I kind of hear that but I have a different take.
Some have taken to creative means to "solve" that problem. We have one 5
area station who remotes to NY, and even one NY station is remoting to
Maine now.
But even up here, I focus on regional competition rather than national,
although the 5 station who remotes to NY makes that a bit more difficult,
and yes, it is discouraging. Sometimes I wish that contest organizers would
remove the whole remote factor in the competition for regional standings,
and leave it for national/world standings. This way those of us who live
and invest in a station in a particular area don't get beaten out by
someone who rents a station for a weekend and operates remote.
But even so, look at the competition up here. Last season FRC (PA/NY/NJ/DE)
beat YCCC (New England) in ARRL and CQWW. And we did it with fewer entries.
K3LR beats the powerhouses up in the NE all the way from basically to Ohio
(PA/OH border). I don't even know if KC1XX does M/M anymore to be honest,
but when they did, K3LR would consistently beat them. So it is possible.
And yes, a lot of it is location but K3LR pushes the bar higher with
technology.
That said, I'm not really sure how you're going to even the whole thing
out. Mike hinted that no other sport is "uneven" in this manner. I would
say that is incorrect. Instead, I believe they've already sorted out the
inequities. Men and women are separated in competition because of gender
based (dis)advantages in physical strength, speed and endurance.
Handicapped athletes participate in their own competition, by and large as
well. Marathons separate elites and others.
And maybe this last point is where we need to be headed. The guys with
stacks, 4 squares and large arrays will beat those with single tower,
single beam and wire antennas. Not everyone can afford to put those up, and
HOA-free property is becoming harder to acquire. So maybe a re-evaluation
of who we're competing against needs to be done.
Ria
N2RJ
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 1:42 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu@w0mu.com> wrote:
> Gerry gets it.
>
> Please name one other sport where the playing field is so unlevel or
> unfair. There are none. The only reason it is acceptable in our sport is
> that the people in charge of these contests happen to be located where?
>
> The same people in the same geographically advantaged areas continue to
> rally against any changes at the detriment to Ham Radio and especially
> contesting.
>
> The cries from every other part of the world continue to fall on deaf
> ears. Will it ever change? Do those in charge really care?
>
> W0MU
>
>
>
>
> On 5/9/2017 7:29 PM, Gerry Hull wrote:
>
>> If you think I'm complaining, I'm not. You've missed my point. I don't
>> give a hoot -- I enjoy the game, and finishing behind those 8-station guys
>> in M/S is just fine with me.
>>
>> It just keeps eliminating more and more people from the game. Exactly
>> what
>> we don't want. That's my only worry.
>>
>> 73, Gerry W1VE
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Ria Jairam <rjairam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Why all this complaining I wonder? We have stations griping about how it's
>>> not "fair" and how people have "too many advantages."
>>>
>>> Guess what - life is not fair!!! In sports the bigger, stronger, faster
>>> one will win. In radio sport the big guns closer to advantageous areas
>>> and
>>> who can do SO2R will win. That's just how it is. If you're out west and
>>> tired of being beaten, then come pay the high taxes and enjoy the harsh
>>> winters out east. Or maybe pay a remote service and use one of their
>>> stations in Maine or New York and win a plaque. Turn key plug and play.
>>> Meaningless in my eyes (YOU didn't build that), but if you're so badly
>>> after a plaque that is one way.
>>>
>>> I have a single tower station with one radio and one amp. I do fairly
>>> well. I win the district sometimes and even squeak my way into the top 10
>>> sometimes. I'm happy with that, but I could improve and do better in the
>>> placement. But let's be honest. Someone could dump a ton of money and
>>> build
>>> a multi tower station complete with low band 4 squares. They'll beat me.
>>> Is
>>> that fair? Maybe it isn't. But I'm not going to knee cap them because I
>>> want to win. I just deal with it.
>>>
>>> Ria
>>> N2RJ
>>> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 7:57 PM Gerry Hull <gerry@yccc.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have no problem with Dual CQ SO2R, Yuri. These are great advances in
>>>> technique and show excellent operator skill and innovation.
>>>>
>>>> Time Division Multiplexing 8 operators and radios to a "single" radio,
>>>> IMHO, is not the same thing and is not in the spirit of the rules. It
>>>> is
>>>> simply a technology technique which is within the letter of the rules,
>>>> but
>>>> not the spirit.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I have to accept it if the rules may not change. I DO accept it...
>>>> However, I don't think it is a good way to encourage new M/S teams to
>>>> participate.
>>>>
>>>> We all have our opinions, these are mine.
>>>>
>>>> 73, Gerry W1VE
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Yuri <ve3dz@rigexpert.net> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|