[CQ-Contest] A new "DX cluster" experience for contesters

[David Gilbert]

Nicely written, Kelly.

I think the "contest" in radiosport has always been a combination of 
trying to see who has the best operating skills and who has the best 
technology.  Operating skills include things like code speed and 
recognition, the ability to quickly pull callsigns out of a pileup, 
knowledge of propagation, the experience to know when to run and when to 
chase multipliers, the ability to stay focused for long hours, etc.  The 
technology side includes things like receiver performance (noise floor, 
filters, etc) antenna performance (gain, takeoff angle), number of 
quickly switchable antennas, automatic bandswitching of amps and 
antennas, SO2R capability, memory keyers, computer logging with built in 
country data, Super Check Partial files, call history files, spotting 
clusters, etc.  There are folks who get more satisfaction from trying to 
push their operating skill, and there are folks who get more 
satisfaction from trying to push their technology.  Radiosport clearly 
embraces both.  The large multi-op station that sets a contest record in 
CQWW one year didn't necessarily do so because their operators improved 
their proficiency over the prior year.  Their regular operators may have 
gotten smarter, but they also may have added a couple of new antennas, 
or added Skimmer capability, or simply brought in a couple of new 
operators.  The single operator who adds SO2R to his arsenal is 
improving both his technology and operating skill.

I don't think that either is any less valid a pursuit than the other.  I 
suspect that even EI5DI, who writes contest software, would agree with 
that ... his concern seems far more rooted in the issue of wired versus 
wireless.  I found it interesting to read the comments on this reflector 
back when the M/S rules for WPX were being modified.  It seemed clear to 
me that many of the folks who enjoyed M/S in its prior form did so 
precisely because of the opportunity to see how far they could snuggle 
up to the rule boundaries with technology ... multiple operators 
simultaneously manning multiple transmitters with lockouts, etc.  I 
really don't see any problem with that, and my only complaint at the 
time was that there was no longer any entry classification for the 
situation where two or more hams split the time in the chair at one rig.

In spite of some of the sentiments that have been expressed here, the 
issue isn't whether improving technology or improving operator skill is 
closer to heaven.  None of us got better with a straight key when we 
switched to an electronic key, and none of us got mentally better at 
picking out a signal from the clutter when we migrated from 1960's rigs 
to Orion II's and K3's.  Acknowledging but setting aside for the moment 
EI5DI's concerns about wired versus wireless, ham radio is in general 
advanced when our ability to effectively communicate improves, and 
contesting tends to be the arena where that happens much in the same way 
that advances in automobile technology are driven by racing.

Just as with automobile racing, the key is for the major contest 
sponsors to thoughtfully define entry categories that provide 
performance brackets for the majority of participants (assuming they 
want broad participation).  I think that's a tough job for them, but 
advancements in technology provide challenges for everyone.  To be 
honest, I think radiosport has historically done a better job of 
creating technology categories than it has operating categories.  We 
have high power versus low power, single versus multi-transmitter, 
assisted versus unassisted, single versus multi-band, and TB-wires 
versus unlimited on the technology side, but on the operating side we 
have mostly just single versus multi-op.  One delineation that seems 
missing to me is for time spent ... not everyone has the ability to 
devote 48 hours to the contest, whether because of family considerations 
or physical capability.  In any case, it seems far more desirable to 
provide appropriate categories for fair competition across the spectrum 
of contest activity as it evolves than to simply freeze or even revert 
contest activity based upon somebody's perceptions of ham radio 
morality.  As I stated in an earlier posting, radiosport is a bit unique 
in that it can readily (even transparently) handle multiple "contests 
within the contest" since everyone works everyone else and the exchange 
is all the same.  Nobody loses points by working someone in a different 
entry category.

I think much of the opposition to changes in technology is due to simple 
inertia, much like the guy who stated that he'd had the good fortune to 
enjoy 40 years of "amateur radio as it was designed" when what he really 
meant was "amateur radio as I found it".  If the contest sponsors are 
unable to create entry categories that give each of us a fair shot at 
being at least credible at some level, than we have a problem.  Other 
than that, I say push onward.

73,
Dave   AB7E





There are time and physical capability barriers on the operating side, 
and there are of course knowledge, financial, and physical space 
barriers on the technology side.



On 4/17/2010 11:56 PM, Kelly Taylor wrote:
> It seems as though this conversation centres a lot around the question of
> progress.
>
> Is it the role of amateur radio to stand by and let the world advance around
> it?
>
> I would say no, and I'm sure that in the larger context, even our Irish
> friend would agree, especially since I don't hear him using a spark gap.
>
> The question, then, is at what point does technology become unsuitable for
> contests of skill?
>
> Sure, it would be a whole lot quicker and easier to run a marathon on a
> Segway, but that's not the point of a marathon, is it? Similarly, golf would
> be a whole lot easier if, say, Phil Mickelson could take out a range finder
> and determine EXACTLY how far the hole is away. Chess games would be so much
> more efficient if each grand master could consult a computer on each move.
> (I think these examples are better than the sailboat/powerboat thing.)
>
> So: Is a DX contest merely a test of how quickly you can pack points into a
> log? Or is it a test of the whole bag of skills that go in to the art of
> working DX? Or is it a test of your ability to integrate all available
> technology into a winning score?
>
> Where does that line get crossed? If I don't even have to decode a QSO
> myself; if I don't have to turn that big knob myself and find the rare ones
> others don't; if I don't have to develop my own understanding of propagation
> and paths and openings from my QTH myself; if I don't even have to be in the
> same room, then what of my skills am I demonstrating?
>
> Or is it enough to say that there's an unlimited category and those who want
> to push the envelope compete by themselves and those who want to stay
> traditional can stay in the unassisted?
>
> Kelly
> ve4xt
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>