CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Dumbing-Down Contests?

To: Tom Taormina <Tom@k5rc.cc>, "cq-contest@contesting.com" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Dumbing-Down Contests?
From: Richard DiDonna NN3W <nn3w@cox.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 11:37:46 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Tom, I'm sure you can assign all the blame to computers.  Think about what else 
came about in the late 80s and early 90s.  Fully solid state transceivers, no 
tune linears, stacked antennas were all major advances.  In the 90s and into 
the beginning of the 21st century, we introduced computer controlled antenna 
switching, propagation forecasting, a new generation of filtering, etc.  

I agree that computers have speeded up the QSO rate, but computers alone are 
not the answer to why...

73 Rich NN3W
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Taormina" <Tom@k5rc.cc>
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Dumbing-Down Contests?


> Dumbing-down contests. Now there is an oxymoron. Contest exchanges have
> pushed the envelope of technology with prefill files, exchange guessing and
> embedded log entries in contest programs. K5ZD's super-check partial files
> provide likely call signs in contests. What we have been doing since the
> invention of the electronic keyer is ADVANCING the art of contesting through
> technology. While the basic format of major contests should not change (for
> consistency of the objectives) technology improvement is never ending and
> advances contesting just as it advances our daily lives. My station held
> many CQ WW M/S records during the 80's. Since computers, the "record" 3.7Meg
> scores would not even place in the top ten these days.
> 
> 
> 
> When we invented NAQP we left out the useless signal report, yet it still
> remains in many contest exchanges. In the FOC Marathon and in VHF contests,
> accurate reports are still given and logged. If copying accuracy is your
> forte, the SS and WPX are for you. If rapid exchanges and band-change
> strategy are more fun for you, the CQ WW and ARRL DX should be high on your
> list.
> 
> 
> 
> Cut numbers are a symptom in ARRL CW that the DX exchange sucks and is ripe
> for change. They are not clever tools for operator skills enhancement.
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Taormina, K5RC
> Virginia City NV
> <http://www.k5rc.cc> www.k5rc.cc
> 
> FOC 1760
> NACHO-W7RN RANN-K7RC
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

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