It's not an election but add my vote for shorter period options in major
contests. Six, ten, even twelve hour categories would significantly improve my
motivation to get on and really try to max out what I could do competitively.
Assuming we get to pick the time, it would also add a very interesting element
of strategy -- which bands, which hours?
It's rough on the family and household obligations to devote the entire 48 hour
weekend to a contest. Once I decide I can't go the distance on a particular
contest, the entire competitive motivator drops away, which will very likely
reduce the hours I spend on it. If I thought there was a time-limited category
where there would be some competitive fun, I would be way more likely to put in
the full time for that category.
Maybe once I'm retired (if that ever happens!) and the weekends are not so
"special," it will get easier to spend two days out of a week on a contest.
For those of us who spend 5 days (and usually a good part of 5 evenings)
working, those two weekend days fill up with other commitments. This "problem"
is compounded by the fact that so many great contests happen in a concentrated
period of the year -- if you are interested in all modes and bands, you find
yourself faced with great contests that will absorb half the weekends from
September through February.
Too many contests, not enough free time!
I think time-limited categories in major contests would be win-win -- more
entrants for the sponsors, more QSO's for all, more competitive fun for those
of us who love contesting but need to balance it with other things.
73,
Rowland K4XD
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Robert Chudek - K0RC
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 2:29 PM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Categories, Participation and Competition
I would expect if a 6-hour category was added, another increase in activity
would be realized. This is about the length of the State QSO Parties that
have become very popular. A shorter time period offers an opportunity for
people who have other things to do in their life. I am one of them.
Regarding pumping up the numbers in the smaller contests before implementing
time-based categories for the big ones, this just doesn't make sense to me.
Here's why. CQWW and ARRL DX are the contests with the potential for the
most "fun", no matter whether you spend one hour chasing "new ones" or
participate for a Top-Ten spot. These contests already have the allure of
rare locations being activated. If a contesting team has funds for one
DXpedition each year, which contest are they going to pick? Most likely one
of the BIG ones.
Adding time-based categories to a contest doesn't change the event. It
provides an opportunity for the time-restricted contester to earn a piece of
paper for the wall. It also provides recognition from the contest sponsor
that a level of proficiency has been achieved. Showing "hours operated" on
the 3830 list just doesn't compare.
73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Field" <don.field@gmail.com>
To: "CQ-Contest MailList" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Categories, Participation and Competition
> Ed mentions the 12-hour categories in the IOTA Contest, which I manage.
> These have led to a dramatic increase in entrants to the contest and have
> been hugely popular. I don't know how many of these 12-hour entrants are
> likely to migrate to the "big boy" 24 hour categories, but does it matter?
> The important thing is that these guys come on and help increase the
> overall
> buzz (and provide plenty of "fresh meat" for the big boys as the contest
> goes on).
>
> And there is quite a strategy element to the 12-hour categories too. The
> rules require off times to be a minimum of 60 minutes, so the choice of
> off-time(s) becomes quite critical for serious 12-hour entrants.
>
> Let me take this opportunity to plug this year's contest - last full
> weekend
> of July (25/26 July), 1200-1200 UTC.
>
> Don Field G3XTT / NK1G
>
>
>
> 2009/6/19 Edward <sawyered@earthlink.net>
>
>>
>>
>> I must say that for years, I have read in this reflector the discussion
>> of the "multitudes" of "casual contesters" that would become serious
>> with smaller competitive time requirements. Yet IARU (24 hours) and
>> IOTA (12 hours) don't bring out these multitudes. The NAQP is active
>> and fun and sure there a some (not a lot quite frankly) different
>> players in that one but I believe that the gepgraphic competition issues
>> are as much a difference as time. Look at SS vs. IARU (both 24 hours)
>> yet wildly different group because of geographic interests and just
>> different contest personalities.
>>
>> If this crowd proposing smaller hour competitive segments within a
>> contest wants to make themselves heard and noticed..get off the
>> reflector and "en masse" "run with the dogs" in IARU or IOTA. Or tell
>> us your next excuse as to why some "spousal activity" or "soccer game"
>> made it impossible to be competitve.
>>
>> I for one, could be persuaded to support these 12 or 24 hour categories
>> if the walk backed up the talk in the current contests that offer it.
>> But I just don't see it. Show us all, that there is interest...or drop
>> it for once and for all please.
>>
>> I must agree with others on Extreme...more categories? why this one for
>> a few stations?....and the remote reciever thing without DXCC or zone
>> limitation is DOA for me for the sport itself. 2 Extremes can work
>> themselves on 10M whether the band is open or not if they have the right
>> receiver locations...that is NOT extreme...that is another
>> sport....internet gaming.
>>
>> Ed N1UR
>>
>> PS. Field Day is 24 hours....there is another one to "show us all what
>> you are talking about"
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|