[CQ-Contest] Run vs S&P

[KH6DV at cs.com]

Why do we need "special incentive" for those who S&P vs Running?  The choice 
between the two is a tactical one. You Run when you can, when rate is 
obtainable, otherwise you S&P because either rate isn't obtainable or conditions make 
multiplier hunting advantageous.   This is a matter of strategy no matter the 
size of the station.

Excessive zeal toward leveling the playing field will accomplish nothing more 
than to reduce incentive for contesters to learn skills, and build 
competitive stations. If we follow this path to its ultimate conclusion, we will end up 
with a situation where half the logs submitted are awarded 1st place and the 
remaining are awarded 2nd place. Thats not a competition, there is no sense of 
accomplishment when we remove the reward for improving and gaining skill.  We 
can argue that S&P or Running requires skill and we would be correct on both 
counts, a contester needs both skills to win. Favoring one skill over the other 
would alter strategy and reward one style over the other, and to some degree 
taking away operator choice. Competitors in all sports need the full spectrum 
of skills and good equipment, otherwise they dont win in their chosen sport.  
If you want to level the playing field do it by improving operator skills and 
station building abilities.  Unlike some people (non contesters) think, 
contesting has contributed more to the radio art than Qrm on the bands every 
weekend. Much of the knowledge about antennas and propagation was discovered or 
confirmed by contesters trying to improve either their operating skills or their 
stations. Remove the incentive to improve these areas and the reward of 
contesting is no longer the sense of satisfaction earned by self improvement and 
accomplishment. 

The theory that throwing money at the situation is how the winners got to 
where they are has been stated hundreds of times in the last several decades.  
The theory has been put into practice numerous times during the same decades and 
has failed over and over.  I have been associated with several winning multi 
operator stations over these same decades and they all have the same thing in 
common. They all had owner/builder's who enjoyed building efficient stations 
and had acquired a great deal of knowledge about a wide variety of relevant 
subjects. None of them fit the description of an owner/builder who threw money at 
the situation. All of these builders did design and build antennas and other 
equipment. All of these builders did a massive amount of research.  The 
operators that were attracted to these stations almost always learned their skills 
first as single operators from smaller home stations.  I cant remember a single 
case of a successful contest station where everything was ordered from a ham 
equipment catalogue, and the operators relied on a mathematical formula to 
compensate for lack of operator skill.

Ron KH6DV
HO3R operator (Half-Operator Three-Radio)
Not talented enough for SO2R