Charles Aslheimer dispelled this on the last aired issue of QDMA (TV Show). When you think about it.....the 2.5 who was a 6-8 point as a 1.5 has just as good a chance of not getting the best nutrition in his second year as the 2.5 who was a spike as a 1.5.
I can't argue that. But if they are on the same farm as 1.5's, then the same argument can be made. The spike had the same nutritional opportunities as the six/eight. So then the argument goes that the spike could be several months younger. Okay, if his body size is also appreciably smaller, I'll buy that. But what if his body size is just as big or bigger than the six/eight?
Surely Aslheimer nor any other "authority" on the subject is implying that antler growth is WHOLLY dependent upon ONLY age and nutrition and that genetics are irrevelant.
It is my understanding that what they are saying is that 1.5 is too early to properly evaluate genetic potential. I'll buy that to a degree but having said that I am still going to put my money on the sixes and eights PERCENTAGE wise, and by a pretty wide margin.