On Jul 15, 4:31 pm, "KØHB" wrote:
"Dee Flint" wrote in message
. ..

"Leveling the playing field" is only important to those who want to win
(or
have a category that they can win) but haven't the resources to compete
in an
"open" situation.

I disagree, Dee. Many who have no chance of winning still want
reasonable rules,
for a variety of reasons.

Level playing fields result in "average" operators at "average" stations,
regulated by rules which stifle competition, not enhance it.

I disagree, Hans.

Kurt Vonnegut illustrates the folly of "level playing fields" in this sho
rt
story ----http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html

But in that story, it is not the playing field that is leveled. It is
the players who
are.

And there is a difference between technological advantage and skill
advantage.
The true competitor seeks both. And we all benefit, because the
results trickle
down to the rest of us in the form of better rigs and techniques. Plus
for the big guns
to win, they have to work a lot of us little guys.

Suppose, by some folly, a contest sponsor were to place severe
restrictions on the technology used
by contest entrants. I predict that you'd see things like this:

100 W power limit? True competitors would have rigs that delivered
99.999 watts and the lowest-loss
feedlines.

No computer logging? True competitors would invent the best log-and-
dupe sheets ever.

No beams or arrays? True competitors would have the best dipoles and
verticals you ever saw.

Etc.

IOW, the competition would continue, just in a different way. But the
average operator would still
not be able to beat the big guns, because the true competitors would
still have whatever advantages
were to be had.

In fact the average op with the average station would probably have a
lower score, because it would be harder to work others, not easier.

73 de Jim, N2EY