[CQ-Contest] Categories, Participation and Competition

[Robert Chudek - K0RC]

I would expect if a 6-hour category was added, another increase in activity 
would be realized. This is about the length of the State QSO Parties that 
have become very popular. A shorter time period offers an opportunity for 
people who have other things to do in their life. I am one of them.

Regarding pumping up the numbers in the smaller contests before implementing 
time-based categories for the big ones, this just doesn't make sense to me. 
Here's why. CQWW and ARRL DX are the contests with the potential for the 
most "fun", no matter whether you spend one hour chasing "new ones" or 
participate for a Top-Ten spot. These contests already have the allure of 
rare locations being activated. If a contesting team has funds for one 
DXpedition each year, which contest are they going to pick? Most likely one 
of the BIG ones.

Adding time-based categories to a contest doesn't change the event. It 
provides an opportunity for the time-restricted contester to earn a piece of 
paper for the wall. It also provides recognition from the contest sponsor 
that a level of proficiency has been achieved. Showing "hours operated" on 
the 3830 list just doesn't compare.

73 de Bob - KØRC in MN


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Don Field" <don.field at gmail.com>
To: "CQ-Contest MailList" <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Categories, Participation and Competition


> Ed mentions the 12-hour categories in the IOTA Contest, which I manage.
> These have led to a dramatic increase in entrants to the contest and have
> been hugely popular. I don't know how many of these 12-hour entrants are
> likely to migrate to the "big boy" 24 hour categories, but does it matter?
> The important thing is that these guys come on and help increase the 
> overall
> buzz (and provide plenty of "fresh meat" for the big boys as the contest
> goes on).
>
> And there is quite a strategy element to the 12-hour categories too. The
> rules require off times to be a minimum of 60 minutes, so the choice of
> off-time(s) becomes quite critical for serious 12-hour entrants.
>
> Let me take this opportunity to plug this year's contest - last full 
> weekend
> of July (25/26 July), 1200-1200 UTC.
>
> Don Field G3XTT / NK1G
>
>
>
> 2009/6/19 Edward <sawyered at earthlink.net>
>
>>
>>
>> I must say that for years, I have read in this reflector the discussion
>> of the "multitudes" of "casual contesters" that would become serious
>> with smaller competitive time requirements.  Yet IARU (24 hours) and
>> IOTA (12 hours) don't bring out these multitudes.  The NAQP is active
>> and fun and sure there a some (not a lot quite frankly) different
>> players in that one but I believe that the gepgraphic competition issues
>> are as much a difference as time.  Look at SS vs. IARU (both 24 hours)
>> yet wildly different group because of geographic interests and just
>> different contest personalities.
>>
>> If this crowd proposing smaller hour competitive segments within a
>> contest wants to make themselves heard and noticed..get off the
>> reflector and "en masse" "run with the dogs" in IARU or IOTA.  Or tell
>> us your next excuse as to why some "spousal activity" or "soccer game"
>> made it impossible to be competitve.
>>
>> I for one, could be persuaded to support these 12 or 24 hour categories
>> if the walk backed up the talk in the current contests that offer it.
>> But I just don't see it.  Show us all, that there is interest...or drop
>> it for once and for all please.
>>
>> I must agree with others on Extreme...more categories? why this one for
>> a few stations?....and the remote reciever thing without DXCC or zone
>> limitation is DOA for me for the sport itself.  2 Extremes can work
>> themselves on 10M whether the band is open or not if they have the right
>> receiver locations...that is NOT extreme...that is another
>> sport....internet gaming.
>>
>> Ed  N1UR
>>
>> PS.  Field Day is 24 hours....there is another one to "show us all what
>> you are talking about"
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest