JA activity in CQWW is increasing. But, it is increasing just as much or
more everywhere else in the world.
You can see the numbers at
http://www.cqww.com/stats.htm
The default is world. Select any country from the drop down list to see
more details.
Randy, K5ZD
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Martin , LU5DX
> Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 2:19 PM
> To: Edward Sawyer; CQ-Contest
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Fwd: WRTC-2014 Selection Areas (JA participation
> declining?)
>
> Is JA participation declining?
> I do have that impression too, but numbers indicate otherwise.
> Feel free to take a look at this screenshot:
>
> http://i.imgur.com/o66YO5e.jpg
>
> Vy 73.
>
> Martin, LU5DX
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Edward Sawyer
> <SawyerEd@earthlink.net>wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Congratulations to all the competitors chosen - by competition or team
> > leader selection.
> >
> >
> >
> > Personally, I have never felt the selection criteria vs the actual
> > competition has ever made sense (and have voiced the opinion numerous
> > times). The concept that the actual competition differs so greatly
> > from the selection criteria and the fact that 50% of the participants
> > didn't even qualify but were picked after the fact just has never made
> > sense to me.
> > And
> > now with the rules of competition moving to a true MULTI - TWO format,
> > each competitor really is fully engaged in the competition and no
> > longer "assisting" the team captain (especially going back to the pre-
> 2010 WRTCs).
> > Its essentially now 118 people competing with only a little less than
> > half having earned the right and the other half knowing the right
> > person. Not to mention the fact that the actual representation of M2
> > or good forbid - low power is not even given full credit when
> > qualifying but is then represents the actual competing conditions when
> > competing.
> >
> >
> >
> > I believe that the next one, would do well to eliminate the teams and
> > have each competitor earning the right to compete. I also think that
> > the decision of how they compete should become a category of
> > qualification and that should be at least equal to any other
> > qualifying score. After all, should those that demonstrate the most
> > proficiency in the actual intended competition criteria be given the
> > highest, or at least equal, qualifying points? Should the Boston
> > Marathon count extra qualifying for 10k runs vs actual marathon times?
> >
> >
> >
> > With technology advancing, it would be not too difficult to have 100
> > people all operating individually. Make a number of remote receivers
> > available to all participants so that no one is jamming by being too
> > close to each other and then you could much more densely pack the tents
> and transmit antennas.
> > Have it all SOAB. If low power is chosen as the competition medium,
> > then make low power a 100% qualifying score. If some other power
> > level is chosen, then that category should be the criteria.
> >
> >
> >
> > Lastly, I commend the attempt to make the competition areas smaller
> > but honestly I think they became too small on this one. If we are
> > going to assign JA one slot because of declining contest
> > participation, then it should not matter what the ancient FCC call
> > areas represent as far as contesting population is concerned.
> >
> >
> >
> > 73
> >
> >
> >
> > Ed N1UR
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
|
