Joe,
You are right on and some CAC people have confirmed to me that this
indeed SS for topband. So I asked why the inclusion of DX at all? Well
I think it was done out of encouragement and respect for former league
president and 160 meter super hero, Bob Denniston, W0DX who retired to
the B.V.I as VP2VI. If I recall correctly he lobbied for a ARRL 160
meter event like the very successful CQ 160. No one in the right mind at
HQ could deny Bob the chance to participate in the very contest he
advocated. What went wrong was the eventual detail in the scoring
ambiguities.(VP2V is 40 miles north of the St.Croix or 7 miles from KP2A
but both of us are in a total different boat as being considered non-dx
for the purpose of this contest. Our only advantage is being a need
ARRL section but working through the beehive of east coast participants
is a real problem. Station in ND, DE and even WNY get a bigger pile up
than VI.
I trust the CAC will take a close look at making a significant change,
not because I can't ever win this one, but for the primary purpose of
encouraging more participation.
73,
Herb Schoenbohm, KV4FZ
Joe Subich, W4TV wrote:
> Steve,
>
> That's the entire issue ... ARRL 160 is a 160 Sweepstakes
> and should be scored that way. DX countries should not be
> multipliers and DX QSOs should not count.
>
> I won ARRL 160 Single Op from Ohio (AD8I) in 1982; as far
> as I know that's the only time someone has done it from
> that far west. It was a very strange year ... New England
> had a massive thunderstorm and nobody could hear anything.
> I spent most of my time listening on a short beverage to
> the west as the NE beverage was noisy. Of my very few DX
> contacts, I even told DL1YD to "QRX" while I worked a W0
> because all I heard was "1YD" and thought he was in New
> England or VE1 <G>!
>
> I doubt that eliminating multiplier/QSO credit for DX would
> allow someone in W6, KP4 or Florida to ever win ARRL 160
> but it would open it up to all of the guys in W3, W4, W5,
> W8, W9 and W0 or VE3 that just don't have a chance under
> the current rules.
>
> 73,
>
> ... Joe, W4TV
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: topband-bounces@contesting.com
>> [mailto:topband-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
>> steve.root@culligan4water.com
>> Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2009 8:21 AM
>> To: topband@contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: Topband: ARRL 160 Contest Scoring
>>
>>
>> In the last decade I've operated this contest 6 or 7 times
>> and in the process I've set the Minnesota section record
>> several times. I mention that to establish that these were
>> very serious efforts on my part. In total, I've made almost
>> 5200 QSO's in that time. Of those 5200 QSO's I've had
>> Europeans answer my CQ three times...YU1LA, SV3RF, and DF2PY.
>> That's .056%. How many answers from Europeans do you think I
>> would have gotten if I lived in New Hampshire or Georgia or
>> Texas? That's the problem with the ARRL contest scoring. A
>> limited section of the country has access to a large pool of
>> QSO's and multipliers that we can't reach. And to really rub
>> your face in it, they award 5 points for those DX QSO's as well.
>>
>> I did discuss this issue with my ARRL section Director. He
>> tried to get this on the table for discussion at the CAC but
>> met serious entrenched resistance to the idea.
>>
>> Once again, the only rational way to look at contest results
>> is to compare you score to others in your local area and
>> nowhere else.
>>
>> 73 Steve K0SR
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 160 meters is a serious band, it should be treated with
>> respect. - TF4M
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 160 meters is a serious band, it should be treated with respect. - TF4M
>
_______________________________________________
160 meters is a serious band, it should be treated with respect. - TF4M
|