The point of this post was to discredit the statistic. The pass-through values don't even equal 100% yet it is referenced as if it has validity. You have people in this thread stating that there must be missing data or "xyz", yet individuals are still referencing it and picking specific parts of it that fit their narrative. People blindly follow and quote a statistic that if they simply analyzed it, would realize there is no value.
If a portion of this study is missing data, guess what? The study is now valueless. This is what we call skewed or inconclusive results, AKA, ****.
Never did I once use the word "aim". Everyone aims at the right spot. You can aim at a dime. Does that mean you'll hit a dime?
I said POI. Not hypothetically aiming. POI is the determining factor to whether your animal dies. Not whether there are two holes.
Regarding your 2 hole assessment. There is over 1000 places you can put 2 holes through a deer or hog and it will live. You'll never see it again.
"I’m going to disagree with your assessment that POI is the biggest deciding factor. It might be, but that can’t be gotten from this study."
So you just disagree, then say it might be, then reference a study with values that don't equate 100%. This is my exact point. Sheep.
Then you rant condescendingly as if you're above average intelligence and the median population is so much more uneducated and unintelligent then yourself.
Even better yet,
"With a compound, Shoot something razor sharp that weighs 500-600 grains over 250fps inside of 30 yards. Amazing to me this is debated with any fervor."
Yet here you are debating.
Man, this is too good.
no condescension. I’m only halfway educated. And certainly nothing I learned in formal education has anything to do with my perception of the world.
my point is simply that the pass through has such a strong correlation to recovery, that even once you controlled for all other variables(assuming you could), that it should get more attention than it does. That’s the idea - just because you study is incomplete as you say, it doesn’t mean that you can’t get something useful from it.
I’m taking point of impact, as you’re describing it, as a constant for deer hit forward of the diaphragm. I understand the difference between point of aim and impact. I simply mean it’s sort of a given that if you hit deer in the right spot, and get enough damage, they’ll die. We’re all discussing what enough damage is, and how best to cause it. POI doesn’t do much for us when we assume it’s good.
you have to control something - you seem to pick up on this in the incomplete nature of the study. You’re very right there, and smell the flaws. My point is that there isn’t much in our control in regards to equipment choices, that should correlate to POI. The things that decide that have nothing to do with broadhead style or weight. At least they shouldn’t.
controlling for POI(assuming you hit the deer on one side of its body, in front of the diaphragm, I am willing to bet the farm that a complete passthrough will show a stronger correlation with recovery than will the difference between a 1” cut and 2” cut(difference between most small fixed heads and wide cut mechanicals). That’s all.
not sure where sheep comes into play. I gave you, and the data, the benefit of the doubt. It’s entirely possible your idea might be right. That’s good science, not ruling out things because you don’t have complete data.
I wasn’t being condescending. I have zero formal education in statistics. I am bitter and resentful about that fact. I would be much better prepared to work through life I had. I have spent a lot of my own free time to remedy that. I’m offering a suggestion to fix that for all of us.
sorry if you took it to be demeaning you or what you want to believe in any way.
I hope my track record around here speaks for itself that I’m on board for good discussions, try to help others, and have fun. I do have a bit of a contrarian streak though, and generally look for the loudest voice in the room, seeking things to resolve. I’m sorry if you take personal offense to that - none is meant.
I’m not even really sure what you’re disagreeing with me on. But I’m happy to work through it!