Nobody's "beating up" on East Coast stations as I am one myself.
The idea though is that it's not an even game of skills at all, and
other advantages shouldn't be simply dismissed.
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Ed Sawyer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I know we all like to beat up on East Coast stations. I thought that SS,
> NAQP, Sprint, 10M were of interest to the group. No East Coast advantage
> there - in fact its "almost" fatal to be on the East Coast for those
> contests, especially the North East.
> I don't know why "contest opinion" is so DX Contest centric on this
> reflector. It should bother people that are more interested in domestic
> contests, but doesn't seem to.
> Ed N1UR
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ria Jairam [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 9:41 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Cc: CQ-Contest Reflector
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] SO2R vs SO1R
> The original statement said:
> "I don't support the notion we should create new categories just because some
> folks have developed a skill the rest of us choose not to."
> Let's be honest with ourselves. This is NOT simply and only a question of
> skills. It is absolutely a question of station in addition to skills. There's
> absolutely 100% no denying of this.
> This pretty much mirrors the debate over assisted vs unassisted, or even
> in-band dual CQ which was banned by ARRL and CQ. It takes skill to use the
> cluster. It also takes skill to dual CQ in band. But a very important
> consideration is having the station to do it.
> Think of it - are all of the stations on the East Coast that place in the top
> 10, somehow more skilled than those in the rest of the country because they
> place in the top 10? Of course not. What about those with wire antennas only?
> Are they less skilled? I doubt it. There are many factors at play, but to
> dismiss it as simply and only a question of skills is deception intended to
> shut down debate over whether SO2R should be considered separately.
> And for the record, I do not think that SO2R in the official results should
> be considered separately from SO1R. Single op refers to the person behind
> the station, not the number of radios.
> Ria, N2RJ
> On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Ed Sawyer <email@example.com> wrote:
>> “Hmm. I do know that 2 towers, filtering, 2 radios and 2 amps is
>> double the cost... And for most the barrier isn't skill, it's cost.”
>> Why stop there? 1 competitive radio with a competitive tower and
>> antennas and the land to put it on with a relatively low noise floor
>> can be a BIGGER cost impediment than adding a second radio and tower
>> to an already competitive location.
>> To be competitive in this sport, you need a very good to great
>> location that can support at least a big tower/antennas with a
>> relatively low noise floor – SO1R/SO2R/SOXR/
>> Assisited/Unassited/MS/M2/MM it doesn’t matter. It’s the cost of
>> entry at the competitive level. To then say adding SO2R is somehow the cost
>> barrier is naïve.
>> Ed N1UR
>> PS – I literally picked my homesite with competitive radio contesting
>> in mind. One, 2, or 3 towers after that was about time and
>> maintenance hassle, not about money.
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list