There are practical limitations of how you draw the boundaries of contest
categories. It is impossible to account for all variables (e.g., geo location,
antennas and towers, etc.) and even if you did you will have categories with
very few participants to the point the competition is no longer fun.
In fact, I'd argue that keeping categories to a minimum rewards operators who
find the optimum balance between the many variables and tradeoffs. Amateur
radio contesting, IMHO, is all about figuring out which levers to pull, not
just about the simplistic SO1R vs SOnR, Assisted vs Unassisted, etc.
Rudy N2WQOn Friday, August 11, 2017, 11:34:32 AM EDT, Ria Jairam
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
CQ-Contest mailing list