[CQ-Contest] Fwd: WRTC 18 Qualifying

Mon Dec 8 17:02:27 EST 2014

Matts,
On the one hand you are extolling the virtues of RDXC yet it embraces Assisted  and Non Assisted as one class which is the very aspect which you are disputing with the DARC qualifying rules.
I have not done the RDXC Contest for a number of years because of their policy of throwing out contacts where the other station did not submit a log. It was ridiculous that in some cases those non submitting stns had more than 400 contacts. It is not equalising to say that the remainder of those 400 also lost the contact. As a semi dx station I had a lot of casual callers who wanted a band slot or whatever and the list of non qso's was as long as my arm, I think I had round 20% of contacts disallowed. OK I am talking some 5/6 yers ago and I think that RDXC now gets a better response in logs but the policy (unless they changed their rules since then) is wrong. Additionally losing a contact if the other guy makes an error is also a bad rule. if I am running I have no knowledge if he got my call right, followed a bad Cluster spot  or fat fingered his keyboard, I should have the contact.. 

One plus mark to RDXC was to introduce the rule to include the frequency in the cabrillo, that should mean game up for cheats using RBN who claimed to be non assisted but I fail to see the point of it now when there is just one single op category
I do however fail to see the necessity of a debate as to ARRL versus RDXC, .Each would be qualifier is competing only against contesters in his own area and I cannot see that whether a norm from a particular area of say USA in RDXC is 100 or 1000 contacts makes any difference, its the best man in that  area on the  day that will score most towards the final total.
73  Brian 5B4AIZ.

      From: Mats Strandberg <sm6lrr at gmail.com>
 To: Igor Sokolov <ua9cdc at gmail.com> 
Cc: David Siddall <hhamwv at gmail.com>; wrtc2018 at lists.wrtc2018.de; "cq-contest at contesting.com" <cq-contest at contesting.com> 
 Sent: Monday, 8 December 2014, 21:40
 Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Fwd: WRTC 18 Qualifying

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
>>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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