"Steve Bonine" wrote in message
m...
wrote:


[snip]

And I still yearn for the years when the Olympics were limited to true
amateurs.


Yet the ancient Olympics made no such distinction.

Here's an example that illustrates what I'm trying to say. Bridge is a
card game. I enjoy playing it. Many years ago, four of my friends played
bridge during their lunch hour at work. One of them was on vacation, so
they asked me to fill in for him. I flubbed playing a hand, and the three
of them were so upset that they wouldn't speak to me for a week. These
people had taken a card game into territory where I don't care to tread.
That doesn't make their daily game "bad"; it's just not something that I
personally care for.


Some people do get a tad bit too serious about their hobbies.

The same thing can be said of any sport, and I agree that ham radio
contesting is the same way. There are cutthroat competitors out there,
some of whom have spent vast amounts of time and money building the
ultimate contest station. Of course they want to come up with a huge
score, and they will go to great lengths to achieve their goal. OK,
different strokes for different folks. That's not what I enjoy about a
contest, but it's certainly their prerogative to enjoy those aspects.

[snip]
But to get back to the original question of whether there is an effective
way to "level the playing field" relative to use of technology in a ham
radio contest. My personal conclusion is that the current simple rules of
putting people into broad categories based on power, number of operators,
"assistance", and so on are good enough. There are just too many
variables to go any farther. I'd rather see the handicap system be crude
than try to improve it by adding lots of additional factors, especially
when they're impossible to measure.

Someone sitting in a super station with stacked beams at 150 feet has an
inherent advantage over me with my dipole. But how much of an advantage?
Is it ten times easier for them to make a QSO? If we're going to "level
the playing field", what handicap factor should we use? There's no simple
way to deduce it.


"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. Since I don't care about that, it doesn't matter to
me. I just like to pick up a few contacts, polish my skills, make sure my
station is working correctly and so on.

Dee, N8UZE

Dee, N8UZE

Dee Flint wrote:
"Steve Bonine" wrote:

"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. Since I don't care about that, it doesn't matter to
me. I just like to pick up a few contacts, polish my skills, make sure my
station is working correctly and so on.

There's a difference between "haven't the resources" and "choose not to
use the resources".

I don't have a mountaintop QTH with several towers topped with stacked
arrays, and I don't have the latest fancy radios to handle the QRM or
the KW amplifiers to go with them. Those are resources that I don't have.

But I have a computer, and if I didn't have this Luddite idea that CW
should be copied by my own wetware, I could use it to improve my score.
That's a case of choosing not to use a resource. It seems pretty
clear that those of us who choose not to use automation are in contests
for the same reason that you are, and winning isn't the goal.

As I consider the reality of contest categories, I realize that what
they're really doing is separating the "big guns" into their own
category. Anyone who has invested the time and money to build a
mountaintop station with big antennas and fancy radios is going to end
up in the high-power multi-op category. To avoid competing with these,
stay out of that category. This limited attempt to level the playing
field does accomplish something using criteria that are easily measured
(e.g. input power, number of operators).

"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. Since I don't care about that, it doesn't matter to me. I
just like to pick up a few contacts, polish my skills, make sure my station is
working correctly and so on.



Level playing fields result in "average" operators at "average" stations,
regulated by rules which stifle competition, not enhance it. It is my opinion,
based on decades of participation and observation, that serious that serious
radiosport hobbiests are OPPOSED to "levelized playing fields" (other than broad
categories to separate the "bicycles" from the "motorcycles").

Within their category, serious competitors do everything possible to landform
the playing field to their personal advantage. They hone their receiving
skills, their operating habits, and their equipment performance. They study
propagation models and forecasts to optimize their band-change plan and their
time-off strategy. They analyze logs (theirs and others) of previous contests
to ferret out reasons for wins or losses (when should I "run" and when should I
"S&P"). They optimize their antenna farm to the next contest (a winning CQWW
antenna farm is probably a lousy Sweepstakes antenna farm and vice versa). They
develop new skills, like SOxR. They lurk at online "water coolers" like the
"CQ-CONTEST" email reflector. They optimize their operating layout for
streamlined ergonomics and to counter fatigue. They budget their equipment
purchases to increase the competitiveness of their station ("should I buy new
roofing filters, or build a 4-square for 40?"). Etc., etc., etc.

The ones who do all of this the best end up on the advantaged high ground of the
playing field, and the ones who don't do it well end up in the disadvantaged
valleys.

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

73, de Hans, K0HB

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

wrote in message
...


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.

And wailing and knashing of teeth would still be heard throughout the "Land of
Average".

"Average operators" (those who voted for Diana Moon Glompers) would cry
"unfair".

Let's just take one real-life example, not a strained speculation. SO2R
(SingleOp2Radio operating style) is a developed skill (not a technology). It
takes work to perfect, but once mastered it dramatically tilts the field in
favor the operator who uses it. Join the CQ-Contest email reflector, and
mention you'll be operating "SO2R" in SS CW next November. The "average
operators who want rules to level the field" will rise up bemoaning the
"unfairness of it all" and "there ought to be a rule".

If radiosport contesting (the last great hope of saving ham radio, IMNSHO) is to
live up to it's potential to advance the state of the radio art, then we need to
structure contest rules which encourage and nurture skill and technology
developers, and do not reward "average" operators or "average" stations.

73, de Hans, K0HB

On Jul 16, 9:04�pm, "K�HB" wrote:
wrote in message
...

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.

And wailing and knashing of teeth would still be heard throughout the "
Land of Average". "Average operators" (those who voted
for Diana Moon Glompers) would cry "unfair".

There would probably be complaints that it
was unfair that the big guns used expensive low-loss feedlines,
for example, to get a tiny advantage of signal strength.

Let's just take one real-life example, not a strained
speculation. �

Actually, I don't think it's strained. I've had conversations with
hams who felt that the big guns should be limited in all sorts of
ways, from power to antennas to automation. My point is that even if
those limits
were imposed, there would be stations and operators whose performance
was outstanding.

SO2R
(SingleOp2Radio operating style) is a developed skill (not a
technology). �

I'd say it's both. Not that it really matters.

It
takes work to perfect, but once mastered it dramatically tilts the
field in favor the operator who uses it. �
Join the CQ-Contest email reflector, and
mention you'll be operating "SO2R" in SS CW next
November. �The "average
operators who want rules to level the field" will rise up
bemoaning the
"unfairness of it all" and "there ought to be a rule".

I don't see how SO2R is "unfair" in any way. IIRC, the SS rules
permit as many bandchanges and frequency changes as one
desires, but a station can only transmit one signal at any time.

So all that SO2R, or SO3R or SOxR does is make it possible to
change band/frequency really really fast. It could be implemented
with 1930s technology if somebody really wanted to.

Some of the concepts of SO2R can even be implemented with one rig.
Should that be outlawed too?

There will always be folks with advantages. If nothing else, the
person who doesn't have a job or family responsibilities will have an
advantage over the person who does. So what?

If radiosport contesting (the last great hope of saving ham radio, IMNS
HO) is to
live up to it's potential to advance the state of the radio art, then
we need to
structure contest rules which encourage and nurture skill and
technology
developers, and do not reward "average" operators or "average" stations
..

I think that is easily done by having various categories. As I have
said before, don't outlaw "Skimmer", but don't put it in the same
category as the "boy and his radio" stations.

I think it's a bit of hyperbole to describe contesting as "the last
great hope of saving ham radio". OTOH, I think being able to offer a
competitive sport kind of activity is a big selling point for amateur
radio. What would distance running or bicycling be like if there were
no marathons, 10Ks or bike races? I suspect those things would be
greatly diminished and less popular, even though most runners and
cyclists will never win a race.

I'm no more than an "average" operator with a somewhat unusual
station. Long ago I realized that unless I won the lottery, I'd
probably never "win" any radio contest.

So for me the competition is really against myself. Can I do better
than before? Are there improvements I can make to my modest station to
get a higher score? How much can be done with the limited resources I
do have?

The results have been gratifying and a lot of fun.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote in message
...

So all that SO2R, or SO3R or SOxR does is make it
possible to change band/frequency really really fast.
It could be implemented with 1930s technology if
somebody really wanted to.

It is routinely implemented with no "technology" any more complex than SO1R,
unless you call split headphones a "technology". Pure and simple, it's a human
skill.

And it's nothing new either. The first generally accepted "serious" use of SO2R
was 56 years ago by W4KFC in the 1952 SS CW contest.

73, de Hans, K0HB
Just an old boy and his radios

KØHB wrote:
wrote in message
.
...


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.

And wailing and knashing of teeth would still be heard throughout the "
Land of
Average".

....or even gnashing. ;-)

"Average operators" (those who voted for Diana Moon Glompers) would cry
"unfair".

There are always those who raise the that cry. I think they've always
existed. While as a much younger fellow, I admired those with the
wherewithal to own vast expanses of land, who could afford to erect
numerous towers to the sky, populated with enormous antenna arrays, I
admired more the fellows who were real pileup artists. Those could slip
in and out of a pile in the wink of an eye.

Let's just take one real-life example, not a strained speculation. SO2
R
(SingleOp2Radio operating style) is a developed skill (not a technology
). It
takes work to perfect, but once mastered it dramatically tilts the fiel
d in
favor the operator who uses it. Join the CQ-Contest email reflector, a
nd
mention you'll be operating "SO2R" in SS CW next November. The "averag
e
operators who want rules to level the field" will rise up bemoaning the

"unfairness of it all" and "there ought to be a rule".

I read K3ZO's article on SO2R some time back and gathered that I don't
have the necessary skills or dollars to try it. I enter so few contests
with serious intent these days that I don't know if I want to even give
it a try. My station would require some advances in antenna
switching/control before it would even become feasible.

If radiosport contesting (the last great hope of saving ham radio, IMNS
HO) is to
live up to it's potential to advance the state of the radio art, then w
e need to
structure contest rules which encourage and nurture skill and technolog
y
developers, and do not reward "average" operators or "average" stations.

I'll go along with you on this one, Hans, though there have been a
number of things which I thought to be unfair/unethical over the years.
Among them were rubber clocking (pretty much universally outlawed now),
a few fellows (notably Europeans operating from Africa) who were running
multiple high power amps on multiple arrays on the same band
simultaneously. The latter involved not only an unfair advantage but an
illegal one.

I think I can tell the following without creating scandal now, since
most of the attendees are dead: I departed a meeting of what was (at
the time) a well-known Cincinnati DX Club after some old timers I'd
previously admired began discussing plans for the upcoming Field Day
operation. This group always operated as a low power entry. At this
particular meeting they began talking about which ops would bring their
linear amps. That was the first and last meeting I attended.

Dave K8MN

"KØHB" wrote in message
m...


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

73, de Hans, K0HB


We should all take this story to heart as it's likely we've all had
experiences where people wanted to "clip our wings" to prevent us from
soaring with the eagles.

Dee, N8UZE

On Jul 16, 8:52�pm, "Dee Flint" wrote:

We should all take this story to heart as it's likely we've all had
experiences where people wanted to "clip our wings" to
prevent us from soaring with the eagles.

Here's an example:

My high school was involved in a competition known then as
"Mathletes", where we'd compete against teams from other schools in
solving math problems.

IMHO there was never a more level playing field, because all
competitors got the same problems, the same amount of time and had the
same resources.

In my senior year we had so many students who wanted to compete and
who met the requirements that my school fielded two independent teams,
"A" and "B". This was not unusual; other schools did the same thing.

The overall City championship was determined by the season points
total of a given team - highest scoring team got first place, second
highest got second place, etc. The top two positions were the big ones
to win.

But at the end of the last meet, our A team had the highest season
points score, and the B team had the second highest. Two winning teams
from the same school had never happened before, and the officials were
somewhat unsure of what to do.

So after some deliberation they gave the first place trophy jointly to
the A and B team from my school, and the second place trophy to the
*third* place team. Their reasoning was that they didn't want the rest
of the teams to feel bad - that it somehow wasn't "good" for one
school to walk off with both trophies.

All of us on both the A and B teams learned a lesson that day. I don't
think it was the lesson the officials wanted us to learn, though.

73 de Jim, N2EY