW. (both would be below the SCI minimum)

RW only scores the length of the longest horn. If it only has one horn they don't care! Tie breaking involves the second horn and then the girth of each etc etc. But normal scoring is just the length of the longer horn. SCI requires a more balanced trophy and for that reason most hunters will choose to shoot symetrical or undamaged game for the SCI book.

If your a "real" trophy hunter looking for an entry in RW you will shoot the broken and deforemd critters with a single big horn that SCI folks would likely pass up. Both have merrits and short falls.

I have always found it interesting that the great majority of my hunters use the RW numbers in conversation but only enter into SCI.

I've checked many of my books on scoring of animals, BUT, I can't find which is more difficult to get an animal into.

Is it more difficult to have an animal entered into to Rowland Ward or SCI?

Roland Ward generally has higher standards for entry than SCI.

You can get about any decent head in SCI, it may be in 150th place however...

Rowland Ward is a whole nuther ballgame, darn few trophies make that book...

Perhaps as you say that almost 100% of American hunters use Roland Ward (in reality they don't) is because that is how the PH's judge the animal. Length of horn is used in both systems and is the easiest dimension to judge on an animal.

I'm a offical scorer for both Rowland Ward & S.C.I. R/W is much harder to get in them SCI. I have made the record book with 58 animals in SCI, 12 of those made the Rowland Ward mim. The only thing I don't like about Rowland Ward is you can shoot a Kudu with one horn measuring 56 inches and the other broke off at the base and still make the book!
Rowland Ward is by far harder the SCI....................

As always, Good Hunting!!! Widowmaker416

I am a Master Measurer in the SCI system. I like the fact that SCI has a system of measurerments derived from a few basic principles that applies to animals from around the world. There is also a collection of measurement methods to adapt for different species.

Rowland Ward enshrines the early traditional British measures for African trophies, which are largely things that you can observe on an animal from 100 yards away. For example RW credits the outside spread of the Cape buff horns, which is straight-forward to estimate from a distance. The SCI score for the same animal though can't be estimated without actually measuring the animal -- it is made of up of more than one measurement. This is why we talk about a 40" buff or a 55" kudu when the actual SCI scores are quite different numbers.

The SCI Trophy Record Committee sets the threshold scores for record book entry. The limits are lower than RW deliberately so that more animals can be credited, and entry revenue is greater. Money raised goes to SCI projects.

SCI measurers donate their time scoring trophies in the expectation that the revenue earned will go to support hunting.

jim

I personally think that both systems have their merits. SCI method for Buff is (IMO) a better system, bur Rowland Ward's higher standards make hunting for the book a lot more of a challenge.

The one species I don't believe anyone has come up with a satisfactory way to score, is black wildebeest. I'm convinced the only way to score them fairly is by water displacement.

All that said, I also believe that most hunters tend to take the record books too seriously. If you get in, then it's a bonus, but surely the quality of the individual stalk and the quality of the overall hunt should be far more important than mere inches of horn.

I had a client last year who took an East African Eland that if entered would be a new #1 in SCI and a new #4 in Rowland Ward, but he has no interest in either book and won't enter them..........IMO, he's a true hunter in the purest form.

Thanks much for the explaination. On my recent plains game hunt in RSA, 3 of the 6 animals I took have made it into RW. The weird thing was, I just wanted representative animals and wasn't really looking for record book animals. My kudu, blesbok, and wildebeest made RW. We found a nyala with a bad limp and I told my friend and professional hunter, Johan Wolvaardt, I wanted him after hearing how hyenas take the animals down. I passed up a lot better nyalas one of which would have made RW, but I wanted the experience. To make a long story short, it took, off and on hunting him for 11 days to get him. When we skinned him, he had an injured shoulder and a lot of battle wounds. It was exactly what I wanted from the hunt, an experience. A couple of times, playing hide and seek, we found his tracks in our old boot prints. Like Johan said, it was a good thing he didn't have a rifle or we'd have been hanging in meat locker! Thanks again for the help.

http://www.sandriver.co.za/