[CQ-Contest] SO vs. SOA and 1 radio vs. 2 radio

Ron Wetjen wd4ahz at gte.net
Fri Oct 31 15:17:19 EST 1997

Have been following these two very interesting threads over the last few
days.  I know they are two totally different subjects, but I see some
simularity in both of the discussions.

First, the subject of allowing Packet for all Single ops, most folks are
opposed, including myself. The true "Single Op" stations don't want to
be lumped together with the "Single Op Assisted" ... and I understand
that perfectly.  I've used packet two or three times, during a
non-serious contest effort (didn't send in any logs) .... just to pass
away the time, doing S & P ... and working a few of the spotted
stations, as well as spot a few myself.  As some have mentioned, they
don't have access, or have no desire to use packet spotting ... and
would rather use their own skills and knowledge to find the mults on
their own.  Trey had a great line, when he said "Even if it would have
no effect on the competitive balance (fat chance), it would be a real
psychological disadvantage to know I was
operating against a bunch of packet assisted guys. "

Now, to the 1 radio vs. 2 radio discussion.  I've brought this subject
up a while back, and received a mix of comments.  This in NO WAY is
meant to deminish any ones hard work, skills, station, or their ability
in being able to use 2 radios.  We're not looking to add a specific
category for 1 radio vs. 2 radio, but some way to indicate the
difference in the standings.  I'd like to compare my score to my peers.
You guys who can and do run 2 radios, are not my peers ... you're my
heroes!  When I grow up, I want to be like you!  The same arguments used
in the SO vs. SOA discussion can be used here.  Why do the 1 radio guys
have to be lumped together with the ones using 2?  Where's the harm in
just noting 1 radio vs. 2 radios in the standings, so we can compare our
scores with our peers, and not the "Gods"?  Apologies to Trey, but his
comments work just as well for this discussion ... Even if it would have
no effect on the competitive balance (fat chance), it is a real
psychological disadvantage to know I am operating against a bunch of 2
radio guys.

I found it interesting, some of the ones opposed to lumping the SO and
SOA together, are the same ones who are opposed to some indication of 1
radio vs. 2 radio in the standings.  Just turn the arguments around, and
you'll know how a lot of us 1 radio guys feel about having our scores
compared to the 2 radio guys.

Again, some day, I hope to join the ranks of the 2 radio ops, but right
now, I just can't do it.  And there are a lot of others in the same
situation. To those that have mastered the technique, I'm awestruck,
because I know how much work and skill is involved, and it does give you
an advantage (I've seen logs as proof!).  For the rest of us, we'd like
to see how we are doing compared to each other, just like you like to
see how you compare with the 2 radio crowd.  Don't forget ... without a
lot of us 1 radio guys on the air, those second radios would be mighty

73 and GL to all in SS

1 radio, "A" category


WD4AHZ Home Page - http://home1.gte.net/wd4ahz/index.htm
Sarasota Emergency Radio Club - http://home1.gte.net/wd4ahz/serc.htm
Florida Contest Group - http://www.4w.com/deemer/fcg.htm
Sunshine State QSO Party - http://home1.gte.net/wd4ahz/fcg/ssqp.htm

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

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list