Hi John and thanks so much for a well thought out description of the
problem. Iwant to answer some of the points with my clarification if I
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 10:05 PM, John W <email@example.com> wrote:
> To restate the obvious, by the laws of physics, the playing field is not
Amen to that statement. It is a very complex problem to say the least.
> It is far too complex to ever be rendered level by any artificial means (i.e.
> scoring adjustments.)
Another very correct statement, but if we don't try to fix a wrong, it
reamins a wrong. And something is bettr than nothing.
> Any attempt to do so will undoubtedly result in somebody somewhere claiming
> reverse discrimination.
Would that be those who are and have enjoyed the advantage?
> For those of you with a mathematical aptitude, the problem is that there are
> too many independent variables.
The contesting community is full of hams with very complex
mathematical backgrounds. Every day complex mathematical problems are
address and solved. To go down this road and say just because it is
complex is just not true.
> Expanding a little on a comment made by someone else with whom I agree: If
> winning really is that important to you, and you feel that your geography is
> preventing you from winning, then you should either:
> a) move; I am going to save my comments to this until last.
> b) build a remote station; See (a) above
> c) be a guest op; I have operated from the K3WW M-M in the late 70's on at
> least 2 occassions. and operated from HP1XPA in the ARRL CW in 1985. But
> mainly have done my own thing.
> d) go on a DXpedition I have operated in 1982 and 1983 from 4V2C and in 83
> was #1 World M-S
1985 and 86 from 8R1Z and 8R1X ...85 #5 in the World Single op all
band ssb and 86 #1 World Single Op all band ssb
1987 and 1988 from 9Y4TT....87 #1 World Single op all band ssb and 88
#2 World Single op all band
> e) enter a less hotly contested category
For a true contestor that would be copping out..I rise to the
challenge as much as the next contestor...I think competition is good.
I am not going to do any thing halfway.
> f) change your definition of winning - for example, you can decide that if
> you had the highest score in your category within 200 miles of your QTH, then
> you won. I see nothing wrong with that definition.
This is a wussy way of looking at life in general.
a and b....move to a qth that will allow winning...not gonna happen
for 2 really good reasons...first and foremost, the WARDEN will
divorce me cause she ain't moving up north...And second I don't want
to pay property taxes on land in Maine...
> But a word of warning - even if you choose to do one of the above, the
> playing field still won't be level. That is the nature of the game we are in
> - there is an element of skill, an element of good station engineering, an
> element of geography, and an element of luck. Many factors contribute to what
> we might categorize as luck, including ionospheric conditions, local storms,
> power outages, computer malfunctions, who spotted you vs. spotting your
> competitor, how wide a signal does a neighboring run station have, etc.
> If you really want to compete with a level playing field, or at least as
> level as it can get as a practical matter, then you need to get all the ops
> with whom you want to compete to submit their high scores on RUFZ or Morse
> Runner or other similar programs. *Just make sure everybody has the same
> level of background noise in the room (or, better yet, everybody is in the
> same room), and everybody uses the same pair of headphones, and uses the same
> settings in the program, or else the playing field still won't be level.
> CQ-Contest mailing list
So John and all others it is not really about the things that have
been listed here...it is a regard to expand the "sweet spot" of the
potential winners from a 200 mile radius of Boston to something
larger...will a w6 ever winn ARRL, not really ure ...based on current
JA activity , i really don't think so...
So back to Net Control.
CQ-Contest mailing list