They were done away with to encourage more participation on the low
bands. It was thought that the ubiquitous tribander in concert with
the high band category was keeping the little guys off the low bands.
The WPX tribander/wires category is a partial answer to this that
suits the little guy.
Also, why NOT allow an entrant to submit more than one single band
entry. What harm does that do? Takes a very skilled contester to max
out two different bands.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David A. Pruett" <k8cc@comcast.net>
To: "Dave Hachadorian" <K6LL@adelphia.net>; "cq-contest Reflector"
<cq-contest@contesting.com>
Cc: <aa7a@arrl.net>; <contests@arrl.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Restoring High Band/Low Band categories in
ARRL DX Test
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
|