Will we have more competition on MS or M2 if we change the rules to what
most or many of us think they should be.
Instead of only superstations being in the running to win maybe more
modest stations would have a chance to actually post decent scores.
What we have right now is a very select group of stations dominating the
those classes.
Are the NBA playoffs exciting right now with two team running away with
it all and everyone expecting those two teams, Golden State and
Cleveland to be in the finals or are the NHL playoffs more exciting with
two game 7's coming with everything on the line and now Ottawa taking
down the Rangers?
Would it be more exciting like WRTC where 2 through 4th or 5th was very
very close in every class in every contest?
Explain to me how you get anyone interested in winning or even competing
when you tell them a they have to pretty much live in a couple of
geographical areas and you need a pile of money to build a super
station. Congrats to the superstations. Amazing work. They are the 1
percent, so why have the rules been changed or not changed for the
benefit of the 1 percenters and the rest of us essentially left out. Or
look at it another way. When I played hockey we had age brackets for a
reason. It attempted to level the playing field. We do next to nothing
to attempt to level the field. Why?
SO2R and interweaving qsos is great. Congrats to those few that can do
it well and have the resources to do it. I feel like my modest station
is a rowboat compared to speedboats. It makes zero sense that we all
compete in the essentially the same classes with rowboats, sailboats,
powerboats and air craft carriers and then have the classes or rules
that benefit those pushing the envelope.
On 5/9/2017 4:14 PM, Yuri wrote:
Gerry,
Isn't SO2R Dual CQ operation (a-la CT1BOH, N6MJ etc.) is the same type of <quote>
"elimination of a lot of people from ever being in contention for top spots in the
category" <unquote>?
All that you said below is true for ANY category.
I think it's all about the rules.
If they aren't broken and they allow to do such, then... one either needs to
change the rules or has to accept the fact. Maybe it's time to research some
other ways to attract (more) new competitors, like doing more WRTC-style (live)
competitions during June FDays, working more closely with schools, colleges and
other youth organizations and so on...
Best regards,
Yuri VE3DZ
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Gerry
Hull
Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 10:28 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] What is Multi to you?
Interesting Thread.
I've been contesting over 40 years. In all that time, 99% of my efforts have
been at M/S or M/2 stations.
For more than 30 of those years, a multi-single was a station with one main
radio and one multiplier radio.
With a single tower and a good antenna complement, winning M/S in North America
has been possible with two radios. We did it at more than one station.
If you read my comments on CQ Contest, you know that I don't live in the past
-- I love technology, and advancing the state of the art is where I'm at.
However, in this case, I think the case of N radios in a M/S is a
bastardization of M/S. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
I applaud the Huge M/S multi-radio efforts by K1LZ and others -- very cool technology --
but all that does is eliminate a lot of people from ever being in contention for top
spots in the category. If you look at the size of the scores in these 5-to-10 radio
Multi-singles, they are completely out of line with "traditional" multi-singles.
In CQWW, there used to be a category for "experimental" operations ... I'm sure those
guys building those huge M/S operations would not accept being put in to such a category...
However, how do we encourage new stations, and long-time "traditional" M/S stations to
compete in the category?
Since there are not a HUGE number of these Many-TX-interlocked M/S, and they
love to one-up each other -- why not let them compete in a category of their
own?
There's lots of technology/technique happening in the M/S space without going
to such extremes.
73,
Gerry W1VE
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|