Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[CQ\-Contest\]\s+WRTC\s+Qualifying\s*$/: 51 ]

Total 51 documents matching your query.

21. Re: [CQ-Contest] WRTC Qualifying (score: 1)
Author: "rjairam@gmail.com" <rjairam@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2018 21:49:42 -0400
Im looking at my case. Under the current criteria I have not a shot in hell. Mostly because Im competing with W1 who has an obvious geographic advantage. When it was aligned with US Call districts it
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2018-07/msg00062.html (21,357 bytes)

22. Re: [CQ-Contest] WRTC Qualifying (score: 1)
Author: Jeff Clarke <ku8e@ku8e.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2018 22:46:33 -0400
With the current rules you only get 4 multi operator scores total. I had 5 of my bigger scores thrown out ( At either PJ4A and WW4LL) because they were multi-operator entries. My qualifying score in
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2018-07/msg00063.html (21,162 bytes)

23. Re: [CQ-Contest] WRTC Qualifying (score: 1)
Author: "Martin, LU5DX" <lu5dx@lucg.com.ar>
Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2018 23:30:44 -0300
Hi Rķa, That to me is not the main thing (people being left out because they do not have access to a super duper station). WRTC has gone a long way with a system that is mostly based on trust. I know
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2018-07/msg00064.html (24,530 bytes)

24. Re: [CQ-Contest] WRTC Qualifying (score: 1)
Author: Mark <pa5mw@home.nl>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 09:46:49 +0200
Of course not. That would be like calling the Haas F1 team, demanding an F1 car seat for next season, based only on your skills to do Mario Kart on that old 486-laptop. Climbing Mount Everest with a
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2018-07/msg00065.html (11,904 bytes)

25. Re: [CQ-Contest] WRTC Qualifying (score: 1)
Author: Rudy Bakalov via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 10:44:20 +0100
Building and maintaining a high performance station is a skill, just like being able to copy 40 WPM or do SO2R. I dont understand why station building is so frequently dismissed. IMHO, contesting is
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2018-07/msg00066.html (23,639 bytes)

26. Re: [CQ-Contest] WRTC Qualifying (score: 1)
Author: Timothy Coker via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 04:34:05 +0000 (UTC)
Jeff, thank you for proving the point in the rules... there are some hams posting that have very boastfully stated a this is the way it is attitude that only rich hams can qualify for WRTC and there
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2018-07/msg00067.html (24,304 bytes)

27. [CQ-Contest] WRTC Qualifying (score: 1)
Author: Gerry Hull <gerry@yccc.org>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 07:09:16 -0400
I agree we need to make WRTC more accessible. How to do that is difficult. Regional differences in the number of radio amateurs, propagation conditions, economics and station accessibility make it di
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2018-07/msg00068.html (9,365 bytes)

28. Re: [CQ-Contest] WRTC Qualifying (score: 1)
Author: robert f beaudoin <wa1fcn@charter.net>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 07:49:28 -0500
    GM Ria             Maybe you have never operated from outside the NorthEast USA,  but I find it     hard to sympathize with your comment about you as a W2 station having a geographic         disa
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2018-07/msg00072.html (20,267 bytes)

29. Re: [CQ-Contest] WRTC Qualifying (score: 1)
Author: Hank Greeb <n8xx@arrl.org>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 09:08:27 -0400
If you really want an egalitarian way to choose participants in the "olympics of ham Radio",  (which is what WRTC attempts to be), then Allow anyone who placed in he upper 10 percentile of scores wit
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2018-07/msg00073.html (8,518 bytes)

30. Re: [CQ-Contest] WRTC Qualifying (score: 1)
Author: David Siddall <hhamwv@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 09:17:30 -0400
For the record, in the WRTC2018 selection area that includes New England, only one of the three winners operated in New England. One operated from the middle of Pennsylvania (225 miles WEST of New Yo
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2018-07/msg00076.html (9,227 bytes)

31. Re: [CQ-Contest] WRTC Qualifying (score: 1)
Author: "steve.root" <steve.root@culligan4water.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 09:24:27 -0400 (EDT)
Gerry, Some very good thoughts here. However... This "National Body" you talk about would most likely be made up of the same group of people that participate in WRTC right now. I don't see where the
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2018-07/msg00077.html (11,786 bytes)

32. Re: [CQ-Contest] WRTC Qualifying (score: 1)
Author: "Bob Shohet, KQ2M" <kq2m@kq2m.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 09:39:11 -0400
Having operated all over the W1 for the past 35 years, I can state based on extensive contest operating experience that there are large geographic disadvantages WITHIN New England. There is no compar
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2018-07/msg00079.html (14,323 bytes)

33. Re: [CQ-Contest] WRTC Qualifying (score: 1)
Author: Steve London <n2icarrl@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 07:40:37 -0600
N5DX seems to be winning major DX contests from the N2QV station, located 50 miles northwest of you, despite the "obvious geographic advantage" of W1. 73, Steve, N2IC On 7/7/2018 8:49 PM, rjairam@gma
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2018-07/msg00081.html (10,856 bytes)

34. Re: [CQ-Contest] WRTC Qualifying (score: 1)
Author: "rjairam@gmail.com" <rjairam@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 11:52:33 -0400
Hi Robert, In the USA I have operated from Florida, Arkansas and Texas and remotely from California. The difference between NJ and Maine, NH or Vermont can be quite significant. Yes up here it is bet
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2018-07/msg00083.html (26,414 bytes)

35. Re: [CQ-Contest] WRTC Qualifying (score: 1)
Author: "rjairam@gmail.com" <rjairam@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 12:04:26 -0400
Like I said, I have some preparation for 2022, including significant station improvements and/or another station. Yes Im aware of those who qualified from PA. There are many factors at play but its i
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2018-07/msg00084.html (9,939 bytes)

36. Re: [CQ-Contest] WRTC Qualifying (score: 1)
Author: robert f beaudoin <wa1fcn@charter.net>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 11:13:49 -0500
GM Ria and Bob             After reading the post from you and Bob KQ2M I see your point.             I did contest over 35 years from Conn. and sure as hell got beat             a lot from others in
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2018-07/msg00085.html (27,808 bytes)

37. Re: [CQ-Contest] WRTC Qualifying (score: 1)
Author: Jeff Clarke <ku8e@ku8e.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 17:09:00 -0400
Oh C'Mon!!  An east coast station complaining about their propagation ?  You got to be kidding right? You really don't realize how well you have it compared to the rest of the country. Only a handful
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2018-07/msg00087.html (26,910 bytes)

38. Re: [CQ-Contest] WRTC Qualifying (score: 1)
Author: Jeff Clarke <ku8e@ku8e.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 17:30:08 -0400
When K4BAI and I were competitors in Brazil in 2006 our qualifying region included all of W1-W4 with only two teams from that region. Talk about a tough region to have to qualify in! I can tell you t
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2018-07/msg00088.html (10,612 bytes)

39. Re: [CQ-Contest] WRTC Qualifying (score: 1)
Author: Bill via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 19:54:31 -0400
Come on Bob, being in Al or FL is an advantage to work JA and VK, true. However, no way can it make up for the multitude of countries and QSOs that are available in EU, especially on 160 and 80. I'm
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2018-07/msg00090.html (10,743 bytes)

40. Re: [CQ-Contest] WRTC Qualifying (score: 1)
Author: "rjairam@gmail.com" <rjairam@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 22:03:48 -0400
If we are talking about WRTC qualification, does it really matter if you get high scores in a contest? It only matters that you score higher than those in your qualifying area. Up here Im not competi
/archives//html/CQ-Contest/2018-07/msg00092.html (11,711 bytes)

Current List: 21 - 40
Page: [1] [2] [3]
This search system is powered by Namazu