Generally, I am content to read, perhaps learn from, and then delete the
numerous messages that ultimately comprise a given thread. However, this
one has raised my ire sufficiently to warrant a response.
First, let me say that I am not adverse to change when change would
presumably be beneficial. Nevertheless., I unashamedly admit that I am a
firm believer in the adage "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
One can no doubt make a strong case that the exchange of signal reports and
power level, from the DX side, has outlived its validity and
usefulness. But, is that the point? Unless I am mistaken, I haven't seen
any effort to change the exchange in the CQWW tests. Yet, if one is
honest, little effort can go into the exchange (zones) if one is so
predisposed since in most instances the software and databases will handle
the information for you. On the other hand, one should be doing one's best
to accurately copy the exchange to minimize the errors brought about by
exceptions, and thus busted Q's in whatever the test.
I know that there will never be a "level playing field", but cannot perhaps
the exchange and its longevity be viewed as the "level" starting point from
which we can go on to continually hone our skills, add better antennas, or
a second radio, etc.,? Are not these really some of the areas in which the
top ten operators distinguish themselves?
Further, and please this is not meant as a flame to those who have so
suggested but only a question, what is the point of adding grid squares to
the exchange? Do we really want to reach the point where the exchanges for
all contests are the same? Isn't the vitality and appeal, at least in
part, of contesting the variety? We already have several contests in which
the exchange does involve grid squares and that's great.
On a personal level, the ARRL DX contests have a unique appeal for me. Due
to my profession and my family commitments, I only have a limited number of
"contest days" during which I can get away. As I did in this past March's
ARRL SSB test, I went to KG4 in large measure for the distraction. Yes, I
said distraction. While I am as competitive as most of you, I also value
the ability to lose myself and not have to worry about being called in the
middle of the night or during a weekend to address some potential
problem. In some measure the ease with which I can be distracted, and
therefore "recharge my internal batteries", comes from the familiarity of
the contest exchange, i.e., listening for states or listening for power
levels however "artificial they may be". Instead, I can concentrate as I
did this past March on making Q's, propagation and when to make band
changes, and, oh yes, the effects of a hurricane, murphy on a military
base, and the banana rats (article soon to be completed, -:)).
In other words, I for one, would think that the first question to be
answered is not how the exchange should be altered, but is it necessary in
the first place. No doubt greater minds of contesters far more adept than
I can postulate many reasons why. I look forward to listening to them. In
fact, I welcome the discussion as there is always room to learn. But, I
would be remiss if I didn't say at the onset that I, for one, don't see a
compelling reason at this point.
I look forward to a continuation of this discussion and perhaps someone can
change my mind -:).
73 & CU in the pileups de Doug W4OX / KG4OX.
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|