I have to agree wholeheartedly with Dave. When the high and low band
categories were created for the ARRL DX Contest in the middle seventies, it
seemed to me like a great idea. To paraphrase Dave's points, it seemed
like there were a number of ways to be really competitive in high band;
from a TH6 to a big quad, to a monobander Christmas tree. When I first
went off to school in Arkansas in 1976, I saw the other side. My new
friend WA5RTG (now K5GO) was an avid entry in the low band category, with a
Mosley S-402 shorty-fourty (a big antenna in those days) and an assortment
of low band wires. As Dave points out, you don't have to focus on big
antennas for six bands.
While I respect the efforts put forth by the single band entrants, those
categories have little or no interest to me.
I never understood why the low and high band categories were done away
with. I would like to see some consideration given to bringing them back.
Dave/K8CC
At 01:25 PM 6/18/02 +0000, Dave Hachadorian wrote:
>With the advent of ARRL's enhanced on-line contest reporting, constraints
>on the number of contest categories imposed by available QST space are
>removed, or at least reduced. Computerized log-checking has also reduced
>the need to minimize the number of categories in contests, since the
>administrative overhead has been reduced.
>
>I'd like to see the High Band (10, 15, 20) and Low Band (40, 80, 160)
>categories restored in the ARRL DX Test. There are a number of reasons why
>I think this move would enhance the contest world-wide:
>
>1. Declining JA activity has made it much more difficult for western USA
>stations to compete in all categories, but especially the all-band category,
>where absorption on 40, 80, and 160 precludes big European runs.
>
>2. There are a lot of stations around the world who have a small tower and
>tribander in the back yard, and an assortment of low, seriously
>compromised antennas for 40, 80, and 160. There is not much incentive for
>these stations to get on the air in the all band category, since they know
>that they cannot turn in a competitive score. On the other hand, a
>tribander can do a quite creditable job on the high bands, which would
>encourage activity.
>
>3. The single-band category, while enabling disadvantaged stations to be
>more competitive on one single band, rapidly gets to be pretty boring.
>
>4. The High band/ low band categories would enable SO2R operation, making
>the contest much more interesting than single band category, where SO2R is
>impracticable for most people.
>
>To me, the payoff in any contest is to enjoy the contest experience
>itself, and, afterward, to to see how I ranked, with the data arranged the
>way I like to see it presented. I really don't care about QST listings or
>certificates. By the time QST and the certificates come out, the contest
>is old news. Coupled with the ARRL's growing accent on Internet score
>reporting, I think the additional categories would add a spark of growth
>and an interesting new dimension to the ARRL DX Test.
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Dave Hachadorian, K6LL
>Yuma, Arizona
>K6LL@despammed.com
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|