Finding rare stations? That's so deliciously pre-Internet! If you mean we
should abolish Internet spotting, you've got my vote. I abhor packet pileups
equally from a contesting perspective and a DXing perspective. Tell me, then,
just how do we go about ridding ourselves of that pesky spotting?
From: Wayne Mills [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2011 9:33 AM
Cc: 'Patton, David NN1N'; N7KA@comcast.net; email@example.com
Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Leveling the playing field
For many of us, the format of a contest is far more important than the
levelness of the playing field. Granted that numerically, most contesters are
on the east coast (of course, the definition of east coast depends on how far
west you are). If you want to win or be competitive in most so-called DX
contests, you must do a DXpedition to an area that favors your effort. If you
can't run 94% of your Qs in Europe, where you can forget about rotating most of
your antennas away from Europe, the ARRL DX contest is fun because of the value
of the multipliers out here. The rarity of the western multipliers makes it
worth participating. After 55 years, I would have absolutely no interest in
ARRL DX in a distance format. For me, copying the TBDC is second-rate, unworthy
of ARRL. TBDC is great, but copying it is bush league.
So-called DX contest? What's that? Something unique would be a real DX contest.
Most current so-called DX contests are running contests. There's nothing wrong
with running - some of my best friends do it. But for them, it often doesn't
matter whether they are working VU4s or WB4s, and generally they don't care.
Run run run. There are plenty of running contests. Go for it.
Rather, let's - again -- have a real DX contest where the skill involved is
DXing; finding rare stations, breaking pileups. Today, that would be unique.
Although the ARRL DX started in 1927 as a combination relay and DX contest
(with pre-set exchanges, by the way), its format was DXing. It was two weeks
long (three weekends, I believe). Mults would count more. Running contest? NOT.
ARRL has DXCC. It has the ARRL DX contest. ARRL should use its prestige to be
an innovator, not a follower.
[mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Ed Richardson
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 7:35 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Leveling the playing field
My initial reaction to this debate was, "lets do what we can to level
the field". However after reading some of the excellent points on here,
I am beginning to agree that a level field is a dream and wouldn't be
practical. Us folks from the middle of the continent will not win a DX
contest. Just too many skip zones to the major DX population centers.
However like others have said, setting realistic goals and challenging
oneself and other locals, should keep you motivated. Personally I always
try to better my last years score, or strive for some target number of
The fact that I will never win or likely ever place in the top 10
doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see some changes.
Distance scoring, makes sense to me. I see no harm in changing this. A
east coast station may have the rate to Europe but others Midwest and
west coast stations will be reward with more points even at a lower
Another change to consider would be to turn the contest into more of a
sprint format. Meaning limit the number of QSO's on a single frequency.
Try and prevent the frequency monopolization of a few big guns that
scream bloody murder when propagation shifts and you are in their skip
zone. They come up on your frequency claiming your are qrming them and
they have been on frequency for 44 hours and to please qsy. A 48 hour
sprint would be a true iron man contest and would eliminate the clusters
and skimmers from playing a part. This would be more of a test of
Just my $0.02006 cents worth (The Canadian dollar being worth more than
the US$ afterall)
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list