I can see the arguments on both sides of the High Band/Low Band debate, but
what's the rationale behind allowing only one single-band entry? The ARRL DX
rules make a pretty big deal out of prohibiting this, so there must be a
reason. But on the surface, it seems like it would increase participation
and fun. There are definitely some interesting possibilities for SO2R ops.
73, Dick WC1M
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-admin@contesting.com
> [mailto:cq-contest-admin@contesting.com]On Behalf Of Zivney, Terry L.
> Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 10:31 AM
> To: David A. Pruett; Dave Hachadorian; cq-contest Reflector
> Cc: aa7a@arrl.net; contests@arrl.org
> Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Restoring High Band/Low Band categories in
> ARRL DXTest
>
>
> Let me tell you why antenna- or propagation-challenged ops
> did NOT like the High/Low band categories in the ARRL DX
> test and why the single band categories were big improvements.
>
> Low band means you must have good antennas for 3 difficult
> bands - 40, 80 and 160 to be competitive. Many of us can
> swing one or another of those, at least on a temporary
> basis but cannot get up or keep up all three.
>
> Similarly, while tribanders are popular antennas for the
> high bands, to do well in the High Band category, you need
> propagation on all three bands! This may be ok for those
> in Florida, who apparently get 10 meter openings to DX even
> in the punk years, but is murder for those in the Midwest.
>
> The Single Band categories are much superior. If you want
> to operate two or three bands, you can, and still enter
> you best band as a Single Band score. This is much more
> likely to be competitive or "respectible" than entering
> a Tri-band category with only one band's score, especially
> since multipliers count on a "per-band" basis.
>
> Terry Zivney, N4TZ/9
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David A. Pruett [mailto:k8cc@comcast.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 9:55 PM
> To: Dave Hachadorian; cq-contest Reflector
> Cc: aa7a@arrl.net; contests@arrl.org
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Restoring High Band/Low Band categories in
> ARRL DXTest
>
>
> I have to agree wholeheartedly with Dave. When the high and low band
> categories were created for the ARRL DX Contest in the middle
> seventies, it
> seemed to me like a great idea. To paraphrase Dave's points, it seemed
> like there were a number of ways to be really competitive in high band;
> from a TH6 to a big quad, to a monobander Christmas tree. When I first
> went off to school in Arkansas in 1976, I saw the other side. My new
> friend WA5RTG (now K5GO) was an avid entry in the low band
> category, with a
> Mosley S-402 shorty-fourty (a big antenna in those days) and an
> assortment
> of low band wires. As Dave points out, you don't have to focus on big
> antennas for six bands.
>
> While I respect the efforts put forth by the single band entrants, those
> categories have little or no interest to me.
>
> I never understood why the low and high band categories were done away
> with. I would like to see some consideration given to bringing them back.
>
> Dave/K8CC
>
>
> At 01:25 PM 6/18/02 +0000, Dave Hachadorian wrote:
> >With the advent of ARRL's enhanced on-line contest reporting,
> constraints
> >on the number of contest categories imposed by available QST space are
> >removed, or at least reduced. Computerized log-checking has also reduced
> >the need to minimize the number of categories in contests, since the
> >administrative overhead has been reduced.
> >
> >I'd like to see the High Band (10, 15, 20) and Low Band (40, 80, 160)
> >categories restored in the ARRL DX Test. There are a number of
> reasons why
> >I think this move would enhance the contest world-wide:
> >
> >1. Declining JA activity has made it much more difficult for western USA
> >stations to compete in all categories, but especially the
> all-band category,
> >where absorption on 40, 80, and 160 precludes big European runs.
> >
> >2. There are a lot of stations around the world who have a small
> tower and
> >tribander in the back yard, and an assortment of low, seriously
> >compromised antennas for 40, 80, and 160. There is not much
> incentive for
> >these stations to get on the air in the all band category, since
> they know
> >that they cannot turn in a competitive score. On the other hand, a
> >tribander can do a quite creditable job on the high bands, which would
> >encourage activity.
> >
> >3. The single-band category, while enabling disadvantaged stations to be
> >more competitive on one single band, rapidly gets to be pretty boring.
> >
> >4. The High band/ low band categories would enable SO2R
> operation, making
> >the contest much more interesting than single band category,
> where SO2R is
> >impracticable for most people.
> >
> >To me, the payoff in any contest is to enjoy the contest experience
> >itself, and, afterward, to to see how I ranked, with the data
> arranged the
> >way I like to see it presented. I really don't care about QST
> listings or
> >certificates. By the time QST and the certificates come out, the contest
> >is old news. Coupled with the ARRL's growing accent on Internet score
> >reporting, I think the additional categories would add a spark of growth
> >and an interesting new dimension to the ARRL DX Test.
> >
> >Respectfully,
> >
> >Dave Hachadorian, K6LL
> >Yuma, Arizona
> >K6LL@despammed.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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
>
|