[CQ-Contest] The "weak analogy"

[T A RUSSELL]

N4KG  responses intersperced in text -

On Sat, 22 Nov 97 17:26:19 +0000 i4jmy at migate.n8it.ampr.org writes:

>The analogy between contesting and olympics was pulled out in the last
>days by supporters of newer categories, so misleading (by purpose ?) 
>the
>speech to the absurd of No categories at all, fact that's totally out 
>from the original topic.
>
>The real question is another. The continuous request of newer and 
>newer 
>categories couldn't be explained by a sort of lazyness and desire to 
>win anyway anything without dealing ? (athlets trains hard to be 
>selected
>and go to the olympics)
>
>The matter stay in the fact, let's continue the olympics analogy since
>someone liked, that a number of Hams feel insufficient to choose among 
>
>the number of the EXISTING categories because in any of them they see 
>something out of their possibility.
>
       N4KG  REPLY :  The request for a Multi-operator ONE-Transmitter
		category is to fill a rather obvious gap between
		the DOZENS of SINGLE Operator categories and
		the HIGH  STEP UP  to Multi-"Single" (which requires
		at least a SECOND station and antennas capable of
		operating simultaneiously on other bands, and
		MULTI-operator MULTI-Transmitter.

		Single operator categories include: 

		Single Operator All Band
		Single Operator Single Band (160,80,40,20,15,10)
		Single Operator ASSISTED
		......with three POWER  LEVELS (High, Low, QRP)
		      available for EACH option
		..... for a total of  3 X 8 = 24  SINGLE  OP categories

		versus only TWO  Multi-operator categories M/S, M/M
		both of which require substantial hardware and crews.
		
		(Most M/S entrants have crews of 4 to 6 operators
		except the IQ4A M/S stns who use DOZENS of operators,
		and most M/M entrants have 10 to 20 operators.  There
		is a clear lack of opportunity for 2 or 3 operators in
the 
		existing Multi-operator categories.  Such a category
		would promote small multi-operator activity from basic
		"home" stations and simplify small DXpedition operations,
		with a probable increase in contest participation.
		       de   N4KG
		
>
>In 100m run someone would require intermediate stops or to have a 
>slooping track.
>In the long term run someone would like to be pushed by someone else 
>or  to be allowed using a bycicle, to stop for lunch or watching TV.
>In soccer they would ask for reducing players down to a smaller number 
>so  everyone could have his competitive team (may be 11 is too much).
>

      N4KG  REPLY: 	 "someone pushed by someone else?"   
		This sounds like a perfect description of the
		existing Single Operator ASSISTED
categories.				Are you suggesting they be
eliminated?
		I've already heard from that group!  
		They are well entrenched and have shown
		the validity of their category with a high  level of 
		participation, which, in my humble opinion,
		is the primary requirement for ANY category to exist.
		How would the addition of ONE new category
		for Multi operator ONE transmitter detract from
		any of the present categories?    de N4KG


>Someone would somehow modify something of the existing categories, 
>just to
>create OTHER NEW ones where it's supposed to be competive (huh?), 
>without
>any kind of deal (study, sacrifice, etc.) but leaving everithing he 
>has just like it is, year after year.
>
>When a competition is not a matter of individual strenght, but a 
>compound 
>of brain, technology and will, does it have any sense to take away the
>need of developing and dealing to achieve something ?
>

     N4KG REPLY:	Are you suggesting that single operator is
		the ONLY valid entry?  Should ALL Multi-operator
		categories be eliminated because they  "take
		away the need of developing and dealing..."
		What exacyly is your point here?  de  N4KG
		   (what do you mean by "dealing?")

>73,
>Mauri, I4JMY (one of IR4T)
>
>
>E-mail I4JMY at uugate.aim.utah.edu
....................................................................

(Copy of previous post by N4KG: )

BENEFITS of MULTI-Operator ONE Transmitter Category for CQ  WW

	de Tom  Russell  N4KG

1 - INCREASED  PARTICIPATION  (Domestic, DX, Expedition)

	Many people are reluctant to enter as a serious single
	operator due to the demanding time and physical 
	commitment necessary to produce a top score.  The
	M/S and M/M categories present hardware challenges
	that many are unable or unwilling to surmount.

	Multi-operator ONE Transmitter  is the perfect category 
	for 2 or 3 operators at a basic home station with at 
	least  one antenna per band.  No additional antennas / 
	radios / computer interfaces are needed to activate. 
	This is an excellent way for an elmer to "show the 
	ropes" to budding contesters.  (This is exactly how
	N4KG developed WA8YVR and WN4KKN.)

	This is the optimum arrangement for small Contest
	Expeditions....One radio, a tribander and vertical for
	the low bands with 2 or 3 people to help with installation.

2 -	NO  CHANGES to other categories.  S/O, SOA,  M/S,  M/M
	remain intact and  unchanged.  (Note:  I have been 
	persuaded NOT to combine Multi-ONE with SOA.)

3 -	This is a WIN - WIN improvement to the existing format
	of the CQ  WW   DX  Contests.  Let's DO  IT !

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