Joe,
I understand your position and what you are saying. But it if we carry it to
the ultimate conclusion, then we should lump the HP, LP, and QRPers back into
an all encompassing Single Operator class. What difference does it make?
They're all a "Single Operator".
Yes, I agree you need to avoid the opposite extreme, like you cited - "a trophy
for everyone". There needs to be a middle ground of fairness and balance that
encourages participation in the radiosport. Does either extreme encourage
participation? No!
You're talking about Ohio State and U of Mn... well fine. Let me put this in a
more realistic perspective... yesterday I was at the Handi-Ham Courage Center
in Golden Valley, MN http://www.courage.org/ teaching a General Amateur
license class. Prior to starting the class, I toured the facility. I was
immediately struck by the environment of encouragement, mentoring, and
achievements I say hanging on the walls, rooms, and in the corridors.
I stopped for more than a moment to look at one particular picture. It was a
wheel chair volleyball tournament where the photographer caught the excitement
in the eyes and faces of the competitors. I seriously doubt there was any
expectation by these participants they would need to, as you said, "work extra
in the weight room, run extra, work with strength and quickness coaches... etc."
Would they every rise to the challenge of becoming the world volleyball
champions? No, they won't be appearing in the World League. But they were
building skills, having fun, and were competitive within their environment. Do
you REALLY think awarding them recognition will somehow diminish the
achievement of those competitors who DO make it to the top of the World League?
73 de Bob - K0RC in MN
----- Original Message -----
From: Joe Subich, W4TV
To: 'Robert Chudek' ; rtty@contesting.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 9:58 PM
Subject: RE: [RTTY] single op, 1 radio, 2 recvrs
Bob,
> Is it the need to have a lot of "chad" in the box? If you're
> Top Ten out of 1,500 competitors maybe that "feels" a lot
> better than "Top Ten" out of 300 competitors? I say, let the
> other 1200 operators compete with their "similar kind" and
> not be run over by the steamrollers. This will help promote
> the radiosport.
The walk-on freshman running back at The Ohio State University
does not expect to start his first game (although he might at
the University of Minnesota <G>), he's happy if he makes the
traveling squad. He understands that it takes time to develop
his skills to compete at the top level. He works extra in the
weight room, he runs extra, he works with strength and quickness
coaches, he learns to cut left and right with equal ease and to
never give an opposing linebacker any indication of his next
move.
The walk-on may never make first string but understands that
by giving more than he thinks he has, he is making the effort
and contributing to the team effort. Once in a while, the
walk-on has enough talent, makes that effort and rises to the
top tier of the sport but he certainly doesn't do it with only
half-way measures. Those who choose to compete understand
that there are 100, 500, 1500 others in the same position
competing for the same "top ten" and do their best. They may
realize that they don't have what it takes to win a Heisman
but are happy if they make that traveling squad, the three
deep, or earn a scholarship by the time they are a junior.
Each participant in a competitive environment knows the rules
going in ... they set their own goals and choose their own
level of commitment. There is no reason that the competition
should be so diluted and/or so fragmented that like elementary
school soccer every child gets a gold medal just for showing
up.
Why should a walk-on be named an All-American just for entering
the practice facility? Why should "All-American" status be
depreciated by creating so many categories that every player
becomes "All-American" (Top Ten) at something? Slicing and
dicing the field into ever smaller categories does nothing but
devalue the completion for everybody.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtty-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Robert Chudek
> Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 10:13 PM
> To: rtty@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] single op, 1 radio, 2 recvrs
>
>
> Come on John, where did you get that from? I/We am NOT
> objecting to SO2R. Not the least. It's a great skill to
> develop. And a great advantage once you have a good handle on
> it. SO2R elevates you to the top of the "pack". As a matter
> of fact, one of the 2006 WRTC teams lost their second
> receiver within hours of the start of the competition. In
> their event summary, they confessed this effectively took
> them out of the competition. What more endorsement do you
> need that SO2R is a different class?
>
> What I do object to is lumping everyone into the same
> category. This situation does not help promote the
> radiosport. Many real world comparisons have been shown that
> "Single Operator" is not an exclusive qualifier. I don't need
> to repeat them again. Some of the contest sponsors have
> already recognized this and made adjustments. "Expert Class"
> is one example of a step in the right direction. "Tribanders
> and wires" is another example.
>
> Is it the need to have a lot of "chad" in the box? If you're
> Top Ten out of 1,500 competitors maybe that "feels" a lot
> better than "Top Ten" out of 300 competitors? I say, let the
> other 1200 operators compete with their "similar kind" and
> not be run over by the steamrollers. This will help promote
> the radiosport. Whether you're Top Ten out of 1,500, 300, or
> 15... in my book you're Top Ten, period.
>
> 73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 21:16:22 -0400
> From: "John Fleming" <john@wa9als.com>
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] single op, 1 radio, 2 recvrs
> To: <rtty@contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <004c01c8105b$5589c620$0201a8c0@wa9als>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> Ed, you hit on the most amazing thing. The main objectors to
> SO2R not being
> in a different category have never tried it. If they had, I
> think the
> objections would stop. John, WA9ALS
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
>
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|