[RTTY] Not to beat the ADVANTAGE OF BIG ANTENNAS horse...

[K2ZR]

Tom,
Your comments on right on which is precisely why I don't spend much time 
in the CQWW, or other big DX contests: I have no chance to win which as 
you say is what competition is all about: To compete!
I use these contests to fill in my DXCC holes and that's all.
I spend my limited time operating in contests where wires are a plus not 
a negative. If my skill level is decent and I don't fall asleep at least 
I have a chance to do well.
Dick
K2ZR

Tom Moore wrote:

>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Jerry Flanders" <jeflanders at comcast.net>
>To: "RTTY Mailing List" <RTTY at contesting.com>
>Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 9:52 AM
>Subject: [RTTY] Not to beat the ADVANTAGE OF BIG ANTENNAS horse...
>
>  
>
>>WHEREAS WHEN ALL ELSE IS EQUAL, the addition of a BIG TOWER AND BEAM is 
>>and has
>>been proven to be a significant contesting advantage, often greater than 
>>the
>>High Power advantage, as shown by resultant contest scores and acclaimed 
>>to
>>by many top ranking MULTI-KILOBUCK ANTENNA SYSTEM participants; and...
>>    
>>
>
>I have known many examples of wire antennas outperforming big beam antennas 
>in certain contests, locations, and propagation conditions. For instance, 
>even in the NAQP, a good wire antenna with multiple lobes oriented in the 
>right directions, not nearly as high as the big beam, located in the middle 
>of the country, will outperform a high beam that has a low take off angle, 
>narrow bandwidth with good fb and side to side rejection (a great dx 
>antenna, but easily beat in a many contest environments). We could go on and 
>on and on about what is equal, west coast vs east coast, being located on 
>salt water, living in the midwest black hole, the north or the south, big 
>beam, little beams, tower heights, height above average terrain, QRP, etc, 
>etc. Every time this SO2R issue surfaces, we get all kinds of this "off the 
>primary subject" diversion which I suspect is meant to do just that by some 
>No, I'm not accusing or pointing a finger at any particular person. And, I'm 
>confident most people firmly believe what they're saying. I just believe 
>they're wrong and I have the right to say so without it seeming to be a 
>personal attack or receiving a personal attack in return. No matter what, 
>SO2R seems to be a super heated issue to quite a few people.  Many seem to 
>think it is a personal attack on them when it clearly is not. Many will not 
>listen to any reason or justification without diluting it with off subject 
>issues - sometimes resulting in derogatory personal or group attacks. We all 
>have the right to express our opinion and beliefs without that.
>
>In recent years, contest sponsors have been slowly migrating away from rules 
>for which violations are not easily detectable and proven. Whether or not we 
>want to accept it, the drive to win ocassionally (many believe more than 
>ocassionally) results in some form of cheating particularly with the claim 
>of using low power when close by observers will say it was high power (but 
>can't conclusively prove it). And contest sponsors just don't want the 
>hassle of trying to prove or disprove anything thats not immediately and 
>conclusively detectable - which SO2R vs SO1R easily is. In fact it would 
>probably be the most easily detectable and enforceable rule of all.
>
>So if we don't want to consider the SO2R issue as valid, then the next best 
>thing to do is just do away with all the classes, rules, etc and just go 
>with a 'anything with the most Q's wins' approach. Some contests are very 
>close to that now. Yep that includes the multi multi classes too because 
>SO2R entries often outperform them!  So where do we draw the line? Do 
>contest sponsors draw up all kinds of rules which requires hundreds of 
>hours, days, weeks and months to score? Do they try to make them just a 
>little more fair by addressing significant issues (what's significant to 
>who?), or just what?  Where's the happy balance?
>
>I strongly suspect we'll continue to live with archaic meaningless rules 
>that traditionally favor the big guns all at the expense of the majority of 
>participants. Of course, the easy way out is if you don't like the rules, 
>don't participate. And while most contests continue to show growth in total 
>numbers, few are showing increases in serious competitors. Which, by the 
>way, is what a contest is supposed to be all about: Compeition! You put 
>together the best station you can and come compete! Eveybody is different 
>and evey station is different. But be advised that contest rules don't (and 
>never will) accurately and fairly have rules that could possibly cover each 
>and every situation. Again, where's the happy balance?
>
>just another 2 cents worth - take that back, make it just a single penny's 
>worth! It's probably not even worth that to some.
>
>73, Tom WX4TM
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>RTTY mailing list
>RTTY at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
>  
>