[CQ-Contest] Restoring High Band/Low Band categories in ARRL DX Test

[ted demopoulos]

While I will be the first to say that "we don't need no stinking new 
categories - we got too many already", I believe that Dave's proposal makes 
much sense.

i *am* old enough to remember the "hign band" and "low band" categories, and 
probably would enter one of these categories occasionally (and probably let 
someone else simultaneously do the other one as well).

Dave's points are very well taken, although my personal interest in that I'd 
love to spend lots of time on the lowbands - all of them - yet still be 
potentially competitive (hmmm, lowband SSB - maybe I'd skip that one :) then 
again, maybe not)

73
Ted KT1V ex KR1G


>From: "Dave Hachadorian" <K6LL at adelphia.net>
>To: "cq-contest Reflector" <cq-contest at contesting.com>
>CC: <aa7a at arrl.net>, <contests at arrl.org>
>Subject: [CQ-Contest] Restoring High Band/Low Band categories in ARRL DX 
>Test
>Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 13:25:38 -0000
>
>With the advent of ARRL's enhanced on-line contest
>reporting,
>constraints on the number of contest categories
>imposed by available QST space
>are removed, or at least reduced. Computerized
>log-checking has also reduced
>the need to minimize the number of categories in
>contests, since the administrative
>overhead has been reduced.
>
>I'd like to see the High Band (10, 15, 20) and Low
>Band (40, 80, 160) categories
>restored in the ARRL DX Test. There are a number
>of reasons why I think this move
>would enhance the contest world-wide:
>
>1. Declining JA activity has made it much more
>difficult for western USA
>stations to compete in all categories, but
>especially the all-band category,
>where absorption on 40, 80, and 160 precludes big
>European runs.
>
>2. There are a lot of stations around the world
>who have a small tower and tribander
>in the back yard, and an assortment of low,
>seriously compromised antennas for 40,
>80, and 160. There is not much incentive for these
>stations to get on the air in the
>all band category, since they know that they
>cannot turn in a competitive score. On the
>other hand, a tribander can do a quite creditable
>job on the high bands, which would
>encourage activity.
>
>3. The single-band category, while enabling
>disadvantaged stations to be more competitive
>on one single band, rapidly gets to be pretty
>boring.
>
>4. The High band/ low band categories would enable
>SO2R operation, making the contest much
>more interesting than single band category, where
>SO2R is impracticable for most people.
>
>
>To me, the payoff in any contest is to enjoy the
>contest experience itself, and, afterward, to
>to see how I ranked, with the data arranged the
>way I like to see it presented. I
>really don't care about QST listings or
>certificates. By the time QST and the certificates
>come out, the contest is old news. Coupled with
>the ARRL's growing accent on Internet
>score reporting, I think the additional categories
>would add a spark of growth and an
>interesting new dimension to the ARRL DX Test.
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Dave Hachadorian, K6LL
>Yuma, Arizona
>K6LL at despammed.com
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest




_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx