Little Billy, 9 Holes, and World Peace

[Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler.]

Let me see if I can offer a counter set of suggestions to explore the
other side of the coin so to speak.

1) Make the entrance fee for the US OPEN $50,000.  We certainly don't
want to have to compete against someone who is merely a good golfer,
they might be better than those of us that can afford the entrance
fee.

2) Require at least 2 holes-in-one per round to make it to the next
round. If you haven't been playing long enough to get 2 holes-in-one
per round, you obviously don't take your golf seriously enough to
compete with those of us that do.

3) Make the tournament a two month affair so as to ensure that you
have the stamina and time to make it a serious effort.  Real golfers
get up before daylight to make sure they have enough time to play real
golf.

...

The flaw with the note that started this is that it assumes that
getting as many contacts and multipliers no matter what is what's
important.  In sports car racing the equivalent analogy would be that
speed is all that matters.  So if speed is all that matters, all
events other than the Indy 500 should be dropped. There wouldn't be a
local racing circuit where those without the megabucks can compete and
have a chance of winning based upon their skill and not their
pocketbook.  Or another analogy is that we should do away with the
special Olympics and let physically challenged athletes compete in the
regular Olympics.  Why do we differentiate between amateur and
professional athletics?

In fact I find the current contest structure sort of amusing.  It
arbitrarily decides that power is some magical separator.  Those that
have it are the "big guns" and those that don't are the "pop guns". 
Well if my math isn't off, the ERP difference between the low power
and high power category is about the same or less than the ERP
difference between my indoor 10 meter dipole and some guys rotatable
array or perhaps even a rotatable dipole at 100'.  In fact, since power
doesn't help on recieve, there is much more of a difference between my
100 W into my antenna and someone elses 100 W into a rotatable yagi,
than there is in me going to legal limit.  Heck, most QRP stations are
in better shape on both transmit and recieve than my station.

As hams, we're such analytics when it comes to evaluating rigs, and
stations, etc. but when it comes to applying those same analytical
skills introspectively, we somehow can't do it.  Isn't the real issue
here is trying to increase the activity in contests and encouraging
people to improve their contesting skills?  Sure, we need to push the
state of the art and build mega antenna farms, and strive for better
stations in general, but lets recognize the reality many hams face and
let them have a chance to compete.

This isn't meant to be a whine, it's meant to be a reflection of
reality. If increasing participation is a goal, then tell me what is
the incentive for me to participate. The last three contests I worked,
I simply was looking for DXCC and VUCC contacts and handing out
points.  Soon, the award contacts I need will be rare enough that even
contests won't be very attractive as a way to get them.  So why should
I compete?  Ask yourself, would you compete or put in a serious effort
if you were limted to an indoor dipole?  I consider myself lucky that
I at least have an attic where I can put a dipole.  Given the number
of magazine articles I see talking about compact indoor antennas, or
attaching an antenna to a balcony rail, I suspect there are many many
hams who can't even put up an indoor dipole.  Or is it not worth the
effort to try and encourage those stations to contest with their
limited resources?

Maybe we're just not smart enough to figure out how to include them.

73,
Todd
N9MWB