As I see it you want the US as dominant as possible and
EU the opposite. IMO that´s not fair and I try not to
be biased towards a EU perspective, IMO I´m trying to be as
broadminded as possible.
Points for your own country plus distance, surely a huge
country like the USA with at the same time large ham radio
population "must" benefit big time compared to all other
countries in the world.
On the other hand, do we really need any more contests?
There seems to be 5-10 each weekend.
There are a grid square contest (TOEC) already but since
it´s invented by someone in EU it might not be attractive,
don´t know much about it since I haven´t looked at it.
I think the CQWW is a very good concept, it should be simple
and it is. There are only two bad things with it and that is
the unfair scoring to anybody outside NA and the penalty level.
I can live with the penalty level since it´s equal for everyone,
however I really think it´s too severe.
Talking about penalty, CQWW log checkers doesn´t catch all
In the 1995 CQWW there was a single op trophy winner that was
connected to the DX cluster all the time, he even had set a
spot filter in the cluster just to receive spots for a specific
band (he was single band).
When I spoke to him about it he claimed he never used the spots,
he was connected to the cluster just to be able to use "a chat
feature" he claimed.
Sorry but I don´t buy it, I don´t believe he never looked at
the spots, IMO it was cheating and he got away with it.
I was going to report it to the CQWW log checkers but somehow or
another it slipped me, that I regret.
73 Jim SM2EKM
Jim George wrote:
> (1) distance as a basis for the value of a contact, and also permitting a
> contact with one's own country, and,
> is good, but it messes things up by (IMHO) having all the HQ mults, which
> is another way of making EU dominate, and it does not give credit for
> That's the proposal, and it would be interesting for some sponsoring body
> to adopt these concepts.
> Jim George N3BB
CQ-Contest mailing list