The power limit idea is good and I believe that this has been tossed
around before, particularly back when there was a power multiplier in
the SS (which was reportedly abused frequently). We now have the NAQP
with its power limitation for competitors, and more recently, the CQ
INT sprint. In the WRTC the on-site competitors had no amplifiers.
Perhaps Doug and/or John can make some comments about this, since they
were there, and they won. For them, the additional power was not
necessary. I wonder if the silver medalists felt they could have won
if they had run more power?
Many sports have separate entry classes for beginners/novices/hackers.
Golf and bowling have handicap systems to help level the competition,
and pro-am tournaments are common in these sports as well. Of course,
we are all "amateurs", but some of us do a very "professional" job of
building a first class station and operating it. How do we separate
the "pros" from the "ams"? (Or the experienced from the inexperienced?)
When I was a member of the Northern California Contest Club, one of the
awards given annually was the Rookie of the Year Award, which was
recognition of outstanding achievement by a new member. Perhaps such an
award could be given on a national basis each year at Dayton or Visalia.
This award might help stimulate interest in contesting among some of
our new contesters and might give them some incentive. Is this being
done now? We should have a committee of top contesters to evaluate
nominees for the award and determine a winner.
Getting back to the power limit - it is rumored that some competitors
do not obey the power limits which are now in place. I do not believe
that it is reasonable to expect that everyone would cut back their
power to 100 or 150 watts just because the rules of the contest require
it. But some, perhaps most of us would.
Alan, K6XO
|