CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Classic - Doing what was intended?

To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Classic - Doing what was intended?
From: "Edward Sawyer" <SawyerEd@Earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 10:23:53 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Just to be clear, I have no objection to the Classic Category.  I think that
categories that match competitive desires with like minded people are great.

 

During the commentary leading up to the category creation, there was lots of
discussion about this Category "creating" more activity as operators who
were demotivated to ever be competitive at 48 hours would be newly motivated
for a 24 hour competitive event.  It would be interesting to see if that, in
fact, happened.  The notables NOT operating as much are easy to see.  The
others would not be easy to see.

 

Did anyone on the reflector actually operate 24 hours this year in either
mode but last year, or the last 2 years,  operate 15 - 18 hours or less?

 

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

Ed  N1UR

 

Personally, I have found a direct correlation to my physical condition at
ability to do well at 44 - 45 hours.  I know others have too.  Currently I
am running 7.5km - 8km - 3 times a week, and did very well with 45 hours.
We need MORE motivations to stay in good shape, not less, in my opinion.  So
all those liking Classic - more power to you - be glad like I am that there
is a category that supports your interest.

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

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