[CQ-Contest] How about ditching ARRL DX top 10 completely?

Simon Pearson MØCLW m0clw at ftml.net
Thu Apr 7 10:57:04 EDT 2005

This opinion from a youngster.

> By doing all results as Divisional only, this also would
> eliminate revamping SSB rules to make VY2's frequency
> availability vs. W1 irrelevant, as VY2 and Connecticut are not in
> the same ARRL Division.


> Let's face it, New England and Texas and wherever are not competing on
> a level playing field in a DX contest where proximity to Europe is the
> determining factor in who "wins".  

Just like those in SM cannot always compete with those in CT. Think: 
Geographical advantage. Think: Aurora. Think: How close to NA.

Remember in Europe, it's not just proximity to the States - it's the 
differences in north/south latitudes, too.

> The capability to create a top 10 box already exists within the ARRL
> scores database on the website.  The people who care passionately about
> who makes the top 10 are generally those competing for it, so they'll
> know anyway.    No top 10's or "overall winner" would
> elegantly solve that problem by making all score reporting regional
> only.  Those that just have to know who "won" or what the top 10 was
> can easily find that data from the web database. 

> KQ2M made a good point in an earlier post - DL's compete with
> DL's and G's with G's, so why should VY2/VE1 compete with W1 and
> W2 in the scoring boxes?

That statement is not absolutely correct. Yes, we compete against 
fellow G's in the contest, but on the first level. On the second 
level, we compete against others in Europe. On the third level, we 
compete against those in the rest of the world.

But wait, those in the "world" include stations from the Caribbean. 
Please could someone explain to me how anybody in Europe can compete 
with someone doing ARRL DX from the Caribbean? So, the Caribbean is 
in a league of its own, right?

I'm looking at the QST results on the ARRL website from ARRL DX SSB 
2004. I see that all categories are separated by "W/VE" and "DX". In 
just about every section, the leaders in the "DX" section are 
stations from the Caribbean.

Also, competing against two or three multi-single teams in G doesn't 
exactly fill me with excitement. It's the competition in Europe that 
excites me.

You don't get a plaque for coming top G, either. And that's probably 
actually a good thing, otherwise everybody would win, and there'd be 
no real incentive. For example, I wonder how many G stations did 
SOSB/10 QRP in ARRL DX SSB 2005?! The individual concerned would 
need to make 1 QSO probably to be top G in that category. So he'd 
get a plaque. See my point?

Some places in Europe have the advantage of being able to TX above 
7.1MHz. This includes us in G. So, what happens now? We are not 
competing on a level playing field. But I don't actually see many 
people complaining. Why? Because it's not a real advantage.

The fact VE's can TX below 7.1 I don't see as being a major 
advantage. In fact, I could probably argue it's not an advantage at 
all. Believe me, the SSB segment of 40m in Europe is a real zoo 
during contest weekends. Those VE's calling in get clobbered by the 
crap. Actually, I've heard some Europeans listening *only* above 
7.1MHz in ARRL DX, not listening in the European section of the band 
(for VE's).

> The "top 10 boxes" could then consist of the divisional winner from
> each area of the United States rather than merely the top 10 posted
> score totals in each category.  Does this make a lot more sense than
> just the raw score totals for High Power, Low Power, et cetera and
> having a "winner"?

Yep, so if that's the case, the same thing should happen in Europe. 
I'll say again, an SM station can not compete with a CT station at 
this stage of the cycle. So the top competing guys in SM should get 
plaques, just like the top performing guys from Portugal? But then, 
what's the point? As everybody would have a plaque and it would lose 
its value, as I said above.

> As KQ2M wrote on the reflector on April 3:  "I am saying that, IMO
> opinion, it is high-time to separate the VE's from the W's for scoring
> and awards purposes until such time as we have reasonably similar
> frequencies to operate on.  Plus, WE ARE SEPARATE COUNTRIES! and should
> be treated as such."
> Careful what you ask for.  You just might get it.

So, if that happens, it should happen here in Europe too. So, IMO, 
it is high-time to seperate G's from DL's for scoring and awards 
purposes. Plus, we are seperate countries and should be treated as such.

Actually, I've got a better idea. Why not create a seperate category 
for youngsters, those under the age of 30 or something, to try and 
create an incentive to get more youngsters into contesting?

And indeed, most youngsters can't afford hundreds of feet of 
aluminium etc anyway. I can't even afford an SO2R box, so I'm 
fortunate to be able to go to the multi-op station of G6PZ. 
Otherwise I'd just be so disheartened by having a lame score I might 
just "not bother".

Sorry, but I don't think the proposed changes are valid, or rather, 
I don't think they should be applied uniquely to W/VE. If the 
results are broken down by call area/region in the US, it should 
also be done for other regions in the worldwide ("DX") results.


Simon Pearson, M0CLW

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list