[CQ-Contest] CQ 160 DX Exchange Survey

Jimk8mr at aol.com Jimk8mr at aol.com
Fri Dec 28 22:01:37 EST 2001

In a message dated 12/27/2001 9:23:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
btippett at alum.mit.edu writes:

>  NOTE: CQ does NOT intend to change the character or record comparability 
>  of the most successful worldwide 160 contest (e.g. change the scoring 
>  based on Grid Square distance like the Stew Perry).

With CQ considering any change in the 160 contest, this is one of those rare 
times that there is even a slight chance to fix some of the other long 
standing problems - such as why a VE3 is entitled to 2.5 times the score of 
someone across the Great Lakes, or why an EA8 deserves 5 times what an EA3 

The good news is that now that contest scoring has become the task of the 
contest sponsors, it's easy to have the best of both worlds - keeping the 
existing format and records intact, and at the same time fixing some of the 
long time inequities.

With a little extra effort, multiple scoring systems can be used for the same 
contest.  Maintain the traditional 10 - 5 - 2 continent based point system, 
which will be what is printed in the main body of the contest results, and be 
the basis for record compatability.  But also, using the same electronic log 
raw data, compute a second set of results using a new system.  This may be a 
pure Stew Perry style, no-multiplier, sum of distance-based qso points score. 
 It might be a hybrid system with mulipliers but qso points based on distance 
between state or country centers.  It might be something not yet invented.

The second score set could be published on the Web, in the NCJ, or somewhere 
else.  It would make an interesting sidebar article with the main contest 
writeup in CQ. Or both scores could even be listed in the main CQ results.

Will CQ and its 160 meter contest committee consider such an innovation?  If 
not, the game is not over. No longer is contest administration limited to 
those who receive the pieces of paper used to record the qsos.  Another group 
could take it upon themselves to administer an alternate version of the same 
contest.  It would only take entrants typing a second address in the send-to 
field of their e-mail log submission.  The alternate sponsor would process 
the electronic logs they receive using their scoring system.  They would 
publish their results and make whatever awards they see fit to their winners.

Those with great interest in the current system would still have that system 
to play by and judge themselves under.  Those who feel shortchanged by 
current rules would have a system more appropriate to their situation.  Both 
groups would benefit by having more people interested in making QSOs, 
whatever their particular motivation might be. It would be a real win-win 

Good Luck in the Stew Perry test, and Happy New Year to All,

Jim  K8MR    

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

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list