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