Bob,
> 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".
I think there is clear agreement that power is a "no skill"
differentiator. Power classes, even contests that do not
permit high power, have been a given for 50 years or more.
There is a big difference between power and skill.
> 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?
I think there are plenty of opportunities for recognition for
those who are not in the "elite" levels of competition now
in the section/call area/state/etc. awards - and generally
in the low power or QRP categories.
If you really want a "limited" category, make it the most
basic of all and take out the antenna advantage as well. As
long as antennas are permitted to those competitors who are
not in the "unlimited" class, any distinction drawn based on
operating technique is arbitrary and discriminatory. If an
entrant does not want to compete in the unlimited class, he
should give up all advantages, not simply choose to avoid
those who have developed a skill he has chosen to ignore.
As I have maintained from the very beginning, rules should be
applied equally to all. "Limited" categories should be one
transceiver with antennas less than 50 feet high and elements
no more than 1/2 wavelength in total. Once the rules start
to allow "enhancements" the operator should be free to choose
those enhancements that best suit his station, location, skill,
experience, and operating style from among all the available
enhancements.
If a contest sponsor wants to limit the effectiveness of SO#R,
they are free to establish a "10 minute" or "six band changes
per clock hour" rule so long as it applies to all single
operator categories. I happen to believe such a rule drives
away more participants than it attracts.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtty-bounces@contesting.com
> [mailto:rtty-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Robert Chudek
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 12:38 AM
> To: Joe Subich, W4TV; rtty@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [RTTY] single op, 1 radio, 2 recvrs
>
>
> 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
|