[CQ-Contest] CONTESTING FUN
Jim Neiger
n6tj at sbcglobal.net
Tue May 24 22:34:14 EDT 2016
Well, since I kind of started the CONVERGENCE AND CHANGE spin here, in
response to K5ZD's "editorial" in the recent CQ magazine, I wanted to
comment simply on Bill N3RR's final words herein: *more FUN!*
I suppose most of us got started in contesting (mine was the 1955 Field
Day @ W7SAA) because it appeared to be *fun*. And then we also learned
you could learn and acquire *skills.* And as time progressed, we further
learned that trying harder, finding a more competitive station, maybe
being DX, one could actually be a competitor. And all of these
contributed to *more FUN! *Some of us were blessed to be learning at the
same time the world's best: KH6IJ W4KFC ZD8J K0DQ(from whatever call
Scotty was signing) W9IOP W6ITA (W6RR) were competing for the top
scores. I trust that I'm not the only one still of this earth who
wasted hours, just listening to the afore-mentioned? "When I grow up, I
want to be just like them"....
Some comment that today, without packet and RBN, enticing those less
serious to operate and call the top scoring stations, scores would be
diminished, and none of us would have *FUN! *Sure, some phenomenal
scores have been racked-up these years, like SOAB QSO totals > 10,000.
I seem to remember listening to K0DQ in 1970 (XE1IIJ??), making > 10,000
QSOs from Mexico. Did Scott, without spotting assistance, have less
fun than today's 10 kilo QSO operators who benefit from many "assisted"
callers?? I seriously doubt it.
in 1969, I set the SOAB world record in the ARRL DX CW test from ZD8Z.
That was also when it was two 48 hours weekends. I remember it like it
was yesterday, no packet, no RBN, and I operated 88 of the 96 hours,
made 5704 QSO's, no computer, no memory keyer, just my Collins S-Line
and my Hallicrafters HA-1 keyer. The logging was with lead pencil, with
erasers, on legal-size tablets. Wow, 5704 QSO's in 88 hours. Let's
see, that's an average of 64 per hour. For the CT1BOH, W2GD, W2SC, N6MJ
operators of today, 64 per is when the band is dead. Or maybe they did
a 64/hour on their second radio while running 200+ per on the prime
radio. Did I have *fun* in 1969? You bet. Do I have *fun* today when
I'm trying to sort out the 100 zero beat on my run frequency because of
RBN? Maybe, but it is certainly less fun. Your mileage may vary.
Sometimes, I fear we've lost this penultimate goal of just having *fun!
*We are taking it all too seriously, perhaps. Some even resort to
cheating, they've become so desperate to demonstrate to us all, that
they are competitors. Sometimes I think we should all just send in
check logs, enjoy the *fun *of operating, maybe try and best our score
from last year......
Two final comments:
(1) so doing away with unassisted maybe helps eliminate the "assisted"
cheaters, but then how do we eliminate those cheating with power? I
remember when I went to Slovenia for WRTC, and one of the active
contesters from (I'll not identify the country to protect the innocent),
but let me just say it is Zone 15, came up to me and boasted, "you know,
Jim, everyone in my country are running Henry 8K's"
(2) and someone nailed it: K5ZD's quest to combine unassisted and
assisted it simply the *ELIMINATION *of unassisted! And why should
anyone choosing to operate assisted care about we who choose not??
*NOT FUN!*
Vy 73
Jim Neiger N6TJ
**
On 5/23/2016 7:27 PM, Bill Hider wrote:
> I totally agree with Mark, KD4D and I am a SOA operator and I want to keep
> the SO & SOA categories separate.
> Why would anyone care to combine them after the nearly 30 years we've
> managed to keep them separate?
> I say "we" because I was in the vanguard in the 1980s participating as a M/S
> just because I was using packet as a single op
> and there was no such thing as "assisted" or "unlimited". I took spots in
> off the packet and printed them using my ASR TTY machine.
> Later on, back then, I was able to make a 1,000,000 point score in ARRL DX
> by clicking on the spots - great FUN!
>
> For me it's two things:
> It's more FUN for me to operate SOA than SO.
> Having two categories means more awards which equals more participation
> which equals more FUN!
>
> Simple.
>
> Bill N3RR
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> kd4d at comcast.net
> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 11:11 AM
> To: cq-contest
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Convergence and Change
>
> Good day, Martin:
>
> It makes sense to keep the separation between single operator and single
> operator Assisted/Unlimited because many of us believe the skill involved in
> finding stations to work without having a computer or other operator do it
> for us is worth measuring (and a lot of fun). The organizers of WRTC, for
> one, agree - look at their rules sometime.
>
> It is not obvious that operators who don't use the DX alerting assistance
> (particularly on CW) will do better than those who do not - THAT is what the
> SOs are complaining about. We don't want to be forced to use DX alerting
> assistance to compete. The same operators, using DX alerting assistance,
> will make higher scores than they do without...The CW skimmers/RBN have made
> this particularly obvious for CW operations.
>
> Clearly, combining the categories is all about comparing the highest scores
> for everyone and everyone wishing to be competitive will use DX alerting
> assistance if the categories are combined. I certainly use it in WAE (where
> there is one category) when I operate that contest.
>
> Why do the advocates of combining the categories - surely they only operate
> Assisted - want to combine the categories anyway? I understand the concerns
> of the contest organizers, but why do any of the Assisted operators care?
>
> 73,
>
> Mark, KD4D
>
> At this point it makes no sense to keep this separation anymore.
>
> In the end, SO will keep doing better than those who use DX alerting
> assistance, so what SOs are complaining about?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "LU5DX Martin" <lu5dx at lucg.com.ar>
> To: "Davor Kucelin" <davor.kucelin at plavalaguna.hr>, "cq-contest"
> <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 11:08:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Convergence and Change
>
> What's your point?
>
> Combining SOAB and SOAB(A) has nothing to do with comparing the highest
> scores in each category.
>
> It's about eliminating the possibility of taking even a very small unfair
> advantage throughout the 48-hour period that can place a cheater above
> his/her competitors (even if it is very little above in the rankings)
>
> It also has to do with eliminating the burden and work overload that implies
> trying to find those who cheat.
>
> Reality is that ops who cheat have perfected their techniques beyond what
> can be detected by log checkers. Those who get caught year after year are
> those who abuse of DX clusters in a very obvious way.
>
> At this point it makes no sense to keep this separation anymore.
>
> In the end, SO will keep doing better than those who use DX alerting
> assistance, so what SOs are complaining about?
>
> They can even still use a pen and paper logs and send CW with a straight key
> if they want.
>
> Are there still contesters out there entering contests because they think
> they are winning anything at all, or winning over anybody at all??
>
> What in the world would make someone think he/she is winning over someone
> who is thousand of miles away, with totally different equipment, propagation
> and participating according to a bunch of rules that are hardly
> enforceable?t
>
> C'mon guys. It seems like intelligence is inversely proportional to egos
> among certain high profile contesters :-)
>
> Our "competitions" have nothing of real competitions. It is just a game of
> enjoyment, but if we are still going to pretend these are competitions, at
> least we can establish the foundations to make them something a bit more
> trustworthy in those terms.
>
> 73,
>
> Martin LU5DX
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:03 AM, Davor Kucelin <davor.kucelin at plavalaguna.hr
>> wrote:
>> CQWW SSB Top 10 scores all years
>>
>>
>>
>> SOABHP
>>
>>
>>
>> 1 EA8BH 1999 SO HP ALL 25,646,796
>> 10,253 176 692 - N5TJ
>>
>> 2 CN2R 2004 SO HP ALL 20,938,680
>> 8,655 172 668 - W7EJ
>>
>> 3 D4B 2004 SO HP ALL 20,433,438
>> 8,799 172 674 - 4L5A
>>
>> 4 D4B 2003 SO HP ALL 20,119,968
>> 8,956 169 634 - 4L5A
>>
>> 5 CN2R 2003 SO HP ALL 18,743,250
>> 8,682 152 594 - W7EJ
>>
>> 6 HC8A 1999 SO HP ALL 18,607,050
>> 8,638 175 595 - N6KT
>>
>> 7 CN2R 2011 SO HP ALL 18,518,160
>> 8,409 167 593 44.7 W7EJ
>>
>> 8 CN2R 2013 SO HP ALL 18,277,746
>> 8,370 167 579 46.9 W7EJ [Cert]
>>
>> 9 HC8A 2000 SO HP ALL 18,122,040
>> 9,160 163 547 - N6KT
>>
>> 10 8P5A 2013 SO HP ALL 17,059,840
>> 10,126 162 518 48.0 W2SC
>>
>>
>>
>> SOAB ASSISTED HP
>>
>>
>>
>> 1 9Y4ZC 2003 SA HP ALL 14,979,055
>> 8,114 137 500 - DL6FBL
>>
>> 2 P40A 2011 SA HP ALL 14,332,656
>> 7,478 156 513 43.5 KK9A
>>
>> 3 TM6M 2015 SA HP ALL 14,263,470
>> 7,057 168 667 47.9 F8DBF [Cert]
>>
>> 4 P40P 2002 SA HP ALL 12,975,732
>> 6,639 154 528 - W5AJ
>>
>> 5 EF8U 2013 SA HP ALL 12,743,163
>> 6,656 154 533 45.0 EA8RM [Cert]
>>
>> 6 NN3W 2011 SA HP ALL 11,828,236
>> 4,921 185 683 44.7 @N3HBX
>>
>> 7 OH0X 2015 SA HP ALL 11,790,240
>> 6,294 174 706 48.0 OH6KZP [Cert]
>>
>> 8 P40W 2003 SA HP ALL 11,755,443
>> 6,730 137 496 - W2GD
>>
>> 9 D4B 2002 SA HP ALL 11,567,412
>> 5,845 152 586 - 4L5A
>>
>>
>>
>> CQWW CW Top 10 scores all years
>>
>>
>>
>> SOABHP
>>
>>
>>
>> 1 EA8BH 2000 SO HP ALL 18,010,765
>> 7,555 183 634 - N5TJ
>>
>> 2 ZF2MJ 2015 SO HP ALL 16,730,788
>> 10,014 170 527 48.0 N6MJ [Cert]
>>
>> 3 CR3OO 2015 SO HP ALL 16,090,078
>> 8,812 152 474 48.0 CT1BOH [Cert]
>>
>> 4 P40E 2003 SO HP ALL 15,943,070
>> 7,828 169 546 - CT1BOH
>>
>> 5 EF8M 2011 SO HP ALL 15,846,012
>> 7,873 160 531 48.0 RD3A
>>
>> 6 PZ5T 2011 SO HP ALL 15,673,940
>> 7,592 173 545 47.4 VE3DZ
>>
>> 7 CR3E 2012 SO HP ALL 15,221,316
>> 7,275 170 556 48.0 CT1BOH [Cert]
>>
>> 8 CR3E 2011 SO HP ALL 15,151,668
>> 7,212 168 564 48.0 CT1BOH
>>
>> 9 EF8M 2010 SO HP ALL 15,117,795
>> 7,598 158 535 47.8 RD3A
>>
>> 10 HC8N 1999 SO HP ALL 14,626,579
>> 7,001 185 546 - N5KO
>>
>>
>>
>> SOAB ASSISTED HP
>>
>>
>>
>> 1 9Y4ZC 2004 SA HP ALL 14,581,665
>> 6,576 169 596 - DL6FBL
>>
>> 2 5B/AA1TN 2004 SA HP ALL 13,715,573
>> 6,381 170 627 - RW3QC
>>
>> 3 EF9O 2013 SA HP ALL 13,530,554
>> 5,826 171 623 46.6 EA5BM [Cert]
>>
>> 4 K5ZD/1 2014 SA HP ALL 12,768,365
>> 4,993 190 697 44.3 [Cert]
>>
>> 5 EF8U 2013 SA HP ALL 11,955,126
>> 5,700 169 602 44.2 EA8RM [Cert]
>>
>> 6 CN3A 2010 SA HP ALL 11,818,159
>> 5,729 156 577 46.4
>>
>> 7 NP4Z 2013 SA HP ALL 11,341,512
>> 6,059 165 591 46.9
>>
>> 8 K5ZD/1 2015 SA HP ALL 11,275,488
>> 4,742 179 654 44.9 [Cert]
>>
>> 9 CT9M 2002 SA HP ALL 11,225,452
>> 5,181 159 605 - DL2CC
>>
>> 10 P40C 2014 SA HP ALL 11,085,536
>> 6,242 154 462 44.8 KU1CW
>>
>>
>>
>> So what are we talking about?
>>
>> Best Assisted score is way below 10th unassisted score.
>>
>> What are you than scared about to combine the 2 categorys.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 73 Dave 9A1UN
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7598 / Virus Database: 4568/12285 - Release Date: 05/23/16
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list