[CQ-Contest] Instead of new Categories

[i4jmy at migate.ampr.org]

From: i4jmy at n8it.#nwmi.mi.usa.noam 
To: cq-contest at contesting.com


 A number of recent messages derived by the "allow packet...."
 and "M/S........", seemed finally to pull out again a sort of query 
 for new contest (cqww) categories.
 It may be accettable, in order to increase the number of entrants,
 to promote a competiton among nearly equally equipped groups even
 if this fact brings to a limit or a delay in the skills growth.
 Dealing only with other handicapped stations (in the good sense 
 of course) doesn't rise knowdledge and operative skills as quick
 as it could be in competition with a larger, determinated and more
 qualified group.
 It would definitely be silly to increase again as to tailor a 
 specified category to stisfy each single entrant.
 Even disreguarding all the above there is no fun nor challenge 
 without a lot of serious (in number and quality) competitors, 
 in whatsoever contest.
 How to be satisfied if not to compete with the "Big Ones" and
 getting better year after year in the "real" game may be even
 beating them at last ?
 How is it possible to feel happy for beeing within the top-ten 
 list in a category whose entrants are less than 10, I mean ARRL
 DX multi 2 as an example ? (extra N.A. viewpoint) 
 One of contesting attractives is learning from who leads, in
 the years I was satisfied first to reduce my score gaps. 
 It never occurred to me to ask for a special "corner" where to 
 "hide" my inexperience and staying with. 
 It's boring.

 What's probably misunderstood or underconsidered bringing to
 ask for new categories is the fact that's absurd to say:
 
 Winning the contest !

 This sentence it's extremely superficial. Who's contesting knows
 that only specified places in the world can normally give the chanche
 to absolutely win a contest.
 Who aim to win has to go where it is possible to win first, then
 there is a lot to do too, other great operator or teams will be, 
 super equipped, in similar places for the same reasons.

 A poor operator will loose from a great location, a great contester
 won't win (unless rare circumstances) from a place that's not
 "strategical". Like the fact or not.
 
 Anyway, everyone would like to win something, here it came the
 query for other side categories where it's thought there is a
 chance for some leadership.
 
 Wrong.

 What should be emphatized is to give more weight, instead querying
 for new category, to the contest lists by continent or omogeneous
 areas (anyway bigger than a single state).
 This kind of result are much much more meaning something real,
 a competition for people with similar chances it is not less valuable
 than that one for the absolute "victory".
 Continental or area winners or top lister won't necessarily be under
 the absolute contest winners in skill.
 If an absolute winner wins beause of QSO number (..eh, most of mults 
 will come to him, they need him...) a continental leader should balance 
 his efforts among many other parameters and strategies.

 If ARRL would at least list continental position in their awards,
 instead of sticking an anonymous Yellow Dot for leaderships only,
 the first brick could be set in its place.

 Let me know if I'm the only one thinking this way.


 73, Mauri I4JMY (one of IR4T) 
 

 

 --------------------------------------------------------------

 Possible New Categories: (just for fun....)

 1) Multi/Multi single Op.
 2) Tribander with broken traps. (Multi/Multi only)
 3) Multi 2/3/4/5/6....(depends on individual possibility)
 4) One band Low-Power the others High-Power
 5) Single op 2 Radio Assisted, one LP the other HP (for mults only...)
 6) Partly-Assisted (if You can't see well packet monitor)
 7) Half-assisted (one day with packet the second without)
 8) XYZ-band (don't use the bands You don't like)
 9) Entrance by Weight/Height
10) Entrance by Town or District (for bigger cities...)

 etc.etc.  


 -
 ---
CQ-Contest on WWW:        http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests:  cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com