RTTY
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RTTY] Level Playing Field is unrealistic

To: <RTTY@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Level Playing Field is unrealistic
From: Jim Rhodes <k0xu@iowadsl.net>
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 19:44:33 -0500
List-post: <mailto:rtty@contesting.com>
The same logic could be used for and against having high/low power or
assisted/unassisted classes. Personally I am not sure which side I am
on in this debate. However it seems to me that the SOmR people do
not want a separate class for themselves and the some of the SO1R do
want a separate class for themselves. Is there not some contest that
it can be tried in? I remember there were debates just as heated as
this over the assisted classes. They are now an accepted fact.



At 05:00 PM 7/23/2006, Steve Lenaghan VE4LR wrote:
>Jim
>
>Not really.  My point is that adjusting the rules to favour the lesser
>player is creating a handicap system which may work fine in golf but not
>here. By forcing a second classification that some or all of the top ten
>would probably be moved too you remove a field of players and automatically
>increase the standing of SOSR operators based simply on the fact that a
>group has been moved to SO2R.
>
>73 Steve VE4LR
>

Jim Rhodes K0XU
jim@rhodesend.net

Experience is the thing you have left when everything else is gone. 
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>