[CQ-Contest] [CTDXCC] The Perfect Contest
rwood90 at direcway.com
Fri Oct 21 23:34:07 EDT 2005
Log checking is working.
The judges are to be congratulated for using computer checking to improve
The Perfect Contest:
1. More operators across the world. The perfect contest is going to
have at least a 1000 entries from SA
and another 1000 from AF. A thousand or so from VU too.
2. For stateside contests such as SS. LOTS more operators.
3. Lots more operators with Low Band antennas !
4. Sunspots high and A =1.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim George" <n3bb at mindspring.com>
To: <CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
Cc: <CTDXCC at kkn.net>
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 3:16 PM
Subject: [CTDXCC] The Perfect Contest
The thread on CQ-Contest on contests has degenerated into "what's wrong
with them" and "why are the CQWW sponsors so horrible," etc. I'm tired of
it, but it got me to thinking of just what a perfect contest would be for
me. Here are my thoughts, and since there are some world class contesters
and world class thinkers on this reflector, any constructive comments would
For me, the following aspects are important:
1. For Single Ops there should be a time limit of 36 or 40 hours maximum
out of a 48 hour contest. For a 24 hour contest, 20 hours maximum. For a
12 hour contest, 2 hours off, etc. This makes strategy more important and
makes a contest more physically healthy.
2. Multipliers count per band. This encourages moving stations and will
stimulate activity on all bands, unlike the WPX and Sweepstakes, which are
"rate" contests on one or two bands with SO2R on the next best one.
3. Points are allowed for QSOs with one's own country. I am of the mind
set that the points should be the same for all contacts, either DX or
domestic. Let's be honest here, a signal will propagate as it propagates,
and it makes no sense to me that one gets more or less points for a
specific geographical border than for ten times more distance, or vice
versa. A contact is a contact. Help make it so the last portion of a
contest is not so grueling and boring, with no one new to work.
4. There are not double mults in general. The HQ mults in IARU, over and
above ITU zones, have made it another East Coast centric contest in North
America. Realistically, the CQWW is not going to change (see comments
below), and the "zones double mults" in the CQWW don't modify the scores
all that much.
5. Some portion of the exchange always should include a serial number,
which makes copying more important and difficult, and also provides a
measure of "how one is doing" real time vis-a-vis competition.
6. The Internet should be the main focus on potential real time reporting,
and certainly "3830" style reporting immediately. A good Internet site
will include all records up to date, and awards will be available to be
printed out by the winners on their own printers! There will be a
confidential code sent to winners to allow them to print the
certificates. A magazine is nice to promote the contest, but a new contest
could be promoted through banner ads on the existing sites as well as the
present magazines. The key thing is money. Frankly, I am amazed that the
large amateur radio companies like Yaesu and Icom, etc do not do this more
already. They are starting now.
This is a starting point, and how I would design a contest. Now some
The US and VE championship, the Sweepstakes, includes all these except that
it counts a multiplier only once. It would be a more interesting and more
difficult contest if it would count mults per band.
The IARU is a very good contest, but the explosion of "HQ" stations has
done more harm than good, and has taken single ops off the air in favor for
huge HQ groups, and worst of all, has tilted the geographical mix to favor
locations that do well into a Euro-centric signal propagation-namely the
East Coast here in North America. If points would be the same for all
contacts, no HQ mults allowed, and a serial number would be required as
part of the exchange, the IARU would come very close to perfection.
The WPX is a fun rate fest with a unique mult. Given the PX mults, the WPX
is hard to change. I certainly do like the serial number exchange.
The CQWW would be much better if there were a serial number added, points
were the same for all QSOs, and everybody could work everybody. They could
leave the Zones alone, as this is part of the strong CQ tradition, with the
WAZ awards etc. This new CQWW, with a 36 hour maximum for Single Ops would
be a tremendous improvement.
The NAQP is a unique 12 hour long "maxi-sprint" (ten hours out of twelve
for S/Os) and is perfect, with the exception that serial numbers would add
a nice touch and make log accuracy more important.
The Sprint is the best contest in the world. Of course people will remind
me that mults count only once, and they do, so why not add that mults count
per band. Then, you *really* have the best contest in the world.
The ARRL DX contest is USA/VE based of course, and it should be, as it's
the primary 5B WAS "tool" for the world, and a great operating test for USA
operators. The advantage to EU is almost impossible to overcome for the
"non-east Coast." I would add a serial number for the reasons stated, and
make it 36 out of 48 hours for S/Os.
CTDXCC mailing list
CTDXCC at kkn.net
More information about the CQ-Contest