Antler Poll Number ONE

[boneaddict]

I think for the record he has more than 12.5 inches of nontypical points.

For those asking and wanting to know and not understanding where I am coming from......
the important thing to keep in mind: Both typical and non-typical sets of antlers are scored based on the main frame. The only difference is that abnormal points deduct from a typical rack’s final score, but they are additive for non-typical.  I think 12.5 is the magical number between minimums of typ versus non Typical.  A 10 inch dropper on a clean mainframe will Trash your typical score, but the uniqueness of it...might make a person like trash.   

[Mallardmasher]

Is it not first added to the gross and then deducted for the net. So a 150 typ with a 10" dropper would gross 160 but have a deduct of 10" for a 150 net, like it never existed. I think

[Skyvalhunter]

What happened to poll 3

[boneaddict]

Is it not first added to the gross and then deducted for the net. So a 150 typ with a 10" dropper would gross 160 but have a deduct of 10" for a 150 net, like it never existed. I think

Not quite.   Maybe around the coffee table when talking to buddies, but not for the score book.  They go instantly into the negative column.   Note total abnormals or moved to E. Which are added in with the differences (symmetry)

[boneaddict]

Thing to remember for record book purposes....non typicals start with their frame being measured etc just like typicals.  They are still judged on the symmetry of their main frame. THEN instead of abnormals being deducted they are added to the final.

[elkboy]

My option wasn't listed.    Any antler attached to 50+ pounds of venison...  That said, I will always like a good typical set of antlers. 

[Jonathan_S]

I voted for trash. Makes me think of @BULLBLASTER and the buck he shot this year. A freak nasty buck whose typical counterpart (score wise) would be passable but not when he had so much cool stuff going on above the ears.

[Jpmiller]

I don't really understand how score works past bigger numbers are "better" than lower so I judge deer on "whoa he looks good" and having a couple sticker points definitely adds to that in my book.

[BULLBLASTER]

I voted for trash. Makes me think of @BULLBLASTER and the buck he shot this year. A freak nasty buck whose typical counterpart (score wise) would be passable but not when he had so much cool stuff going on above the ears.

Does this mean I get to post another picture? 

[jjhunter]

I used to have an obsessions with big typicals because of their rarity (never killed one).  Trashy bucks have grown on me over time and mass has really grown on me.  Maybe because I have had zero success with the big typicals?

When I’m in the field, I’m always looking at gross score.  Gross score is a pretty good representation of “how big” a buck is.   I’m still not a fan of the 170” buck with a bunch of trash; for me, with a good tag in my pocket, I want a buck with at least a 180” frame.   I’m still a sucker for giant 3’s and 3x4’s though.  I’d love to shoot a 35” 3 point someday.

[BULLBLASTER]

I used to have an obsessions with big typicals because of their rarity (never killed one).  Trashy bucks have grown on me over time and mass has really grown on me.  Maybe because I have had zero success with the big typicals?

When I’m in the field, I’m always looking at gross score.  Gross score is a pretty good representation of “how big” a buck is.   I’m still not a fan of the 170” buck with a bunch of trash; for me, with a good tag in my pocket, I want a buck with at least a 180” frame.   I’m still a sucker for giant 3’s and 3x4’s though.  I’d love to shoot a 35” 3 point someday.

I hope one day I can get to the point of not being a fan of the 170 trashy buck. 
My “big” buck scale starts a bit lower than some guys.

I am a big fan of big back fork 3 points tho.

[boneaddict]

I like character, mostly in the form of mass and moss.   Junk around the bases....more texture the better.   I never check for score.   Old age, big frames.   

[Pathfinder101]

I used to have an obsessions with big typicals because of their rarity (never killed one).  Trashy bucks have grown on me over time and mass has really grown on me.  Maybe because I have had zero success with the big typicals?

When I’m in the field, I’m always looking at gross score.  Gross score is a pretty good representation of “how big” a buck is.   I’m still not a fan of the 170” buck with a bunch of trash; for me, with a good tag in my pocket, I want a buck with at least a 180” frame.   I’m still a sucker for giant 3’s and 3x4’s though.  I’d love to shoot a 35” 3 point someday.

I hope one day I can get to the point of not being a fan of the 170 trashy buck. 
My “big” buck scale starts a bit lower than some guys.

I am a big fan of big back fork 3 points tho.

I'm with you man.  I'll take 150" buck with 20 inches of crap...  Maybe after I've killed a few of those I'll get tired of them...

[jjhunter]

Yeah, I guess it’s kinda hard to generalize about what you like.  Maybe I should have just said, I like a buck with a 180” frame and some mass.  That is the point where deer get “big” for me, generally.   

I’ve seen lots of bucks that would have scored good, but weren’t really that big.  I saw a buck in Idaho in 2012 that would have gross scored 210”, but he only had a light 170” frame.  It wasn’t a “big buck”.  It would have been dwarfed by a solid 185” 4 point.