[CQ-Contest] Incorrect conclusions about un-assisted versus assisted

[KI9A at aol.com]

In a message dated 12/19/2006 6:36:38 P.M. Central Standard Time,  
tree at kkn.net writes:

If you  banish the distinction between the two - you have now put the top
operators  into the position of having to adopt the technology in order to
not lose to  other top operators who are adopting 


Tree,  I agree with you on this, to an extent.  What make "top"  ops is the 
fact that they are, well, "top" of the heap. Putting them in a  position of 
learning new technology should not be a problem. I mean this, assume  the new 
thing to stay competitive is a new, undiscovered antenna. I promise you,  the top 
operators will adapt, without problem, to meet the challenge. Learning  
packet, not so much of a problem.
 
Staying competitive never has been a problem with our top guys. Just look  at 
what technology has brought us in the past 30 years of contesting...Computer  
logging,  computer generated CW,  DVK, many stacked antennas-multiple  
towers-all controlled by simple in shack switching,  stacked 40m yagi's,  even many 
80 meter yagis. Did I mention easy SO2R setups??? Of course, some of  this was 
used 30 years ago, but, not nearly as widespread, or easy to obtain as  then. 
This stuff, to me at least, makes packet look like child's play.
 
Adaptation has been around as long as competitive operating has. 
 
73- Chuck KI9A