I know what you are saying Randy and I respectably disagree that this
is really needed. I don't think that reducing the hours of a contest
will do much to balance the competition level of that contest. I
think it would just be a shorter contest.
And I admit, I always see the reduction of operating time and sleep
deprivation as a "hidden" motivation for time limit changes.
I believe that fewer hours will mean less fun no matter how much more
competitive I might feel in the WPX. I contest because it is fun to
contest. I certainly don't do it to win anything. If that were the
case, I would collect stamps instead.
All contests are not created equal for everyone. Maybe what we need
is a Stew Perry style contest that is world-wide and all bands.
Getting additional points based on the distance of the QSO is the
best equalizer I can think of.
Richard - K5NA
At 17:36 3/22/2008, Randy Thompson wrote:
>At no time did any of the advocates of 30 hours make the argument that it
>was due to needing sleep. All of the examples were around enhancing the
>competitive balance between various parts of the world.
>
>Randy, K5ZD
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
> > [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> > Richard L. King
> > Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 2:23 PM
> > To: Jim Neiger; cq-contest@contesting.com
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Move WPX Back to 30 Hours?
> >
> > I agree with Jim on this one.
> >
> > When we start cutting back on contest time to fit our aging
> > sleep cycle, it is admitting that the end of contesting is at hand.
> >
> > When I hit 100 years of age, I want the WPX to still be a 36
> > hour contest and not a one hour contest to fit my physical needs.
> >
> > Of course, I am hoping that there will be another generation
> > of contesters to follow us. If we know for sure that
> > contesting is going to die out with us, then you can make all
> > contests an evening's sprint and I will find another hobby.
> > Maybe I will start running Marathons (Unless they get
> > shortened for me too).
> >
> > 73, Richard - K5NA
> >
> >
> >
> > At 22:51 3/21/2008, Jim Neiger wrote:
> > >And I would like to see this contest go back to 48 hours.
> > >
> > >o Contests are for operating
> > >
> > >o Sleeping is for non-contesters
> > >
> > >o Bands are for congesting
> > >
> > >At my house, Trey was always fondly known as "The Kid", and
> > we tried to
> > >treat him just like one of our children. Now he's starting
> > to sound like
> > >the rest of the OF's who can no longer 'cut the mustard'...
> > Let's see,
> > >Trey-ster, was it 1999 that you were No. 1 SO/AB from HC8
> > and wasn't
> > >that also a new WR?? Surely you could operate the entire 48
> > hours....
> > >What happened?
> > >
> > >Gads, in 30 years when I hit the Century mark, I sure hope
> > that there
> > >will still be some of you young guys around to work.
> > >
> > >Vy 73
> > >
> > >Jim Neiger N6TJ
> > >
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Trey Garlough" <trey@kkn.net>
> > >To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> > >Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 7:59 AM
> > >Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Move WPX Back to 30 Hours?
> > >
> > >
> > > > Randy has summarized the situation very well.
> > > >
> > > > I think the 30-hour SOAB WPX format was very good, and I
> > still think
> > > > that the new 36-hour format is a mistake. I would love
> > to see the
> > > > contest go back to the 30-hour format -- it was the
> > quintessential
> > > > world wide contest for "medium guns."
> > > >
> > > > Anyone who has been in the contesting game for a long time will
> > > > recognize the following fact: The best ops with the best
> > stations in
> > > > the best locations tend to win contests. There is not
> > much mystery
> > > > to this aspect of contesting.
> > > >
> > > > o The beauty of the 30-hour format is that it gives the best ops
> > > > with the best stations in the best locations less time to assert
> > > > these advantages over everyone else. This makes the race closer
> > > > and more exciting.
> > > >
> > > > o Because the big guns spend fewer hours on the air, the
> > bands are
> > > > less congested and this gives the medium guns more space to
> > > > establish themselves.
> > > >
> > > > o Having to pick what you think your best 30 hours will be
> > > > introduces an interesting aspect of strategy that is not
> > present in most contests.
> > > >
> > > > o It's ok for contests to be different. There are plenty
> > of 48-hour
> > > > contests available for guys who feel limited by the
> > 30-hour format.
> > > >
> > > > Not sure what else to say. This horse was beaten dead 10
> > years ago
> > > > -- would love to see it come back to life!
> > > >
> > > > --Trey, N5KO/HC8N
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > K5ZD writes:
> > > >> History has shown that the shorter time period enables
> > more people
> > > >> to be competitive from more places around the world.
> > For example,
> > > >> from W6, it is more likely to find 30 good hours that include
> > > >> Europe or JA propagation than it is to find 36 hours.
> > Where from
> > > >> W1, we have 40+ hours of good prop to Europe. By limiting to 30
> > > >> hours, both the W1 and W6 ops have the same amount of rate
> > > >> opportunities to work with.
> > > >>
> > > >> The biggest complaint against 30 hours is that there is a lot of
> > > >> time where you may be wanting to operate, yet can't.
> > This tends to
> > > >> drive a lot of activity into the first 24 hours and then
> > leave the
> > > >> bands a little emptier on day 2.
> > > >>
> > > >> As a side note, the WPX RTTY contest has kept the 30
> > hour limit. I
> > > >> am not sure what prompted the increase from 30 to 36
> > hours. Based
> > > >> on comments over the years, the guys who are on
> > expeditions or in
> > > >> high rate locations tend to favor the longer operating
> > time. The
> > > >> guys in less advantage areas have voted by giving up on
> > the contest
> > > >> and so their comments have diminished.
> > > >>
> > > >> Randy, K5ZD
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|