I think this guy got robbed. So did Wayne Zaft. Common bases? There are a ton of bucks in the B&C record books with common bases. Some are way more questionable than these two bucks. Curt VanLith and Lloyd Goad bucks have common bases. Are they trying to protect the current records or just trying to be more strict because more bucks are becoming eligible?

This thread blew up on another site. I think that it needed panel scored. I need to read more about the Zaft buck. i don't buy conspiracy to keep the old records. I think it is just bad judgement.

The King buck is obviously a big 6X6. I've seen it from all angles.

It's ridiculous to call a buck that huge a 180. It's obviously a 200+ inch typical.

It's really getting petty to start calling that right G3 an abnormal point. What a stretch. I think that, if it was a 130 inch buck, they wouldn't have thought twice about it. When those numbers started getting above 213, they were probably getting a little worried.

The original scorer's name is Reneau. Sounds French-Canadian. Hmmm. Do they want the record to stay in the Great White North?

This may not be over. This could go on for years. How bought the Jordan buck. That deer was shot in 1914 and was made the record in 1964. That was a little different thing. I am no expert in scoring antlers but one person should not decide what is a record and what is not. Some say if you don't like B&C rules don't join but this is a potential world record here. If there is a record book open to anyone then you should have the right to be fairly judged.

When B&C refused to panel score the King Buck, Johnny King withdrew the buck from the B&C record book.

It's in the SCI and Buckmasters record books. However, B&C is now taking the stance that King is "shopping for scores" if he gets the rack scored by someone other than the original scorer.

I think there's some pride going on here. B&C doesn't want to reverse its position and look foolish for screwing it up the first time.

I go back to the policy of "No Score Shopping". Was the rule written to keep every tom, dick and harry from trying to get their deer in the books and waste a lot of time trying to get over that minimum or was it to keep potential world record deer out of the books. I would like to know the reason for the rule.

I think the score shopping rule was put into place to keep order in the house of B&C. Not to pit a bunch of scorers against each other if they came up with different scores.

This guy is not really score shopping. I would think score shopping is more of trying to get a couple more inches from slightly more favorable measurements. An 1/8 circumference difference, a couple 1/4 inch tine length differences and maybe a 1/2" difference on a main beam. Now, you have a couple more inches, maybe a little less deduction, and now a much better score.

This guy just wants a panel to vote on whether that tine is typical or non-typical.

If that is indeed why they made the no score shopping policy, and I believe that is proabable the reason why then they can't stand behind that as the reason for not panel scoring it. Some people stand behind rules rather than just do the right thing.

I'm sure they're worried about the can of worms that would be opened by rescoring this buck. Especially if it breaks the world record. Perhaps, other guys who feel they were shafted would want their bucks rescored. But, I would contend that he doesn't want his buck "rescored". He just wants it to be panel judged once.

Another interesting side-story. The settlement from the lawsuit of Hanson vs Rompala states that Rompala cannot have his buck entered into any record buck until the Hanson buck is beaten. If the King buck takes over the #1 spot, the Rompala buck could be entered into the record books.

Who knows if that would ever happen. I suspect that buck would fail an X-ray test. But, it would open up a whole new controversey that B&C thought was put to rest.

Everything I read makes me believe that thing is way fake. I was unaware of a lawsuit. Did Hansen sue Rompola? You got a link to that I would love to read it.