NCJ Editorial Response
EStratto at chipcom.com
EStratto at chipcom.com
Thu Jan 20 14:37:38 EST 1994
I too read the article with great interest. As I try to investigate past
scores and who where the winners before I decide on what classification of
Mark WA6OTU raises two major points about the ARRL DX contest in his
in the Jan/Feb 1994 issue of NCJ:
1. The ARRL DX Contest is unfair, in that an equal effort in
and operating a station in this contest will bring unequal
2. The judging/scoring of the ARRL DX Contest has no credibility,
specifically compared with the CQ WW contests.
On the first point I disagree that the ARRL contest is unfair. What I would
rather say that the Contest is fair, but the award structure is Unfair in
peer/regional Competition. I have many times set my contest goals on just
wining a ARRL section, not state, not region, and on operational category.
I like the idea of REGIONAL Awards, as to justify competition on a equal
propagation stand point.
However, station location, operator skill, goal setting, and PLANNING play a
VERY important role in winning any contest regardless of category of entry.
On the second point I am disappointed that the blame or lack of confidence
in contest credibility lies with the Sponsors, in this case ARRL. We
Contesters, KNOW who, what and where any illegal operating practices our
occurring within are regions. And I bet each of us are buddy, buddy during
the year, and accept status quo. Well, if this acceptance was not tolerated
by the general contest/ham population, we would disassociate ourselves from
such a operation and or persons.
Also to say that someone that submits a hand written log, instead of a
Computer logs is not a serious competitor is very untrue, depends on
Contest, the class of entry, etc. Granted most all of the Winning Category
entries are on computer logs, but I don't think that the split in the type
of submission puts a operation in the NON-serious entry category! I remember
the paper/pencil contest logging very well! AND I FORGOT THE ERASER
operation. The COST of a computer logging, hardware/software, can be
unjustifiable for some Hams, let alone the actual radio hardware required to
In short, Yes to more REGIONAL Awards/Plaques in this case. And no to the
paperless entry classificaiton to what is serious. And YES to the honest
competitor, and better Checking of logs regardless of type of submission.
estratto at chipcom.com
ED, AD8V 73s
>From aa2du at attmail.com (J P Kleinhaus ) Thu Jan 20 21:16:34 1994
From: aa2du at attmail.com (J P Kleinhaus ) (J P Kleinhaus )
Date: 20 Jan 94 21:16:34 GMT
Subject: NCJ Rebuttal (FIXED CR)
In reponse to comments made by WA6OTU and WB2EKK:
It is news to me that people regard the scoring of the ARRL DX Contest
as unfair. The ARRL has a paid staff to check contest logs as opposed
to the operation at CQ where everyone is a volunteer. If anything,that
would lead me to the conclusion that there is less opportunity for
screwing up at the ARRL because it is all done in house. The logs are
not scattered around the four corners of the country and the people
performing the checking are doing their jobs...not volunteering. Who
do you think takes the responsibility more seriously?
Mark and John both agree that a change in the reporting of the results
is overdue. While I think that we should have more regional
reporting, the creation of five Top-5 boxes is overkill. I would much
rather see a National Top-10 listing as well as three regional Top-5
boxes representing the major time-zones in the USA for example.
I am in agreement with John that splitting the entries into separate
classes of "Competitor" and "Participant" is a real bad idea! We are
trying to encourage increased participation, not the increased
perception of contesters as an elitist clique. The creation of a
caste system among our ranks will do nothing but turn the ARRL DX
Contest into a giant club meeting...you will work the same guys on all
bands within the first 24 hours and then you can shut off your radios.
This may be the answer to the part-time contesting question that flew
around here several months ago <grin>.
Let's all remember that CQ is the one that requires a paper log to be
submitted with your disk. The ARRL is perfectly happy to accept your
log entry via Internet, the ARRL BBS or by mailing in a disk. No
paper is required...who is more likely to computer check your log?
Electronic submission is the way of the future...the ARRL is trying to
implement such a program. The result will be more accurate reporting
and less chance for human error in reporting the results.
73, J.P. Kleinhaus AA2DU
ARRL Hudson Division CAC Rep.
aa2du at attmail.com (for now)
Disclaimer: This is not meant as an attack on the CQ staff...please
do not send me flameage!
More information about the CQ-Contest