The stock car - indy car argument is totally fallacious. What about someone
using only 1 radio, but they have 10 different antennas all available at the
flick of a switch? Are you trying to say that such a setup is in the same
universe as someone with 1 radio and a trap dipole? They're both "one radio"
setups. Are they both indy cars? Or is one an indy car and one a go-kart?
Wouldn't such a match up be "ridiculous, the outcome predetermined and
utterly boring?" Is it "fair competition" when both stations would be in the
same class if distinctions are being made based on the number of radios
being used? Or, how about a two radio station limited to wire antennas vs. a
single radio station using stacked arrays? Which one is the indy car and
which one is the jalopy?
As for the focus in contesting being on competition rather than hardware,
why stop with the number of rigs? There are any number of hardware factors
that can affect the competitive balance in a contest. If I have an opponent
who has demonstrably better antennas than me, the last thing I'm going to
worry about is the number of rigs he has. This station is probably going to
beat me whether he's using one radio or six. Bottom line: SO2R setups are a
matter of extra hardware - nothing more, nothing less. Some stations have
extra antennas, amplifiers, keyers, microphones, computers, etc. Some
stations have extra radios. The key is that there's one operator running the
show; that's the only thing that should factor into any class
differentiation. IMO, class distinctions based on hardware differences are
doomed to failure.
Having said that, it is usually true that SO2R setups have an advantage over
SO1R stations, but so what? There are all kinds of competitive inequalities
in contesting, whether they're based on geography, hardware or operating
skill. All other things being equal, someone from the east coast is going to
beat someone from the black hole in a DX contest every time. Should they be
in different classes because of the difference? Is it "fair competition"
when such an obvious competitive disparity is not addressed through a change
in the rules? Do we really have to create different classes in some
misguided attempt to equalize things? IMO, the enjoyment, if not the
integrity, of a contest suffers in direct proportion to any attempts made to
fabricate some mythical "level playing field." They're always has been
inequalities in contesting and they're always will be. Most people deal with
these inequalities and focus on self-improvement and innovation. Others
merely like to complain.
73...Paul / K0PA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-cq-contest@contesting.com
[mailto:owner-cq-contest@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bill Turner
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2000 5:53 PM
To: Robert Shohet; cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R NOT a new category
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Shohet <kq2m@mags.net>
<snip>
So lets dispense with financial issues as an excuse. If I can do it for a
few extra hundred dollars so can anyone else!
_________________________________________________________
I agree absolutely, in fact I have not two but three radios which could be
pressed into service anytime. It's NOT a question of money, it's a question
of fair competition. It's why, in auto racing, stock cars do not race
against Indy cars, even if there is only one driver. The competition would
be ridiculous, the outcome predetermined and utterly boring.
The attraction in contesting should be focused on the competition and skill,
not the hardware. That's why the WRTC is so great - the stations are
equalized as much as possible, and the winner has REAL bragging rights,
unlike the two-radio guy who beats the one-radio guy.
W7TI
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|