[CQ-Contest] A New Contest?

Jim George n3bb at mindspring.com
Tue Dec 6 18:54:08 EST 2005

At 09:08 AM 12/6/2005 -0800, Scott Robbins wrote:
> >>I have had to read so much of this stuff, I finally am driven to have MY
>My say would be that the ultimate rule alteration for DX contests would be to
>adopt the CW Sprint QSY rule.  It would eliminate stations from staking out a
>CQ frequency, would help mimimize the 'east coast advantage' in DX contests,
>would emphasize skill over power and would put a permanent end to the debate
>over who is cheating by using packet spotting because packet would be rendered
>totally useless.
>Combine that with using grid squares as the multipliers and using the scoring
>method by distance from square to square a la the Stew Perry Topband contest
>and you'd have the ingredients for quite an amazing event.  Make it a 24 hour
>event on both modes simultaneously like IARU so there is only one set of band
>openings through the contest...wow.  A boy can dream, can't he?
>I like CQ WW the way it is - no changes needed.  But a 24 hour DX contest with
>the Sprint QSY rule, both modes concurrent, scoring based on distance worked
>and multipliers by grid square would truly be one competitive, tough event.
>OK, back into my cave...
>Scott W4PA


I second Scott's suggestion, a new contest should be defined.  Let's face 
it, the present contest standards are popular because they offer rules and 
activity people like.  They are going to change only slightly over time, if 
at all.  However If someone could sponsor a new contest along the following 
lines, it could level the playing field a lot and encourage more activity, 
as more people would have a chance to be competitive.  It's not trivial to 
sponsor and adjudicate a contest.  Hats off to the present sponsors who put 
in the time and effort.  Your efforts are to be applauded and 
recognized.  But if an organization got behind a new concept, I feel it 
would become very popular, because more people have a chance to be 
competitive.  This is the key factor, along with a real time indication of 

(1) Exchange includes a Serial Number and Zone (CQ or ITU).  The S/N would 
indicate a real time indication of activity, and would require copying 
something other than the other station's call sign.  S/Ns for multi-multi 
stations would be band based, so the single band entries would have an 
indication of their rates compared with the individual band-stations of the 
multi-multis.  Multi-2 stations, if permitted, should have a single number 
for each transmitter.
(2) Mults include both DXCC entity and Zone (CQ or ITU)-a double mult 
concept.  Keep the DXCC entities, as the basic thrill of DXing is a strong 
pull.  A "double mult" is quite a thrill.  A grid square might be an 
efficient way to provide a distance multiplier, but it lacks pizzazz.
(3) Mults count on all six bands (encourage moving and six band operation).
(4) Some way to recognize that more points should be awarded for longer 
distance contacts and less points should be awarded for shorter 
contacts.  This could be done by an algorithm using CQ or ITU zones and an 
average short-path distance between the centers of the two Zones.  I 
realize one can be in a "far" or "close" portion of a Zone compared with 
another Zone, but at least a West Coast USA (CQ 3, ITU 6) to Western Europe 
(CQ 15, ITU 27) contact would be awarded more than areas which have a 
distinct propagation advantage, such as the East Coast USA to Western 
Europe.  Likewise, a JA opening from W3 to Japan would receive more points 
than a W6 run to JA..  The intent is to level the playing field a bit, and 
encourage operators to look for tougher paths when they are open.  QSO 
points are awarded for all contacts.  A QSO with one's own Zone is worth 
one point.  Contest programs currently calculate QSO points based on a 
table with DXCC entities and their continents, so it would be relatively 
easy to calculate the Zone-to-Zone distances, and assign a point/QSO 
total.  The QSO point totals should include a point system which 
accentuates the value of a longer distance contact.  The details would be 
considered to be reasonable and reward longer paths which are open for 
shorter time windows.  This would eliminate the present system that rewards 
500 mile (or less) contacts with maximum points because they are in 
different continents.  This simply is ridiculous from a logical standpoint.
(5) Set time limits for Single-Ops; 36 out of 48 hours max, or 18 hours out 
of 24 hours  That will encourage more serious competitors and make strategy 
more of a factor.
(6) Although the CW Sprint is my favorite contest, I don't support giving 
up the ability for a station to run on a frequency.  Thus I have not 
incorporated the "Sprint QSY Rules."  Frankly, many people find that 
difficult, and I am concerned it would limit participation.  In the long 
run, we want to get as much participation as possible.  Real competition 
with a more level playing field will help participation worldwide.

Jim George N3BB

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list