Bob's suggestion below is excellent and, in my opinion, is exactly what the
ARRL rules call for. Amazing!! His suggestion points out that the real problem
is reporting the results in ways not recognized by the rules of the contest.
Other respondents have indicated that other contests have natural advantages
that are different from the ARRL DX Test and, accordingly, suffer from the same
skewed reporting. The solution is the same.
"firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com> wrote:
>Indeed, it has been interesting to read the different viewpoints.
>Now, I'll present THE SOLUTION to this problem. It came to me on Monday
>morning, 21 February, while perusing the ARRL DX scores on 3830. It was the
>result of realizing that I had been soundly trounced by many stations,
>including _low power_ entrants, several of whom also got more sleep than I.
>The solution: eliminate all national (US/VE) awards. Recognize the winners in
>each ARRL Division and Section (including second, third, etc., places as
>appropriate). Do not emphasize the top national score, since it is only
>relevant regionally. (This does not mean eliminating national awards for DX,
>Think of it: those poor W1s need no longer suffer ignominious defeat at the
>hands of those horrid (fill in the blank: VY2s?). The highest scoring W1 gets
>the same certificate as the top VY2. Problem solved.
>Bonus: us "third rate lids west of 90 degrees W longitude" likewise will now
>compete against similarly handicapped operators, with the regional high scorer
>receiving appropriate recognition. The increasingly unequal
>geographic/demographic effect is thus normalized. Elegantly simple!
>Why hasn't this already been implemented? I'm "absolutely certain" this has
>nothing to do with the headquarters location of the ARRL (and CQ Mag?) in the
>Northeast corner of the US. Perish the thought.
>Likewise, I'm "absolutely certain" that the noticeable decrease in ARRL DX
>enthusiasm from W6/W7 that I've observed over the past decade is simply an
>aberration, and not a byproduct of the drastically reduced effort/result
>ratio. I won't complain that there are far fewer casual local operators, and
>those that do get on, do so for fewer minutes; after all, this gives me more
>bandwidth to call those low-rate CQs toward the Pacific/East Asia. Well, after
>changing propagation forces the east coast to run Eu on another band, anyway.
>ARRL DX (once my favorite contest)... change the format? No! Change its
>reporting and emphasize regional effort!
>(My apologies to non-English speakers struggling to decipher my sarcasm)
>73 de Bob, K6XX
>-- "Robert Shohet" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>It has been interesting to read the different viewpoints in this discussion.
>Speed up your surfing with Juno SpeedBand.
>Now includes pop-up blocker!
>Only $14.95/month -visit http://www.juno.com/surf to sign up today!
>CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list