[CQ-Contest] Xtreme category, catch 22

[Chris (DL8MBS)]

Randy Thompson K5ZD wrote:

>But, I would love to hear more ideas about how contesting could be made more
>fun, more challenging, and generate more participation among the majority.
>  
>
Participation is ok as far as numbers go but I suppose there is not so 
much competetition and competetive feeling amongst the majority of 
participants. Handing out a few qsos and leaving the competetive field 
to the minority of Semi-Pros. I cannot help but to reiterate one point 
which contributes a lot to this: our competitors and participants do not 
go equal distances as it is the norm in real sports. Every player in a 
football game, every runner goes the defined duration of the sport be it 
in kilometres or minutes. In our contests a tiny fraction goes the full 
distance with the overwhelming majority dropping out much earlier as it 
is simply forced by the realities of life in an amateur activity. But no 
runner would feel as a competitor when he knows that he has to leave the 
race after one third of the distance (which is about the maximum 
participation time for about two thirds in our hobby, see at 
www.dl8mbs.de/40984/45289.html).

I hear "We don´t need a wealth of categories for those only eager to 
earn awards without effort".  We don´t need a wealth of categories but 
more consideration as it is reflected in 6-h-categories in RTTY or in a 
family-friendly 12h-category in IOTA. And perhaps organizers with 
online-awards can report whether the appetite for paper really is as big 
as some argue. It is not about awards but simply about the feeling of 
being a competitor running or playing on the same track as the big dogs. 
Btw "competing" does mean to rank as good as possible - not to win as 
single goal. This attitude is left to some of the big guns speaking 
about "lost weekends" or "low key efforts" doing >3k QSOs but not 
ranking No.1.

But I see so much more concern and thinking about Formula-1-issues, 
again with the elaborate "Xtreme"-category. With our hobby having no red 
line like running or sailing (where tech-developments are not forbidden 
but where a defined core is exempt from them - like engines being still 
forbidden) the argument "It is bad to hinder tech development" wont stop 
even remote receivers allowing daytime "qsos" on 160 m impossible by 
only HF-means. But seemingly we "participants" got used over years to 
the separation into rate-boosting "cannon fodder" and "real 
competitors/contesters" as which only those are regarded going the 
(nearly) full distance and trying each and every gadget from station 
automation along antenna-extremes to skimmer and so on (each being 
interesting or fascinating developments from the mere tech-perspective).

Should one argue in this situation for ONE basic 
equipment/100W/single-element-category with one third or the half of the 
maximum time period? (Please don´t cry "cannot be controlled" as long as 
power categories exist).  I begin to doubt whether it will change much. 
It will be denounced by opinion leaders as "being not real contesting". 
And the worst: I am not sure whether there is a big interest in the 
group of participants to become competitors at least sometimes when they 
are in the mood for. Clearly hoping now to hear differing and more 
optimistic views.

Nevertheless it will be possible to have fun in a contest and I will 
have it i.e. going to strange loacations and testing strange antennas - 
but it will be participating in an operating event not in a competition 
in which case I only would feel fooled when "contacting" a DX-station - 
which in reality only was his soooo advanced receiver two miles away.

73, Chris

(www.dl8mbs.de)