[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Time for a fix

To: CQ-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Time for a fix
From: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 13:30:01 -0500
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
>I think the CQ 160 guys need to throttle-back on the 10-point rule for
inter-continental QSO's.

        Why?  The CQ 160 is the most popular Topband contest going.
Throttle it back to 5-points for DX and you have another ARRL 160.
Make scoring distance-dependent and you have the Stew Perry.

        The CQ 160 has always been my FAVORITE 160 contest, BY FAR,
including 9 years from Colorado and 11 years from NC.  Why?

*  Because it's more than a 160 Sweepstakes which is what the ARRL is.
*  Because it gets HUGE participation by DX (others are nowhere close).
*  Because it awards plaques for Zones 3/4/5 in addition to overall USA.

If the argument is that it's regionally unfair, then I can argue EVERY
contest is unfair to some area.  Do I expect to win the All-Asia from
NC?  Did I expect to win CQ WW CW from Colorado?  Does anyone expect to
win WAE from W6?  No.  Since USA CQ 160 plaques are awarded by CQ Zones,
what's the problem?  Should I sponsor one for Albany, Indiana also?  :-)

        Please don't mess with the best 160 contest on the planet.  As much
effort as it took to get the 48 hour duration and 30 hour single op time
limits implemented, I wish you good luck with changing anything.  The CQ
Committee would be nuts to tinker with a proven winner..thank goodness!

73, Bill W4ZV

_______________________________________________ CQ-Contest mailing list CQ-Contest@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>