Richard Zalewski <w7zr@citlink.net> wrote:
> Good, I accomplished what I started out to do and that is to get
people to
> think about this subject (SO2R).
Truly, I'd have to respond that you did not attain your goal. What
you did
was to reopen a stale topic and give a few of us a chance to get in
some
zingers. The vast majority of respondents posted opinions in
opposition to
the views you presented. Most were taken aback by your pronouncement
that the numeric comparison between your score and a leading scorer
could be attributed primarily to your own personal choice of issues
(SO2R).
Most of the respondents who seemed to agree with you also seemed to
be at a loss when presenting their views. One made comparisons
clearly
showing that he thought all SO2R competitors routinely called CQ on
two bands simultaneously. Others vastly overestimated the score
advantage that is attained through SO2R or suggested flawed
statistical
methods that they thought we should use to evaluate the value of SO2R
to the competitor. Clearly each of them believed they were presenting
valid arguments, even though their arguments wouldn't stand up under
the weight of examination.
Out of the discussion, one quite interesting suggestion surfaced:
Rather than considering a column showing SO1R or SO2R as a statistic,
the suggestion that the number of bandchanges in the log be printed
was
interesting, to me at least.
Those of us who wish to interpret this as an indicator of possible
SO2R
operation could do so -- and your own personal position would be
buoyed. Those of us who wish to interpret this as an indication of
"hustle" can do so. And those of us who object to the concept of
stigmatizing the use of two rigs with a label (TLA) and a column
(SO2R or SO1R) in the magazines that would provide fuel for
further attacks on everything that represents excellence in contest
operating wouldn't be offended. These kinds of numbers would be
interesting totop competitors when reading the contest results.
But in the final analysis, the majority of respondents simply said
that
this topic is stale, and they tire from hearing about it. I, for one,
disagree. I tend to believe that even a stale topic is worth the
effort
of fighting through dozens of boring, ill tempered, poorly presented
opinions as long as some comedian can push a good joke into the
thread somewhere along the way.
KR6X
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Zalewski" <w7zr@citlink.net>
To: "cq-contest" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 3:10 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Re: Consider this
> Good, I accomplished what I started out to do and that is to get
people to
> think about this subject (SO2R).
>
> While I do not want to get embroiled in attacks and a lot of
specifics I
> will try to make a couple of points of clarification from my point
of view.
>
> First, let me again state this was not a statistical analysis.
Anyone could
> see that in the initial post I referenced my score and one other
station in
> my class for one contest. Hardly suggested that it was a "study" or
an
> "analysis". The information posted was the "data" at hand and it
really was
> not the sum total of the point of view. I believe several of the
> suggestions made regarding a good future comparison of SO2R vs SO1R
bear
> review by the contest folks. What could be wrong with that?
>
> While I have posted in the past on this subject and sometimes
jokingly have
> suggested many categories so "everyone" gets an award, that is not
my goal.
> I feel that SO2R vs SO1R is like having a race
> between a Corvette and a Corvair. (Now please don't start a thread
on car
> comparisons). Those that think there is no advantage to running
SO2R then
> why do they do it? Most who do it are really first class contest
operators
> anyway. They do it to increase their score. They do it to advance
> techniques. Then why was the technique of using packet radio
swiftly put in
> to a separate class? Someone suggested running packet spots takes
no skill.
> I beg to differ. To take full advantage of packet spotting in the
assisted
> category does require a bit of skill, coordination, timing and
> understanding. Just about the same skills and equipment necessary
for SO2R.
> So why is one mode a category by itself and not the other?
>
> Those who have said it is not a money issue. I can agree with that.
There
> are many ways to set up the station for SO2R without spending
megabucks.
> That is not my point. I could put $100K into my Corvair and it is
still a
> Corvair. I just feel in the spirit of competition, of trying to
get more
> operators
> involved contesting, we need to have limited but fair
classifications so
> that
> those who "need" to compete for the "prize" can do so on as level a
playing
> field as possible. For the rest of us, we can just have fun.
>
> Oh yes, it was pointed out that there are so many other factors as
to why I
> was "womped". Very true. Some of the suggested differences were: It
was
> unfair to compare East Coast stations to West Coast stations (Whoa,
I don't
> think we want to get that one started); the operator for the station
I
> posted is "That Good" ( I stated in the original post that I take
nothing
> away from the other operator, a great contestor); that the soil
conductivity
> was different in Virginia than Arizona (Great idea, I think we
should have
> to submit the results of lab tests at each station and classify them
by soil
> conductivity). However, I was not just
> writing about my station and my class but all others who are running
SO1R in
> an SO2R class. It still is amazing to me how many private emails I
got in
> support of the idea but how few were posted. Maybe some are
intimidated but
> still support the proposal.
>
> Meanwhile I just will continue to try and stir
> some thought on the subject.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|