Here are a few additional questions from someone who sent me
a private E-mail, which also touch on K8BHZ's comments:
<Why do we insist on allowing USA-to-USA Qs in a dx contest, let alone in the
dx window?"
First of all, this is NOT a DX contest. The CQ WW and ARRL DX are
truly DX contests and better IMHO for making DX QSO's because domestic
QSO's get zero points credit in the ARRL and CQ WW (although CQ WW
encourages limited domestic QSO's for Zone and Country multipliers). I'm
not the
best expert on the CQ 160 history, but I believe it is the oldest 160
contest and
probably started out as mostly a domestic USA contest. Unlike the ARRL 160
or Stew Perry, it now enjoys HUGE popularity overseas. My guess is that CQ
is not likely to change the nature of the most popular 160 contest on Planet
Earth and I feel rightly so. If you like DX contests, enter the CQ WW or
ARRL DX
as single-band 160. If you like Sweepstakes (or need WAS), enter the ARRL
160. If I were CQ, I would not mess with the most successful 160 contest
there is! IMHO it is a nice balance of both domestic USA (for WAS seekers),
DX (for DX'ers) with enough participation that it attracts Contesters.
BTW, even if the CQ 160 were restructured for DX only, there would still
be the problem of local QRM in Europe. As exists for the CQ WW today,
since their
countries are as local as our states, QRM levels on their side would not
change.
<Scoring needs changes...something like distance rings could be code-
implemented for score stepping. The further u work, the more score.
Exactly this has been done in the Stew Perry, which is gaining in
popularity, but it probably has <5% of the participants the CQ 160 has. The
"market" of participants has spoken and prefers the CQ 160 by an overwhelming
margin...at least that has been true for the past 5 years the Stew has been in
existence. Here are the rules for it in case you are not familiar with it:
http://jzap.com/k7rat/stew.rules.txt
Bottom line is, every contest has its own unique personality, but the
CQ 160 is clearly tops in terms of Total Worldwide Participation. I
personally
doubt CQ would ever want to alter it as significantly as some suggest. I am
also grateful that they listened to our inputs about making it 48 hours (to be
fair to all countries worldwide) with a time limit for single operators (to
eliminate
the necessity of boringly low daylight rates).
73, Bill W4ZV
|