The genetic inferiority position is without merit because it discounts the role of the female (doe) in the equation and it is simply not true as it relates to the male,if they were a late born fawn then it is just a matter of them catching up.They are not genetically inferior and there hae been many studies to support that.Kroll,Ozaga,Larue,Koerth,Alsheimer,all have written extensively regarding this.
The genetic inferiority position does not discount the contribution of the female. When inferior bucks breed a significant percentage of the does they sire both female and male fawns and therefore negatively influence the genetics of both males and females..
There is no study that proves spikes are not inferior. Krolll's study confirms the fact that spikes are inferior for the rate of antler development and it is not due to being late born. If it was that simple they would catch up as 2.5 buck , but they don't It takes two more years and that is not due to being born a month or two later than average. Kroll could not explain why spikes were inferior for the rate of antler development,which means he was dodging the issue of genetic inferiority.