[CQ-Contest] Flashback - Is It Time?

[Nick - VE3EY]

The marathon (a long-distance running event) was instated back in 1896 and
its rule remains unchanged to this day.
Lots of people got old since 1896 but folks and gals of all ages are still
running it.

Whatever the case may be with CQ WW and whatever you do, please don't
boycott the contest by refusing to send your log in only because the
sponsors are not readily available to adjust the rules which will best suit
YOU.

73, Nick
ve3ey






On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Robert Chudek - K0RC <k0rc at citlink.net>wrote:

> I have to agree with Glenn's assessment. I also will never try to operate
> a full 48-hour contest. There is no motivation to risk my health or family.
> Maybe if the reward was $100,000 instead of a piece of lumber with my name
> on it, I might take a different view. But that's not going to happen.
>
> So what does that leave me? Nothing at the moment. There are no 'less
> hour' categories where I can compare my effort with others. If I'm not 'big
> enough' to operate in CQWW or ARRL DX, then I should just go away? Wow!
> What a great way to increase participation in those events. (Not!)
>
> I also agree the 'continuous 24-hours' concept just creates a mini iron
> man event. I prefer the idea that 'you've got a 48-hour window of
> opportunity to do your best and have fun" this weekend. Add some
> flexibility to the operating time to allow a time/health restrained person
> to still have some fun.
>
> Regarding gathering statistics from 3830 after the fact, that might show
> some trends but I don't think it would show an accurate picture. These
> stats have already eliminated any basic 'motivator factor' where the
> fellows who operated for 16 or 20 hours might have been inspired to shoot
> for another 4 to 8 hours if there were some recognition of their
> achievement.
>
> Personally, I have found this type of motivator when I used the
> Scoreboard. Mentally I setup a race with the fellows 'in my league' and
> then try to move from 18th position into 17th position. I believe a 24-hour
> category would create this type of motivation factor for those who have no
> chance (or desire) of going the full 48 hours.
>
> To me, this discussion is illustrating the differences in motivations.
> (That's why I asked the question last week.) It seems vocal opposition is
> being driven by the guy who pulls up into the gas station with his big 4x4
> and twin-engine 1,500 hp cigar boat while the rest of us are there fueling
> our 16 foot bass boat for an afternoon of relaxation and fishing. I see a
> stark contrast between these two individuals and their opinion of what
> constitutes competition and fun. However, they both use the same lake.
>
> 73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
> ------------
>
> On 4/5/2013 5:46 AM, Glenn Wyant wrote:
>
>> I sure hope the contest sponsers do not do this...
>>
>> I can no longer do 48 hours in a test , it is not
>> going to happen ...
>>
>> The idea of a 24 hour seems interesting , until you
>> realize it is 24 straight. I " would  do  24 hours but
>> broken into 4 or 5 periods.
>>
>> If you want me to participate 24 straight thru the night ,
>> well it wont happen ,  I  will just make qsos casually
>> log them, and that will be it.
>>
>> No sense sending in a score..
>>
>> Glenn VA3DX
>>
>> >
>>
>>> Finding the first 24 hours of operation would take some tweaking of the
>>> computer software, but this is essentially what the WPX Contest does to
>>> calculate the 36 hours of permitted operating time.  Any QSOs after 36
>>> hours
>>> are not counted for score.
>>>
>>> Randy, K5ZD
>>>
>>
>>  I was suggesting a simple 24-out-of-48 definition of contest period,
>>>> where you could work longer but only the first 24 hours would count.
>>>> I.E., like ARRL SS and others.
>>>>
>>>> 73,
>>>> /Jack de K3FIV
>>>>
>>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/**mailman/listinfo/cq-contest<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<http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest>
>