[CQ-Contest] Again?

[Dick Pechie]

The idea on a new category for SO2R has really reached  the limit on
"watering" down the competition to the point that there is no competition!

Can we have categories decided by the amount of sleep you get or the number
of bathroom visits during the contest?

I wish I was there to verify the story that the oldest member (K1DNW age 97)
of our local club tells of K1ZND ( now K1ZZ) during Field Day in the
mid-sixties to have been tuning a second receiver under the operating table
with his feet as he was running QSOs on the main twin set up. Yes,
transceivers were rare. Mohawk and Apache pairs were more common. New
category, "Using feet for tuning on a second receiver".

The "Best Ops" use what they have the ability or the resources to use. SO2R
might put K5ZD on the top but only by the slimmest of margins. If we keep
creating niches for each style of operating then what happens to the
competition? Ten stations per operating class? Does it really make sense to
keep creating these micro-classifications of competition?

The ARRL  and other contest sponsors need to spend time on other ideas to
increase contest activity rather than trying to make everyone a winner.
After all, when you spend a few hours on a weekend to jump into the
competition you're already a winner.

73 Dick - KB1H



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
Visit  "The Barnstormers Contest Group - NZ1U"
website http://www.qsl.net/kb1h/

Email: KB1H at arrl.net    YCCC--------> http://www.yccc.org/

KB1H DXSpider Node ---------> dxc.kb1h.com port 7300
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobK8IA at aol.com>
To: <w4pa at yahoo.com>; <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Again?


> In a message dated 1/24/2003 1:17:11 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
> w4pa at yahoo.com writes:
>
>
> > Let me make sure I understand you correctly:  SO2R operation was
> > developed from the existing rule set, and now those same rules
> > years later are "grossly unfair" to the SO1R contest participant?
> >
> > We should change the rules to inhibit competitive operating
> > practices, developed within those same rules, when the raison d'etre
> > of radio contesting is just that: to develop operator ability?
> >
> > Twilight zone, man, twilight zone.
> >
> > Scott Robbins, W4PA
> >
> >
>
> Hi Scott;
>
> Was SO2R really "developed" from an existing tules set or did it simply
> evolve via technology and rules interpretation? I can recall big time
SSers
> W4KFC and W9IOP in the 50s operating what now would be called SO2R. The
> technology was just different then.
>
> Hats off to those that have the ability to use any legitimate technology
to
> able them to compete at a higher level. I doubt I could do a effective
SO2R
> thing, even if I had the system for it. But I sure admire those that can!
>
> 73,Bob K8IA
> Mesa, Arizona USA
> near the Superstition Mtns
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>