ve6tn <email@example.com> wrote:
>>The ARRL DX contest of the future will no longer have a single ARRL contest
>winner with rankings of all stations. ?Instead, there will be many regional
>winners none of whom officially compete against each other. ?Desparities due
>to location or regulation will be eliminated and a contest station in VY
>will no longer compete against W1 nor would a W1 compete against W2, or
>wherever the boundaries have been drawn. ?One can envision the circumstance
>where old rivals across a regional boundary from each other will now no
>longer be competitors.
As long as we are human, we will compete. The claim by any operator/station
that he has won the contest. implying that that was done solely on the basis
the he operated the best station and/or was the best operator is, based on what
we know, not tenable.
>There will no longer be a single station who can claim that they won the
>ARRL DX SSB contest. ?Canada will be relegated to a different status in the
>ARRL and more in-line with DX.
No Canadian sections/divisions will re relegated to the same rank as U S
>What about all of the old records and history of this contest? ?Do they all
>get recalculated based on the new criteria? ?
Two things, first, records are kept by some at the region, division, and
section level now, no change. Second, nobody proposed a rule change. The
rules are specific that awards are given at the section and division level, top
ten lists, etc. are not provided for. In other words, report the contest
according to its rules.
>perhaps it is time to retire the old contest, declare it ended. ?Make the
>2005 or 2006 year the officially the last one. ?This will preserve all of
>the old records and history and eliminate debate.
>Going forward the ARRL can start a "New" contest to replace the old. ?Call
>it the "New ARRL DX Contest" and introduce new rules, scoring, and ranking
>that are fair for everyone. ?An extensive handicap and weighting system
>could be deployed. ?Individials strive to set their handicap. ?Stations get
>weighted against each others based on location, number of towers, height,
>If the ARRL comes up with a way of normalizing one region against the other,
>then perhaps they could still declare weighted national results. ?But this
>new comparison would have to be based on weighted criteria not on raw score.
>Some sort of handicap system based on geography, auroral zone, national
>rules, maybe even equipment. ?The structure could be done so that there was
>a ranking based on "station performance" and one based on "operator
Changes might be welcome, but such a handicapping system would probably be too
difficult to manage since the variables are, in themselves, variable, i.e.
geomagnetic activity, solar flux, and, not the least, how many contest
dxpeditions there are and where they are.
>I guess I am trying to make a point. ?When you change the rules where do you
>draw the line? ?
Again, at least one camp does not propose changing the rules, but instead
proposes reporting contest results in accordance with the rules of the contest.
As the results are reported now, by implication or inference many conclude
that the tallest, smartest, best operators, best stations are all in the
northeast. Not true.
Complaining about unfairness in
>national rules or advantages of location sure comes across as sour grapes.
I agree, and have said so on this reflector.
>If I were that person I would be very disappointed that someone would be
>trying to cheapen my victory by making claims that it was based on unfairn
>competition or that the rules were tilted. ?Everyone serious at this level
>of contesting all have the same rule-book.
Agreed, since the complainant already possesses almost every conceivable
advantage in the contest himself.
>If anyone wants a better contesting location than VY then here is an idea:
>Purchase property just outside St. John Newfoundland and build a
>superstation. ?Your advantages would be salt water take-off, improved
>greyline timing and short signal path to Eu and AF because they are
I refuse to live such an unbalanced lfe.
CQ-Contest mailing list