Great answer, Bob. In fact, this is the reality of my 35+ years of
contesting.
"One of the most interesting things that I have learned after making some
900,000+ contest q’s over the past 44 years, is that often the copying
ability of a particular station has almost no correlation with the speed at
which they send – especially with EU ops. Back before code readers and
keyboard sent cw, I would call cq between 32 – 40 wpm and often a weak EU
station would come back at ~ 20 wpm. I would send the report at 32 – 40
wpm and they would almost always copy it – the first time. No asking for
repeats or “QRS?”. I would have been happy to oblige but it was not
necessary. They simply either did not want to send at my speed or could
not send that fast but they could and did copy my speed. :-)"
Very, very true. Many, many people come back to me at a somewhat slower
speed. I QRS if I think this is advantageous to complete the QSO complete
faster.
Using speed to thin the pileup is also a great technique.
I would agree that going fast only to go fast is not a technique to winning
contests.
The suite spot is between 32-40 and I tend to operate in the higher range.
As always, CQing is marketing in contests. When people hear snappy QSOs
without callsign errors of fills, they will stay and wait to work the
station, even if they are not first. Slower ops might be turned off by
this, but in general, that does not seem to be the case.
73, Gerry, W1VE
PS: Looking for you all from XO1X/NT this weekend in ARRL 160.
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:01 AM, Bob Shohet, KQ2M <kq2m@kq2m.com> wrote:
> The best and most-experienced contesters adjust their sending speed to the
> conditions, activity level and number of callers depending on where their
> antennas are pointed. Their energy level is high and their senses keen and
> they adjust constantly as necessary to maximize their score. They are not
> looking at getting EVERY single qso but rather making decisions on getting
> the greatest number of qso’s at a given point in time and within a given
> time interval. The super fast pileup callers and/or “showoffs” will be too
> impatient with a slow DX cq speed and the slower paced guys will be miffed
> with a faster speed. That’s life – you can’t please everyone.
>
> The best ops are aware of all of this and are making these decisions
> constantly even if you and others are not aware of them and their thought
> processes. Just like they have operating decisions to make constantly, so
> do you. You can improve your skill and speed up, you can choose to call
> them or not, or you can call them at a speed with which you are comfortable
> and take your chances; or not. You have all of those choices.
>
> I was once a slow speed op (back in my very early Novice days). I looked
> upon the big and fast DX ops with awe at their skill. I made a decision
> that it was up to me to improve my skill and speed until I was as good as
> them or better; not that they had to slow down for me. I spent the time
> and made the effort necessary to do that. Were they initially irritated
> with me and my slow speed? Sure, some of they probably were; but they best
> ops were not because they knew I was trying and they were happy with the
> qso. Was I irritated with them? Sure, I didn’t like the attitude of some
> of the speedy guys who intentionally were sending too fast for me, but I
> realized that working DX was fun and that the more I operated the sooner my
> speed and confidence would increase – I quickly got over my irritation by
> channeling that energy into improving my skill – just the same way that you
> or anyone else can, if they want to.
>
> One of the most interesting things that I have learned after making some
> 900,000+ contest q’s over the past 44 years, is that often the copying
> ability of a particular station has almost no correlation with the speed at
> which they send – especially with EU ops. Back before code readers and
> keyboard sent cw, I would call cq between 32 – 40 wpm and often a weak EU
> station would come back at ~ 20 wpm. I would send the report at 32 – 40
> wpm and they would almost always copy it – the first time. No asking for
> repeats or “QRS?”. I would have been happy to oblige but it was not
> necessary. They simply either did not want to send at my speed or could
> not send that fast but they could and did copy my speed. :-)
>
> Now, for me currently, the greatest advantage of speed is to thin the
> pileup. With the majority of packet tuners zero beat on each other in a
> massive audio blur, I simply turn up the speed until the pileup thins and
> then I turn it back down as I work some of the loud guys off the top. I
> want to encourage slower ops to call but I won’t hear them through 50
> louder zero-beat callers. The SMARTEST ops know think about HOW and WHERE
> the pileup is calling and do the opposite. If the fast, loud guys are
> zero-beat, the smart guys call more slowly at the edges of a pileup,
> especially at the low edge where there cw note is lower in pitch and stands
> out better. When I use my 500/2000 cw filter split (I only use cascaded
> 500hz in crowded cndx) I hear them first EVERY time! I listen for them!
> Sure – not every listens the way that I do, but the best ops often do.
>
> If cndx are marginal and/or there are few callers, I will slow down to ~
> 24 – 28 wpm. But that is from stateside – in CQWWCW with an almost endless
> stream of callers to someone who maybe the only opr. in the country in the
> contest, slowing down is silly 98% of the time, even if it offends someone.
>
> Please take this reply in the spirit in which this intended – as
> educational and instructional. I hope that you will work to improve your
> cw skill and speed – we want and need everyone to participate – and I hope
> that DX ops will likewise think about slowing down more often as their
> operating conditions permit.
>
> 73
>
> Bob KQ2M
>
>
> *From:* Adam Mercier <adam@kenbrio.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 30, 2017 10:01 AM
> *To:* Gerry Hull <gerry@yccc.org>
> *Cc:* cq-contest@contesting.com
> *Subject:* Re: [CQ-Contest] CW slow? No problem
>
> Does high-speed CW have a place in contesting? Absolutely! I don’t think
> anyone would argue that. However, I think you’d agree that CQing with no
> answers (which happens to even the mega-stations later in the contest) is,
> in fact, unproductive points-wise. I’m not suggesting that you’re “doing
> it wrong” or even that you need a major strategy adjustment. My position
> is simply that it’s mutually beneficial to QRS and complete the QSO with
> the slower stations when your rate is low. How much time does that take?
> If you log a QSO when you otherwise wouldn’t, does it matter? A fact I CAN
> claim is that there are several fast stations who do not have my call in
> their logs because they wouldn’t QRS. At the elite level they are working
> at, when the scores are tallied and competitors are close, those single
> missed Qs make a difference. Maybe my Q is only worth one or two points on
> its face, but with the loads of multipliers already in the log for the 20M+
> scores, it may actually be worth more to your score.
>
> From a philosophical standpoint, your assertion that us slower ops
> essentially need to keep up or get out of the way is interesting...If there
> is no place in CW contests for us average Joes, eventually it might just be
> the powerhouses that all work each other in the first few hours of the
> contest and you’ll have a perpetual tie. Where’s the fun in that?
>
> Just my observation...
>
> Adam, KM7N
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Nov 30, 2017, at 05:49, Gerry Hull <gerry@yccc.org> wrote:
> >
> > While 45 might seem a bit excessive, guys like ZF2MJ and TI7W, known
> > World-class contesters, were using speeds like that. As a run op at an
> M/2,
> > I spent 95 percent of my CQ time at 40 WPM and backed down to 38 at
> times.
> > I did not feel it was non productive.
> >
> > Fast CW is impearitive to make 20 to 30 million point scores. Also,
> > To make those scores, the operators on the other end of the pile must
> > Be able to copy.
> >
> > So. if your CW speed does not cut it, listen to QSOs until you copy.
> > Fast CW can and will be a part of these contests. Attempting to claim
> it
> > is non productive is disproven by the facts.
> >
> > 73, Gerry W1VE
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 1:34 PM K9MA <k9ma@sdellington.us> wrote:
> >>
> >> I completely fail to understand why so many operators insist on calling
> >> CQ at 45 wpm, when no one is coming back. (There were lots of them last
> >> weekend, especially from zone 33.) This seem entirely
> >> counterproductive. Not only does it discourage operators who aren't
> >> comfortable at that speed, but it also makes the call impossible to copy
> >> under some conditions for even the best operators. Isn't a slow QSO
> >> better than no QSO?
> >>
> >> 73,
> >> Scott K9MA
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|