[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] WPX & Activity (Was: Intended consequences)

To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] WPX & Activity (Was: Intended consequences)
From: "Randy Thompson K5ZD" <k5zd@charter.net>
Reply-to: k5zd@charter.net
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 20:47:02 -0000
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
WPX is many things to many people. Only a relatively small number of
participants are in it to win it and focus on the full operating time.  Most
participants get on when they can and pursue their own definition of fun.

The 1 point for same country QSOs rule change was a great move.  It retained
the DX competition flavor of the contest, but provided more incentive to
work stations (and prefixes) in your own country.  No doubt this helped make
the contest more popular for smaller stations - especially those in the
central USA who may have a limited opportunity to work into the QSO rich
Europe and Asia regions.

The increase from 30 hours to 36 hours was made at the request (pressure?)
from some DXpeditioners who did not like to travel to a remote location and
then be forced off the air due to offtime.  30 hours was good if you were in
a place with 24-30 hours of rate, but frustrating if you were in a place
with 30-40+ hours of rate.

I doubt you could find statistical evidence that increasing the operating
time limit had any impact on the overall participation in the contest. In
WPX SSB 2011, there were 500 single op entries that operated 29 hours or
more.  Another 190 multi-ops did so.  This leaves 4500 entries that operated
less time and we have no way of knowing how much their operating time would
have changed with a few less stations calling CQ on Sunday.

The change from 30 to 36 hours had a definite impact on the competitive
balance in the single op category.  Prior to the change it was possible for
stations in many parts of the world to achieve a competitive score. It was
not unusual for a W6 to be in the top 3 for the USA or a VK7 to make the
World top ten.  Not so since. Those extra 6-8 hours of DX rate make a huge
difference in a contest where scores increase almost exponentially as QSOs

As we saw in the recent debate over fairness, there are no perfect rules.
Any constraint will place a greater burden on some stations vs others.  It
is generally agreed that off times are a beneficial aspect of WPX so the
discussion here is simply over whether 30 hours or 36 hours is the right
number. The online results include the number of hours operated for every
entrant so anyone is welcome to do further analysis.

I really appreciate and enjoy the passion that debates around contest rules
engender.  As long as we care so deeply the sport of contesting is alive and
well.  Ideas for making things better are always welcome.

Randy, K5ZD

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com [mailto:cq-contest-
> bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bob Shohet KQ2M
> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 10:57 AM
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] WPX & Activity (Was: Intended consequences)
> As I have stated before on this reflector:
> "More activity = more fun
> more qso's = more fun
> more qso's = higher score = more fun"
> More activity = more stations to work for everyone.
> Despite the activity explosion in the WPX contest because of the 30=>36
> hour rule change and the 0=>1 point US-US qso rule change, which benefits
> the WPX contest you choose to focus on the narrow perspective of how your
> score and that of some regions might be affected.
> You steadfastly refuse to acknowledge how the increased activity levels in
> WPX benefit EVERYONE (including you) operating in the contest.
> That's your choice - but my interest was, and is, on increasing activity
> in the WPX contest.
> And, as I posted previously on this reflector, I helped champion
> the 1 point US-US qso rule, even though, to paraphrase you,   I have to
> ask,
> ""a good thing for you, sir, or those of us in the East?"  It clearly was
> to the to the DISadvantage of myself and those in the East, but I actively
> supported it and lobbied for it because it was good for activity in the
> WPX contest!"
> In a recent post, I referenced an old post in which I proposed an IARU
> type scoring system for US q's which would have helped YOU and the western
> ops even more (at the expense of the East coast ops).
> I even included a link to this old post which you either did not read or
> don't want to acknowledge..
> The fact that you have chosen to remain silent about all this and pretend
> that it never happened and then cast aspersions on me shows your lack of
> objectivity and your lack of interest in a thoughtful, respectful
> discussion.
> That's disapppointing.
> I get it.  I am interested in what's best for the WPX contest and you are
> not.
> Let's leave it at that.
> Bob KQ2M
> kq2m@kq2m.com
> www.rlsfinancialgroup.com
> KL7RA wrote:
> Half that enter the WPX surveyed want to leave it as is which is good
> enough for me, but to hear someone in Connecticut say, "increasing the
> original WPX from 30 to 36 hours was a good thing",  I have to ask, "a
> good thing for you, sir, or those if us in the west?"
> 73 Rich KL7RA (Northwest, even worse)
> Bob Shohet, KQ2M
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

CQ-Contest mailing list

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