Heh I too was a bit amazed at seeing the picture of K8AZ in a CQ WW write up
with a run station, a multiplier hunting station and two more spotting
stations. My hat is off to them though - most radiosport (except the WRTC) has
always been a blend of station and op capability. I bet it doesn't make a huge
difference in the score though.
The nice thing about this category IMO is that multiplier hunting stations
allow ops who are novice contesters exposure and experience in big contests
from big stations without the pressure and skill set of running.
I also applaud the CQ contest committee for creating the M/S LP category to
give stations in countries not allowed to run 1500 watts a level playing field.
Now if they would only give other big continents a level playing field with NA
it will be a perfect world.
73 Bob HS0ZIA
On Sunday, October 26, 2014 9:20 AM, Bill Parry <bparry@rgv.rr.com> wrote:
I think that the M/S option is the fun category in the CQWW. I have
operated in this category for years and I am not "big pistol". And as to
"many others opting out of contesting" it sure seems that there are a lot of
guys on during contest weekends.
The rules are what they are. Some contests favor one area some others. At
our contest station in Mexico, 6D2X, we couldn't win because Mexico was a 2
point country in the CQWW test. On the other hand we did quite well in the
ARRL contest because of our location.
Enter the contests that you like. Don't enter the ones you don't like. It is
supposed to be fun.
Bill W5VX
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
Charles Harpole
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 9:58 PM
To: kr2q@optimum.net; Alfred Laun
Cc: CQ-Contest Reflector
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] ONE radio, two operators??
Tnx KR2Q.... Now I remember why I thot the Multi One category is dumb. I
see that it does give the second op something to do in addition to sleep,
but really kills off the idea of ONE op and ONE radio to which the category
NAME implies. The rule that I have finally paid attention to appears to
be a cheap way for second level pistols to APPEAR to compete with the first
level pistols. More and more as I reawaken to the contest rules I
understand why the whole things are designed by big pistol ops and why many
other operators opt out of contesting. I also refer to rules which make
huge Asia equal to EU.
Baloney, 73, Charly
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:40 PM, <kr2q@optimum.net> wrote:
> Charly,
>
> Yes, you have read it correctly. It has been this way for over 3 decades.
>
> See my article in CQ from August 1981, where M/S is elaborated.
> It was that way even before my article. This article is a bit dated,
> so for up to date information, see the 2 links below.
>
> See: http://www.cqww.com/rules.htm
>
> Also see the Multi-Single FAQ: http://www.cqww.com/rules_faq.htm
> Scroll about half way down the above cited page.
>
> GL!
>
> de Doug KR2Q
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
--
Charly, HS0ZCW
_______________________________________________
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
|