• The SH Membership has gone live. Only SH Members have access to post in the classifieds. All members can view the classifieds. Starting in 2020 only SH Members will be admitted to the annual hunting contest. Current members will need to follow these steps to upgrade: 1. Click on your username 2. Click on Account upgrades 3. Choose SH Member and purchase.
  • We've been working hard the past few weeks to come up with some big changes to our vendor policies to meet the changing needs of our community. Please see the new vendor rules here: Vendor Access Area Rules

Rompola Buck Update

Status
Not open for further replies.
DroptineKrazy said:
That's a 205 inch non typical not a typical. 205 is not that big as far as non typicals go. The world record is over 330.
Click to expand...
If a buck can grow 200" of bone, what difference does it make if it's typical or non-typical? Bone is bone regardless of how it's configured. Has Florida produced a 300" buck?
 
Last edited:
Steve O said:
You all are comparing apples and oranges. Florida today has QDM, an immense amount of private land, and 365 day growing season. Michigan in 1999 had 750,000 firearms hunters in the peak of the rut with handfuls of tags shooting anything that moved. That area of the state has huge lake effect snows and long winters. The soil grows cherry and apple trees and grape vines. It’s not an agricultural belt and there are NO genes for Rompola looking bucks anywhere in Michigan in the history of deer.

That deer and the one previous are faked. The rest of his 120-140 inch deer are genuine. And the actually look like deer that live in Michigan. His “smaller” Rompola looking buck in Dan Bertalan’s book is a doe.

The guy had a strategy to make himself into the greatest deer hunter ever and he went too far.

Now here is a genuine question. I don’t recall ever seeing any pictures of the nine year old Mitch state record MO buck or the other state record buck from his youth. Only the 40 year old MR posing with a mount. Do any original photos exist? There MUST have been newspaper articles about such an incredible accomplishment in the 50s or 60s?
Click to expand...
Ricky posted the typical buck Missouri "record" MR killed when he was 9. post 225. The "other" Missouri record NT is on post. 234.
 
DroptineKrazy said:
That's a 205 inch non typical not a typical. 205 is not that big as far as non typicals go. The world record is over 330.
Click to expand...
I think you missed my point. It's a lot easier to hit 205 points as a non typical so you ain't never gonna see a 205 inch typical coming out of Florida. Kansas yes but Florida you wouldn't even be able to calculate the odds it would be so astronomically high.
 
DroptineKrazy said:
I think you missed my point. It's a lot easier to hit 205 points as a non typical so you ain't never gonna see a 205 inch typical coming out of Florida. Kansas yes but Florida you wouldn't even be able to calculate the odds it would be so astronomically high.
Click to expand...
My point is, if a deer can produce 205" of bone, why can it only produce 205" of bone as a non-typical and not a typical? Bone production is bone production regardless how it's configured.
 
DroptineKrazy said:
Cause a 205 inch non typical is like a 160 typical that's why.
Click to expand...
Explain why a deer growing 205" of antler can only grow it in a non-typical configuration? What if 205" of antler growth is configured as a typical? What happens then? Common sense would make one think that it would be a 205" typical. Where am I wrong?
 
ricky racer said:
Explain why a deer growing 205" of antler can only grow it in a non-typical configuration? What if 205" of antler growth is configured as a typical? What happens then? Common sense would make one think that it would be a 205" typical. Where am I wrong?
Click to expand...
Not saying you are wrong friend. I'm simply stating bucks like that 205 non typical typically (like how I did that? ;)) get a lot of their score from those odd points so the odds of a typical scoring that high are much lower.
 
DroptineKrazy said:
Not saying you are wrong friend. I'm simply stating bucks like that 205 non typical typically (like how I did that? ;)) get a lot of their score from those odd points so the odds of a typical scoring that high are much lower.
Click to expand...
Very clever!:yum: LOL!!
A score is determined by the amount of antler is grown plus it's spread, not the number of points. We had a guy locally tag a 6 point that measured in the 150's. The scores didn't care how many points it had, only the amount of antler it had grown. It could have grown a rack with 10 points and still scored 150" but the rack was not configured that way. It was configured as a 6 point.
 
ricky racer said:
Very clever!:yum: LOL!!
A score is determined by the amount of antler is grown plus it's spread, not the number of points. We had a guy locally tag a 6 point that measured in the 150's. The scores didn't care how many points it had, only the amount of antler it had grown. It could have grown a rack with 10 points and still scored 150" but the rack was not configured that way. It was configured as a 6 point.
Click to expand...
I realize that. Tell me what you'd guess that 205 inch buck would have scored without those extra non typical points. 165, 170 maybe?
 
ricky racer said:
Very clever!:yum: LOL!!
A score is determined by the amount of antler is grown plus it's spread, not the number of points. We had a guy locally tag a 6 point that measured in the 150's. The scores didn't care how many points it had, only the amount of antler it had grown. It could have grown a rack with 10 points and still scored 150" but the rack was not configured that way. It was configured as a 6 point.
Click to expand...
That’s where I think the volume displacement methods of scoring would be the best…… the antlers that displaced the most would score the highest regardless of symmetry.
 
woodsdog2 said:
That’s where I think the volume displacement methods of scoring would be the best…… the antlers that displaced the most would score the highest regardless of symmetry.
Click to expand...
I've always felt the same way. I do love the big beautiful clean typicals but if a buck has any droptines I'm a real sucker for them regardless of what the score is. They all should get credit for the bone they grew though.
 
DroptineKrazy said:
I realize that. Tell me what you'd guess that 205 inch buck would have scored without those extra non typical points. 165, 170 maybe?
Click to expand...
Well that's hard to say. If you were to compress all that bone mass into a typical rack of say a 10 point rack, it would be huge. Since the 205" is the measurement of the antler growth plus the spread and we, for arguments sake we assumed the spread was the same and we aren't reducing the amount of antler growth, it would probably still be around 200". If you take a 10# weight and cut it up into 100 pieces, the total sum of the pieces will still be 10#. Again, the number of points doesn't matter in scoring, only the amount of antler growth, plus the spread determines the score.
I think you are thinking that if you removed all of the non-typical points and growth it would be a typical rake smaller in size and that would be correct but that requires removing antler growth from the rack. If you removed enough antler, you could make it a simple spike buck. But that buck grew 205" of bone. If you took that 205" of bone and reconfigured it into a 10 rack, it would be huge.
Let me put it another way. Lets say you had 10# of clay and made an exact replica of the 205" non-typical rack, then took that 10# of clay and made a typical rack but had to use the whole 10# of clay, how big would that rack be? You're not removing any clay, you're reshaping it into a different shape.
I've got friends in West Virginia that tell me "if you were to roll WV flat, it would be bigger than Texas.;)
 
ricky racer said:
Well that's hard to say. If you were to compress all that bone mass into a typical rack of say a 10 point rack, it would be huge. Since the 205" is the measurement of the antler growth plus the spread and we, for arguments sake we assumed the spread was the same and we aren't reducing the amount of antler growth, it would probably still be around 200". If you take a 10# weight and cut it up into 100 pieces, the total sum of the pieces will still be 10#. Again, the number of points doesn't matter in scoring, only the amount of antler growth, plus the spread determines the score.
I think you are thinking that if you removed all of the non-typical points and growth it would be a typical rake smaller in size and that would be correct but that requires removing antler growth from the rack. If you removed enough antler, you could make it a simple spike buck. But that buck grew 205" of bone. If you took that 205" of bone and reconfigured it into a 10 rack, it would be huge.
Let me put it another way. Lets say you had 10# of clay and made an exact replica of the 205" non-typical rack, then took that 10# of clay and made a typical rack but had to use the whole 10# of clay, how big would that rack be? You're not removing any clay, you're reshaping it into a different shape.
I've got friends in West Virginia that tell me "if you were to roll WV flat, it would be bigger than Texas.;)
Click to expand...
Makes sense. How about this though since we are kinda trying to put a square peg in a round hole by comparing typicals and non typicals. If a typical rack has a couple of odd points they ARE actually deducted off of the score. Remember they don't always get credit for all the bone they grow but the non typicals do if irc.
 
Why exactly don't they just measure and that is the score u get? I never looked into it... The scoring seems complicated
 
DroptineKrazy said:
Makes sense. How about this though since we are kinda trying to put a square peg in a round hole by comparing typicals and non typicals. If a typical rack has a couple of odd points they ARE actually deducted off of the score. Remember they don't always get credit for all the bone they grow but the non typicals do if irc.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the odd points get added then deducted but that's the way it is.:confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top