[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW popularity from EUR Perspective: data

To: jamesdavidcain@gmail.com, CQ-Contest@Contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW popularity from EUR Perspective: data
From: KB8N via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Reply-to: PaulKB8N@aol.com
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 16:09:38 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
I had a two year assignment to Europe in the early 90s, where I held the  
call DA1AM.  Let me tell you, the adrenalin rush from an  almost 
inexhaustable number of multipliers on the low bands made the  contest really 
incredible.  Being that far north, you could sometimes get  some Auroral effect 
on and pick up the continental mults on teh higher  bands as well.  In any 
case, it provided a deep well of scoring  opportunities throughout the 48 
hour period.
I've always wondered why we didn't  include states as multipliers when  we 
allow Canadian provinces to be counted.
Paul K5AF
In a message dated 12/23/2015 1:37:41 P.M. Central Standard Time,  
jamesdavidcain@gmail.com writes:

>  >Remember, that there is an incentive for EU's to work each other on the 
> bands...to a much greater degree than for USA types to work each  other 
> zone and done).
> >>That's a PERFECT  example of the problem with current contest scoring 
>  >>73, Jim K9YC
> Just imagine ... if the ARRL DX Contest  counted U.S. states and Canadian 
> provinces as multipliers for U.S.  and Canadian participants. Even if the 
> contacts counted only one  point, or even zero points. 
>  K1TN

CQ-Contest mailing list

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