[CQ-Contest] Fwd: WRTC 18 Qualifying

[Mats Strandberg]

Jim,

That motivation is fully logical and is worth to be considered by the
German organizers.

73 de Mats RM2D

2014-12-08 23:24 GMT+03:00 <Jimk8mr at aol.com>:

>  The point we Yanks are trying to make is that for us, the ARRL DX test
> is a more active, more competitive contest than is the RDXC.
>
> I appreciate that for much of EU, the opposite is true.
>
> Which is why it makes sense to give full WRTC qualifying value to W/VE
> (and maybe the rest of NA). It would not necessary to have ARRL as a fully
> valued contest for those in EU, Asia, etc.
>
> To look at another way, it is crazy for us in the USA to have the ARRL DX
> and All Asia DX contests count the same.
>
>
> 73  -  Jim   K8MR
>
>
>
>
>
>  In a message dated 12/8/2014 3:10:48 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> sm6lrr at gmail.com writes:
>
> ARRL used to be an exciting contest when US casual activity was higher and
> conditions better to Europe (I do not mean EI, F and G). We talk back in
> 1980 and 1990. Nowdays, the casual activity from the US makes Run from
> Europe and Asia very limited, except for the biggest guns.
>
> As Igor UA9CDC pointed out, ARRL can be a very sleepy exercise for stations
> in North Europe, the Baltics, European and Asiatic Russia.  No rates, too
> few North American stations in S&P mode, just the big US guns running.
>
> I have been operating RDXC three times seriously from SK3W in the past 5-6
> years (M2) and RDXC is far more interesting than IARU, with better activity
> in Europe and Asia for sure. Rates are good, complexity in exchanges
> challenging enough, Actually a lot more exciting than exchanging
> predictable ITU zones and HQ multipliers.
>
> One can always debate if RDXC should have more points than IARU, and I
> think noone would be disappointed if it had 950 (same as IARU), but now
> German organizers determined that RDXC is competitive enough to motivate 50
> more points than IARU. As simple as that. They decide.
>
> To compare ARRL with RDXC for those who seriously have worked both contests
> is hard. Rates in ARRL are for sure excellent for Caribbean stations
> working North America, and for a few other big guns located in nice
> locations in North Africa and the very western part of Europe. But for us
> others, ARRL is certainly a contest that should not have the same amount of
> points as a worldwide contest like RDXC. That some nations for some reasons
> have not shown interest in RDXC as  WW contest is another cup of tea... For
> me as a European, I definitely rate RDXC as one of the most challenging and
> most interesting WW contests. More interesting than WPX where basicaly
> every unique station is a mult. However, I miss American participation and
> that is why yagis rather point east than west. If US activity was higher,
> be sure people would turn antennas that way in RDXC.
>
> I think the question that really is important, despite what Yury VE3DZ
> said... is if Assisted and Non Assisted should be awarded equally.  And few
> seem to realize that this has implications of future contesting with a much
> higher importance than 50 points more or less for RDXC. What amazes me is
> that top contesters claim that discussion "endless and useless". It
> certainly is everything but useless in my understanding.
>
> 73 de Mats SM6LRR (RM2D)
>
>
>
> 2014-12-08 19:28 GMT+03:00 Igor Sokolov <ua9cdc at gmail.com>:
>
> > Dave,
> > In comparison of ARRL vs RDXC as contests suitable for selection, there
> is
> > one more important point.
> > RDXC is world wide, mixed mode 24 hour contest  and therefore mimics IARU
> > much better then ARRL where the world works US/VE only for 48 hours and
> > only on one mode.
> > Besides RDXC is much higher rate contest when compared to ARRL.
> > I think the choice of the organizers was absolutely correct.
> >
> > 73, Igor UA9CDC
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Siddall" <hhamwv at gmail.com>
> > To: <wrtc2018 at lists.wrtc2018.de>; <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> > Cc: "Igor Sokolov" <ua9cdc at gmail.com>
> > Sent: Monday, December 08, 2014 6:19 PM
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Fwd: WRTC 18 Qualifying
> >
> >
> >  Igor,
> >>
> >> The submitted logs demonstrate that RDXC is VERY competitive for RU
> >> stations and ARRL is VERY competitive for U.S. stations, but much less
> so
> >> outside their respective countries notwithstanding rules differences.
> >> That's precisely why they should have been treated as equivalents
> >> notwithstanding that ARRL draws 30 percent more logs than RDXC. In 2014,
> >> RDXC 3193, ARRL 4156 logs (average CW/SSB).
> >>
> >> They both are well-run and fun contests, but not matches for the truly
> >> worldwide competition that CQWW & CQWPX draw; and IARU is, after all,
> the
> >> foundation contest for WRTC, maybe competitors should demonstrate
> mastery
> >> of the summer propagation conditions that they will face during the WRTC
> >> itself.
> >>
> >> But that now is history.  WRTC2018 elected not to reconsider their
> rules,
> >> so enjoy and see you on the bands.
> >>
> >> 73,
> >>
> >> Dave K3ZJ
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 12:12 AM, Igor Sokolov <ua9cdc at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>  Dave,
> >>> Can you support your statement regarding the number of participants in
> >>> RDXC, IARU and WPX with solid figures?
> >>> ARRL, that was part of 2014 WRTYC selection, for me is truly regional
> >>> contest where unlike RDXC we can only work US and VE and therefore
> pretty
> >>> dull from areas where propagation to NA last only few hours. In RDXC
> you
> >>> can work any one anywhere wich does not  fit the discription of a
> >>> regional
> >>> contest but rather WW contest.
> >>> I have done ARRL couple of times from the very well equipped setup with
> >>> multiple stacks to only make 500-600 QSOs in 48 hours while 3000 QSO in
> >>> 24
> >>> hours in RDXC is not uncommon from almost anywhere.
> >>>
> >>> 73, Igor UA9CDC
>
>