Dick,
My memory of that CAC discussion was that it was a staff member at ARRL
who suggested that CAC look at the issue of the ARRL DX rules to improve
participation
I remember seeing graphs showing the levels of participation in contest
and the WPX and CQWW rules/ format had greater participation. What I
see here is that there are fewer DX entities to work in the ARRL DX
contests. I was active for 16 hours using telnet on four bands and
while I had 77 entities on one band I wound up with only 98 entities
when thee contest ended. Yes, I had a good number of QSO's, 582 but it
is not my favorite contest. I usually manage to break 100 in the CQ
contests. I believe the non US hams are simply not interested in
working only US and Canadian stations for 48 hours no matter what mode.
It's just not that interesting. So, I have to agree with Hank - it's
relatively boring as contest go.
But having said that, I see no way to improve the contest. It will
simply have to remain broken. When I crave excitement it is the CQWW DX
contest for me!
73 de Frank...N2FF.......
On 3/6/2013 7:29 PM, Dick Green WC1M wrote:
A few years ago, some idiot on the CAC tried to explore the possibility of
making ARRL DX a more interesting (i.e., fun) contest. I'm not talking about
radical proposals like distance-based scoring that got everyone in a tizzy, but
relatively modest changes to make the contest more inviting to DX and less
boring for US ops. When some of the CAC's hypothetical discussions about
possible changes were leaked to the press, violent reactions from certain
members of the contest community eliminated any stomach for making changes.
The most common argument was, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Others rightly pointed
out that the current format is very attractive to smaller US stations because "we're the
DX". It was also suggested that we don't need to stimulate more US participation (true) and
the DX participation is pretty darned good (also true -- I had some of the biggest runs of my
contest career in the CW weekend this year.)
These are all good arguments, but participation isn't the only measure of a
good contest. Fun is important, too, and your experience has been shared by far
too many contesters.
73, Dick WC1M
-----Original Message-----
From: k1vv@comcast.net [mailto:k1vv@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 9:25 PM
To: hankkier@aol.com
Cc: yccc@yccc.org; cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [YCCC] Why ARRL SSB Contest is Not My Favorite
Maybe something like stamp collecting ... ?
Whitey K1VV
----- Original Message -----
From: hankkier@aol.com
To: cq-contest@contesting.com, yccc@yccc.org
Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 6:45:08 PM
Subject: [YCCC] Why ARRL SSB Contest is Not My Favorite
1 - almost impossible to find a run frequency without stepping on
someone's toes, except on 10 meters
2 - poor participation numbers by DX
3 - reduced # of country multipliers available; probably 25% less than
available in CQWW
4 - voicebox can't handle the traffic!
5 - keep working the same stations on the same bands that we have worked
countless times before
6 - BORING
Some stats:
- worked 794 different calls; 1281 total qsos
- just 133 separate stations (11%) gave me 40% of my total QSOs - worked
those on 3 or more bands - virtually ALL of those stations I have worked
in every contest in which I have made any effort - BORING
- 2 or more bands, 237 (18%) stations and 60% of the points!
Need something to increase interest, and participation, of DX stations
_______________________________________________
YCCC Reflector mailto:yccc@contesting.com Yankee Clipper Contest Club
http://www.yccc.org Reflector Info:
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/yccc
_______________________________________________
YCCC Reflector mailto:yccc@contesting.com
Yankee Clipper Contest Club http://www.yccc.org
Reflector Info: http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/yccc
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|