[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Is ARRL DX Really Broken ?

To: Bill Parry <bparry@rgv.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Is ARRL DX Really Broken ?
From: Doug Smith <dougw9wi@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 19:34:06 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Bill Parry wrote:
> I think this is a very interesting attitude. Most entrants know they have no
> chance of winning so they just fool around in the contest, leaving the
> propagationally (is that a word?) favored stations in the NE to compete. I
> honestly don't want to change the rules either, but come on, surely you can
> come up with a better argument than that!

I have GOT to stop posting so close to when I leave for work...

I don't think I emphasized highly enough the last sentence -- and the point -- 
of my post.

IMHO, leveling -- or not leveling -- the playing field will make little or no 
difference in contest participation.  The number of hams who will choose 
not to participate, or to make a vastly smaller number of Q's, simply because 
they cannot win, is miniscule.  It won't (doesn't) significantly affect 
how much fun the vast majority of us will have.

So there may or may not be justification for erasing geographic advantage 
somewhere else, but I don't think increasing activity is that justification.


Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View, TN  EM66
CQ-Contest mailing list

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