[CQ-Contest] Multi-op categories

[Richard L. King]

At 10:35 AM 11/12/97 -0500, my friend K2WR wrote:
>My friend K5NA wrote:
>
>>The right way to do a CQWW multi-single (really Limited Multi) is to have
>8
>>operators and a station capable of supporting a six-band multi-multi. Six
>>of the operators will be selected for their expertise on one of the six
>>contest bands, 160 through 10 meters. 
>
>I don't agree.  A station "capable of supporting a six-band multi-multi"
>with 8 operators, ought to be entering in the multi-multi category.  I'm
>not saying you have to, I'm saying it's my opinion that you ought to. 
>Otherwise, you're depriving the other contest participants of QSO's you
>could easily be making.  You can certainly do as you choose, consistent
>with the rules, but please don't try to shame the rest of the community
>into creating another category we don't really need because some choose to
>UNDER-ENTER in order to enhance their chances of winning.  I'll have to
>side with J.P. on this one.
>
>Rich K2WR

Hi Rich. I always thought the objective was to "win". Not to hand out as
many friendy QSOs as possible. We won the 1991 CQWW M/S CW category using
four stations connected with fiberoptics and the same approach that I
outlined in my post. And that was from a very bad location (read low and
surrounded by hills) that I always had to deal with in New York. Without
that kind of coordinated operator focus, we would not have had a chance to
win.

When more stations in the world only have one transmitter, one antenna
system, and prefers a one-transmitter mult, how can you say we don't need
it. That just isn't true. We need it! But the problem is that the workload
to support it is more than the CQWW Committee feels they can bear.

I believe I am very objective about this because I happen to like the CQ
version of multi-single (two transmitter multi) and would pick it over the
one transmitter version. But I have always had the hardware and station to
support it. Because I like the CQ version doesn't make me blind to the need
of having a real multi-single for other people. Too many people just can't
seem to see beyond their own noses on this issue.

If the CQWW folks were willing to support a true one-transmitter multi,
then I would be willing to sponsor a plaque for the category. The catch is
that I would like to help develop the rules to ensure that no loopholes
exist allowing multiple transceivers to be used concurrently.

But anyway, my post was mainly tongue-in-cheek and I'm not sure you
realized that. J.P. picked up on the joke.

Rich, it was good to hear from you. I have your hat sitting on the piano
and it is being held hostage to make you return for another visit to Texas.

73, Richard

K5NA at BGA.COM
http://www.realtime.net/~k5na


--
CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com