[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Improving the Fabulous CQ 160 Contest

To: tod@k0to.us, cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Improving the Fabulous CQ 160 Contest
From: Jimk8mr@aol.com
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 16:59:51 EST
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
I enjoy the Stew Perry in part because of the grid square exchange.  I  like 
to dream that I am working all those cool grids on six meters, even though  
it's really on 160.
Tod is onto a good idea of a default "I don't know my grid" entry, but I  
think it should be put in the log by the serious guy.  If a little guy  knows 
from the rules to send "AA11", he very likely to know, or to learn, what  his 
grid square is.
Especially on SSB, there would be a lot of "what's your  QTH?" probing to get 
a proper grid square from an unknowing  person. (After all, he could be a new 
mult.)  If all failed, then "AA11"  could be entered as an "I worked this 
guy, but he was clueless" entry.  If  a lazy big gun logged a weak guy as 
and the guy sent in a log showing  otherwise, then the big gun would lose the 
qso, maybe with a modest  penalty.
The meaningless RST could be dropped to keep the exchange to two items -  the 
Grid Square and S/P/or CQ Zone.  K8MR sends  EN91 OH;   PJ2T sends FK62 09.
It would be further cool to have the CQ computers score the contest in  
several ways.  The traditional way; a Stew Perry pure distance way; a  
of the two, with multipliers (whatever they might be) and qso points  
determined by distance. So there might be several winners, or maybe even the  
same guy 
winning under all scoring systems.
Lots of interesting ways to do this, if the Not Invented Here syndrome of  
other CQ contests can be avoided.
73  -  Jim   K8MR
In a message dated 1/7/2009 4:32:24 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, tod@k0to.us  

It has  been said that "plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery". 

I am in  agreement with the thought that it would not be appropriate to
"imitate"  the Stew Perry Contest. However, it might be appropriate to
incorporate a  key feature of that contest -- the grid square as a part of
the exchange --  in a revised CQ 160 Contest.

Tom's ,VE3CX, comments about considering  the effect/challenge for casual
operators who participate in the CQ 160  certainly deserves consideration. I
can imagine that the revised exchange  would become "59(9), Section {or DX
entity) and  Grid-Square. If one  did not know their grid square they could
send AA11 as the grid square and  the scoring could simply allocate the
minimum amount of points to that  particular QSO. [Section/DX Multipliers
would be multiplied times the QSO  point total]

The interesting thing with including both the Section and  the Grid-Square is
that there will continue to be motivation to make a  "sweep" as well as
motivation to work hard to get the distant Grid-Squares  for QSO point

Since there is no multiplier for QRP/Low  Power and there would be a
multiplier for number of Sections/DX worked, the  proposed "NEW CQ 160 would
hardly be considered to be 'cheapening' the Stew  Perry. At the same time,
persons participating in order to achieve WAS or  capture DX entities would
have that information from the exchange as  opposed to a somewhat arcane grid

**************New year...new news.  Be the first to know what is making 
headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)
CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>