Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
>
>> What *is* the point is that, by the admission of a top
>> contester, there is a clear advantage of SO2R (even though
>> we may debate whether it is 25% or 40% or ?? %).
>>
>
> That same top contester also says he started doing SO2R to overcome
> antenna disadvantages.
Which is a roundabout way of admitting that there *IS* an advantage for
SO2R.
>
>
>
>> Therefore, many of us are contending that there should be an SO1R
>> *and* an SO2R category. This is no different than having an LP/HP
>> class, a concept no one apparently has any trouble understanding.
>> Why is it so difficult to grasp the SO (1-2) R concept?????
>>
>
> Why keep cutting entry classes into smaller and smaller pools?
Well, the academic (if not practical) answer to that question is that
technology keeps changing.
> If
> this is taken to it's most foolish extreme there would be as many
> classes as entrants ... why not simply print your own certificate?
>
Because as you say, it would be foolish and it would be extreme.
However, most of us seem to agree that there is an advantage to:
-single vs. multiple ops
-high power vs. low power
-SO1R vs. SO2R
...and we seem to want to have separate categories for *some* of these
advantages and yet turn a blind eye towards other advantages. Which
brings us back to...
>> BTW, as an alternative, I still think Bill's idea of "Basic" +
>> Unlimited classes is a great idea.
>>
>
> Sure, if you want "basic" and "unlimited" classes, make the basic
> class truly basic ...
So, it looks like we ultimately agree! :-)
By having just these two classes, we make the problem of smaller and
smaller entry pools go away, we give the little guy a chance to compete
on a (more or less) equal footing with other little pistols and we may
even induce more people to get into (or return to) contesting!
73,
Carter K8VT
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|