[CQ-Contest] How to make WRTC more like the Olympics?

[Kelly Taylor]

The major advantage to Dave’s suggestion is it gives the selection process the ability to look beyond raw scores and judge true accomplishment. Without taking anything away from stations fortunate enough to locate in the promised land(s), I would argue being 11th from VE4 in a DX contest is a more significant accomplishment than Top 10ing it from the Azores, Aruba or the Canary Islands. 

It could very well be that an operator from VE4, whose scores suffer due to the Black Hole, would be a better Canadian representative than someone who wins from VE3EJ (no offence, OK, John?).

Basing it on scores alone skews the results to favour those fortunate to live in certain areas of the world, or have the money to travel to the right areas of the world. Handicapping scores from MM stations (when you’re never really sure which of the multiple operators is the ‘best’) is a good step.

But whatever process is decided, it should remain stable from event to event. It’s just not fair to keep moving the goalposts.

73, kelly
ve4xt

> On Aug 16, 2016, at 4:31 PM, David Pruett <k8cc at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> I was fortunate to go to the 1996 WRTC in San Francisco with my operating partner K5GO.  We finished tenth from a modest station, met a lot of great people, and had a great time.  Back in those days, the team leaders were selected by recognized contest clubs or the national radio organizations, and the leaders picked their operating partner.
> 
> One or two WRTCs later, the sponsors decided the had a better idea, to use a ranking system based on relevant, recent contest scores.  However the contests and the ranking method changes from year to year, creating controversy and no consistency.  And now people are complaining about cheating and whether you had access to a big station to earn your qualification.
> 
> I think the old way, with contest clubs or national organizations nominating participants was a heckuva lot better.  No controversy about qualifying contests, and local groups are usually in a better position to monitor contest ethics.  It also provides such groups with a reason to support WRTC financially.
> 
> I think there is a groundswell of apathy towards WRTC within most clubs and organizations these days because of the controversies being raised, the fact that these groups no longer have any vested interest in it, and the current selection process is seen as elitist.  And now it's getting to the point that even the elites don't agree...
> 
> Even as a WRTC alumni, I have to a great extent lost interest in WRTC and know others who feel the same.  I certainly wish it no ill will, but...
> 
> Dave, K8CC
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>> On Aug 16, 2016, at 9:02 PM, <kr2q at optimum.net> <kr2q at optimum.net> wrote:
>> 
>> I am certainly not the first to state the obvious, but it is worth repeating.
>> 
>> What sense does it make to cheat to qualify for WRTC where cheating is impossible thanks to
>> good rules, real time observers, and meticulous log reviews post-contest with excellent 
>> post-contest decisions as "new" situations arise.
>> 
>> Without pointing fingers (I don't have enough fingers), qualifying is, sadly, already a lot like the
>> real Olympics.  Time to clean both up.
>> 
>> I wish all contests had the resources to follow Ranko's suggestions.  Even better, I wish all
>> entrants would simply follow the rules and the spirit of contesting.
>> 
>> de Doug KR2Q
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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