I'd agree that they are subjected to far greater scrutiny than any other record holder. However, that's because there are far greater rewards for a carp record holder and so many people seem prepared to dispute and question every little aspect of a capture. Some people will never be happy with a particular capture until their own personal criteria are met. If they aren't met, they'll argue endlessly. This is entirely because some folks have got it in their heads that a record holder is somehow a better angler and, latterly, that the fish should be from a particular genetic line and provenance. They seem to want the record holder to have camped out for months on end on a particular water with a track record. Anything that's a bit leftfield, unknown angler, water, fish or anything somehow deemed artificial, is likely to be picked apart and generally rubbished. However, if a fish is accepted by the majority, the captor is going to be lauded in a way that the roach or grayling record holder never will be. It's hard to deny that the likes of Richard Walker, Chris Yates, Terry Hearn, Gary Bayes and Lee Jackson have, to some extent, reaped financial rewards on the back of being the carp record holder. I doubt that you could say similar of any other species record holders, except perhaps barbel. In that respect, I'd still suggest that it's fair to say that the carp record holder is lauded.