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

[David A. Pruett]

I have to agree wholeheartedly with Dave.  When the high and low band 
categories were created for the ARRL DX Contest in the middle seventies, it 
seemed to me like a great idea.  To paraphrase Dave's points, it seemed 
like there were a number of ways to be really competitive in high band; 
from a TH6 to a big quad, to a monobander Christmas tree.  When I first 
went off to school in Arkansas in 1976, I saw the other side.  My new 
friend WA5RTG (now K5GO) was an avid entry in the low band category, with a 
Mosley S-402 shorty-fourty (a big antenna in those days) and an assortment 
of low band wires.  As Dave points out, you don't have to focus on big 
antennas for six bands.

While I respect the efforts put forth by the single band entrants, those 
categories have little or no interest to me.

I never understood why the low and high band categories were done away 
with.  I would like to see some consideration given to bringing them back.

Dave/K8CC


At 01:25 PM 6/18/02 +0000, Dave Hachadorian wrote:
>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