[CQ-Contest] A New Perspective [was:WRTC Spot/Log Correlation]
w5ov at w5ov.com
Thu Sep 7 22:44:34 EDT 2006
I may be mistaken, but I recall that you became actively involved in
contesting relatively recently.
Some of your comments cause me to think that my recollection may be true.
The categories that exist today were in large part created by operators -
not the contest sponsors. The contest sponsors, due to pressure from
operators have added most of the categories in response to operator demand -
not the way you describe.
It used to be, before my time, that there only was single op. Then we got
multi-op, then multi-multi, multi-single, high, low, QRP, single band, etc.
I think I was involved in some of the earliest Multi-2 operations that would
have been multi-2 by today's rules which caused the ARRL to create the
Multi-2 category. CQ followed a couple of years later based on the success
of Multi-2 in ARRL contests.
Part of arriving at the party late is that you may not know that what you
think should be done - was in fact already done - and had led to what the
party looks like now.
From: Radiosporting Fan [mailto:radiosporting at yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 5:49 PM
To: CQ-Contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] A New Perspective [was:WRTC Spot/Log Correlation]
> That's why this idea is such a non-starter, Ev.
> Categorizing is the first thing you have to do to
> extract any meaning at all from the contest results.
> Call it filtering if you want, it's the same thing.
> It baffles me why you think you can get away without
I'll try framing things another way...
What if categories (as they are established and
defined by the contest sponsor in today's world) were
*replaced* by requiring stations to reveal the
conditions under which *they* attained the score that
Stop there. Categories exist in both scenarios.
In one, the sponsor predefines them and operators then
fit to what best suits them (often waiting until an
event is over before determining what category they
In the other, participants "go for broke" and then use
the revealed information about other stations to
compare and contrast.
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
More information about the CQ-Contest