[CQ-Contest] One-Brain-One-Channel Contesting

[Ward Silver]

>    The folks asking for a separate class for SO2R have a valid point.  What 
> we first need to decide is on what basis are we competing.  Once this 
> question has been answered, the rest is easy.  BTW, a simple fix may be to 
> institute a 2 or 3 minute rule for SO.  That will end the problem.
>  
> 73 de Jim
> W0UO/5

Like Steve Martin says, "There are two simple steps to being a millionaire
and never pay taxes.  The first step is that you get a million dollars." 

Trying to define on what basis we compete is THE question - the rest is
trivia.

If you are simply trying to get the "measure of the man" (including the
YL's out there) - then head-to-head competitions such as WRTC with
specific equipment and equivalent environments are the way to go.  Chess,
weightlifting, etc. have managed to solve this problem.  Unfortunately,
radio contesting has not and probably will not to the degree that abstract
games and tests of physical characteristics can.  Unless, that is, we go
to a straight PED/RUFZ/PILEUP motif, which may answer the question, but in
a manner that is incomplete.  There are probably treadmill monsters that
can outpedal Lance Armstrong, but I don't think they will ever win the
Tour De France.

I think we must consider the history of great athletes from the past and
ask why they are remembered as superior examples and not others.  The best
are generally considered to be all-round players, not specialists.  Not
only did they excel in one category or another, but they also understood
the game, took the time to maintain their skills by practice over years
and years, kept their bodies in good shape, took advantage of the
available technology, and (usually) served as excellent ambassadors of
their sport. 

Radio contesting seems to be a sport of specialists, but when we look to
past history and the greats, we remember the calls of those who not only
could run rate, pick out full calls, and stay awake for the full contest,
but who also managed to construct or utilize a winning station, operate
from the right locations, organize their lives such that full effort was
able to be expended, stay sufficiently fit, and do it year after year. 
These guys were the complete contesters. 

In the very near future, we will have the ability to run SOnR with
wideband computer-assisted spectral analysis.  Then what?  Where does the
operator's capability lie?  The definition of "operation" will have to
float along with the technology to mean "the planning, organization, and
execution of strategy", just as it always has, even back in the days when
a significant technological advantage was being able to hold the pencil at
the same time you were sending.

Does that mean that there will be no place for one-brain-one-channel
(OBOC) contesting or contesters?  Of course not - but they will no longer
define the evolution of the sport is, just as hand-built wooden yachts no
longer push the envelope of the America's Cup and naked marathoners no
longer win the Olympics. 

Every so often the QRP reflectors break into oscillation over this
question, framed as "What is REAL QRP?"  First, there is an argument over
whether operating from a big station with QRP satisfies the "true QRP
ethic."  Then it rapidly escalates in a reverse fisherman's lying contest
down through commercially-built radios, then rotatable antennas, to wire
antennas, to random wires, and finally peters out when it becomes apparent
that the only TRUE QRPer is an SWL with no antenna whatsoever and dead
batteries in the radio.

Throttling (some might say strangling) Single-Op category to restrict the
capabilities available to the operator is a non-starter.  If you want to
kill the sport, this is the way.  "KH6IJ, you have to put down and pick up
that pencil between every QSO.  Mr. Bubka, get rid of that advanced
fiberglass vaulting pole and use a pointed stick.  Tiger, ash shafts and
oaken club heads, please." 

Creating a category just for OBOC contesters might have some merit if it
can be defined.  Are DSP, audio processing, or advanced filtering allowed? 
Should there be restrictions on computer aids, such as logging,
propagation prediction, and super-check-partial?  Multiple VFOs?  What
about assistance from station owners, spouses, friends, and on-the-air
helpers?  It does get rather blurry. 

A suggestion - rather than kill the idea with the death of a thousand
carping emails, organize an effort to have a contest-within-a-contest.
QRP ARCI sponsors "The Running of the Bulls" during Sweepstakes.  WRTC
piggybacks on IARU HF.  This concept works.

Why not a OBOC demonstration competition within one of the WW contests
this fall?  Write it up and distribute the results so that it can be
evaluated by the contesting community at large.  Keep it up for several
iterations and see if the definition of OBOC remains stable and attracts
participants.  If it does, you have a winner.  If it does not, then the
distinctions between the existing classes (including all the technology)
and OBOC are insufficient to require differentiating between them as true
classes. 

73, Ward N0AX

PS - Two words alone justify SO2R..."Sunday Afternoon"


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