[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW and 0 pointers

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW and 0 pointers
From: Gerard Lynch <gerrylynch@freenetname.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 22:19:41 +0100
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
At 15:48 09/07/2007, George Freeman wrote:

>The thing that would level the play field the most would be make the
>mult zones only - if that is what you want to do - the IARU is a great
>example of this - when it was a zones only contest you could win from
>many different places that were not close to Europe.  Now that the
>mults are Zones + Countries in the IARU the scores (mults) are lower
>the further you are from mult rich Europe.

That was a long time ago.  Since then activity from Japan has dropped 
precipitously and activity in Europe has increased dramatically as 
well.  The sheer QSO volume, especially on the low bands, in Europe 
that is available in the NE USA but *not* from points further West, 
isn't going to change.  Look, I'm a pretty run of the mill, maybe 
even a little above average, second tier European station with 100W, 
a nice high full sized doublet and a good hilltop QTH.  Working a W1 
on 80 is no big deal.  W8s and W5s are nice catches.  The West Coast 
is a rarity on 80.  I nearly had a heart attack when K7RAT called me 
on 80 in WWCW a couple of years ago.

There are probably a thousand people like me in Western Europe, and 
the QSO numbers available in Japan and the Pacific these days don't 
even come close to making that gap up for the guys out west.

Europe seems to be a much more level playing field than the USA, 
although we can't compete with the rest of the world.  But say at the 
peak of the next cycle there's a big boom in contesting in India or 
China, or a contesting renaissance in Japan... those of us out here 
in the West will suddenly face a massive disadvantage vis a vis the 
UA and UR boys, especially on LF.  It will be even worse for us in 
WPX than it is in CQWW with all those 6 pointers available.

And you know what?  That's cool with me.  More contacts means more 
fun and the post-sunrise morning hours on HF will get a lot more 
interesting with big 3 point runs, even if we can't compete.

Maybe that's an argument for 1 point intracountry QSOs in CQ WW - 
I've no vested interest, especially when I'm about to move back to GI 
where I might just make double figures of GI contacts in WW 
SSB.  Maybe just.  But just be careful what you wish for.  In WW CW, 
it will be fine, we'll just all keep spreading up the band.  But in 
WW SSB, you'll end up with wall to wall 20 over 9 QRM on 40 and 160 
like we have here, where working any DX co-channel is a nightmare, 
because we're all too busy working the single point intra-Eu contacts.

>One other comment.  One of the things that I like about the various contests
>is that they are different.  If they all had the same rules and point
>structure overall they would be less interesting.

I totally and utterly agree with this. Oh, and forget the idea of a 
level playing field.  Let's say you move to 1 pt/km scoring with no 
multipliers, like we have for VHF/UHF in Europe.  What 
happens?  Nobody can compete with the LUs and ZSs, and contest groups 
start eagerly eyeing up sites in the Falklands and the Antarctic 
Peninsula.  Which are much less fun places to visit in November than 
the Canary Islands or Aruba.  As I said, be careful what you wish for.


Gerry G0RTN
"In days of old, when ops were bold and sidebands not invented
The word would pass by pounding brass, and all were well contented." 

CQ-Contest mailing list

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