Sprints vs. CQ WW

[johnp at pc16.idcg.com]

Well, I was going to stay out of this thread but Gene's message "outed" me:
  
 The Sprints are the best gauge of domestic contesting ability. The pool of
 people who  have come in first in the Sprints is a small group of really talented
 operators.
  
CQ WW has turned into the best gauge of building a strong station, and 
copying the call signs that come back when you plop down on a frequency
and stay there for hours on  end. To win takes a lot more than that - the
pool of people who have come in first in CQ WW is a small group of really 
talented operators.
  
For CQ WW, all I need to do is copy the callsign (and I don't really need to
 do that.  Master.dta allows to me to clean up all kinds of questionable stuff)
and worry about the  few odd Russian stations that might not be in the zone 
CT wants them to be in.
  
 In the Sprint, I have to copy every call correctly *and* a variable exchange.
 One character  off and I lose the QSO. If you get confused for 15 minutes 
 in the Sprint, your shot at the top ten is gone. It is the 100 meter sprint.
  
  The exchange in CQ WW is meaningless, master.dta makes us basically
 immune to the  spotty log checking (compared to the Sprints) that is done.
 The major skill is being fast while being deprived of sleep - it is the Ironman
 triathalon.
  
  Both are contests, both take different skills. We could argue forever who's
 pee-pee is bigger, the Sprint winner or the CQ WW winner, but that is
 yesterday's news. The real question is: to remain a viable activity, should
contesting offer more outlets for those who can't, won't, or don't wanna 
invest the time, energy, and money required to to be competitive in 48 hour
DX endurathons?
  
  Like it or not, contesting in 20 years will look more like the Sprints than it 
 will like the  CQ WW. I'm sure many here remember when the ARRL
contests stretched over multiple weekends.

 Remember: just a short time ago (looking at it on  a global scale) the
 dinosaurs  said: "Big deal, the mud is drying up. No way
 those monkeys running around in the trees will replace us."
  
On another note: I *don't* think Sprint scores should count towards WRTC type 
stuff, unless we also count other countries's domestic shorty contests
towards making the grade.

  John Pescatore

John Pescatore WB2EKK
IDC Government
Falls Church, VA  
pescatore at idcg.com


>From gjk at hogpa.ho.att.com (Gerald J Kersus)  Wed Feb 22 20:34:36 1995
From: gjk at hogpa.ho.att.com (Gerald J Kersus) (Gerald J Kersus)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 95 15:34:36 EST
Subject: Infrequent signing and dupes
Message-ID: <9502222034.AA15020 at hogpc.ho.att.com>

There was  at least one practice worse that not signing your call:
NOT SENDING YOUR POWER!  I worked V44KAO on several bands and he was not
sending power on every QSO.  He did respond to requests.  Maybe I'm wrong,
but based on the activity, V44KAO was not just some casual station handing
out a few contacts/multipliers.

Gerry, W1GD

>From Joel B Levin <levin at BBN.COM>  Wed Feb 22 20:00:50 1995
From: Joel B Levin <levin at BBN.COM> (Joel B Levin)
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 95 15:00:50 -0500
Subject: Infrequent signing and dupes
Message-ID: <3629.793483250 at bbn.com>

|For the folks with very long calls, sign ever 2 or 3 QSO's is reasonable.
|The real offenders are the ones who very rarely sign.
|
|Siging every time doesn't seem to slow down EA8EA. (I know, it's a short call.)

I hate to keep bringing up the subject of newbies (like me), even
though I don't do it very often.  Some of these calls are pretty
obscure at 30+ wpm; the more often I hear it the faster I can decode
it and decide what to do.  I'm slow enough at hunt-and-peck as it is;
but since I won't even try a pile-up till I'm sure I know the call
sign, waiting 5 or 10 qsos each time is a drag (I'm getting better at
it though).  This especially applies to call signs like 6v6u - I'm not
using packet so I have to bust these entirely on my own :-)

	Regards / JBL   KD1ON