Hello John
Well to each his own..... I respectfully disagree with your
views....I personally need to give this more thought, but
at present I do not see the down side, unless you are a
serious single band competitor. Myself I am in this category.
I give it mt all on 40 or 15, but hey maybe 2 bands
might be fun. Why not give it try. "Hair-brained " is a bit
strong at this point. I do agree "leveling the
playing field" is never going to happen. After 30 plus years operating
from Ct. then moving to Alabama I learnt 40, 80, 160
belongs to the North Eastern guys. It is what it is, and yes it took
several years for me to accept that fact.
73 BoB WA1FCN/KM4FOC
On 10/24/2025 2:20 PM, John R wrote:
Re: CQWW SO2B
WHY does QRP not get an UNASSISTED Category like the others?
Yet *another* contest that wants wants to lump ALL the QRPers into one
category.
This particular "level the playing field" idea, at best, only "levels"
things for folks who happen to have very good antennas for 2 bands. Another
batch of new categories that will only affect a very few top scorers.
This SO2B seems to me to be the latest hair-brained scheme to "level the
playing field" in contesting - something that simply cannot be done.
We all work contests with our own goals, and the new categories won't
really affect most of the operations at all, but the constant schemes to
"level the playing field" in contesting strike me as quite humorous.
As it is now one of the very most popular contests on the planet, it
appears that CQWW maybe doesn't need "fixing" or leveling?
-*73*-
John N6HI
_______________________________________________
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
|