[CQ-Contest] CW slow? No problem

Sat Dec 2 20:39:25 EST 2017

If an op is sending faster than he can copy, he is a LID and operator of
Rotten Radio.  Period.
73, Charly

<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 11:10 AM, GaryK9GS <garyk9gs at wi.rr.com> wrote:

> Great post Bob..thank you for stating So well
>
> 73,
> Gary K9GS
> -------- Original message --------From: "Bob Shohet, KQ2M" <kq2m at kq2m.com>
> Date: 11/30/17  10:01 AM  (GMT-06:00) To: Adam Mercier <adam at kenbrio.com>,
> Gerry Hull <gerry at yccc.org> Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com Subject: Re:
> [CQ-Contest] CW slow? No problem
> The best and most-experienced contesters adjust their sending speed to the
> conditions, activity level and number of callers depending on where their
> antennas are pointed.  Their energy level is high and their senses keen and
> they adjust constantly as necessary to maximize their score.  They are not
> looking at getting EVERY single qso but rather making decisions on getting
> the greatest number of qso’s at a given point in time and within a given
> time interval.  The super fast pileup callers and/or “showoffs” will be too
> impatient with a slow DX cq speed and the slower paced guys will be miffed
> with a faster speed.  That’s life – you can’t please everyone.
>
> The best ops are aware of all of this and are making these decisions
> constantly even if you and others are not aware of them and their thought
> processes. Just like they have operating decisions to make constantly, so
> do you.  You can improve your skill and speed up, you can choose to call
> them or not, or you can call them at a speed with which you are comfortable
> and take your chances; or not.  You have all of those choices.
>
> I was once a slow speed op (back in my very early Novice days).  I looked
> upon the big and fast DX ops with awe at their skill.  I made a decision
> that it was up to me to improve my skill and speed until I was as good as
> them or better; not that they had to slow down for me.  I spent the time
> and made the effort necessary to do that.  Were they initially irritated
> with me and my slow speed?  Sure, some of they probably were; but they best
> ops were not because they knew I was trying and they were happy with the
> qso.  Was I irritated with them?  Sure, I didn’t like the attitude of some
> of the speedy guys who intentionally were sending too fast for me, but  I
> realized that working DX was fun and that the more I operated the sooner my
> speed and confidence would increase – I quickly got over my irritation by
> channeling that energy into improving my skill – just the same way that you
> or anyone else can, if they want to.
>
> One of the most interesting things that I have learned after making some
> 900,000+ contest q’s over the past 44 years, is that often the copying
> ability of a particular station has almost no correlation with the speed at
> which they send – especially with EU ops.  Back before code readers and
> keyboard sent cw, I would call cq between 32 – 40 wpm and often a weak EU
> station would come back at ~ 20 wpm.  I would send the report at 32 – 40
> wpm and they would almost always copy it – the first time.  No asking for
> repeats or “QRS?”.  I would have been happy to oblige but it was not
> necessary.  They simply either did not want to send at my speed or could
> not send that fast but they could and did copy my speed.   :-)
>
> Now, for me currently, the greatest advantage of speed is to thin the
> pileup.  With the majority of packet tuners zero beat on each other in a
> massive audio blur, I simply turn up the speed until the pileup thins and
> then I turn it back down as I work some of the loud guys off the top.  I
> want to encourage slower ops to call but I won’t hear them through 50
> louder zero-beat callers.  The SMARTEST ops know think about HOW and WHERE
> the pileup is calling and do the opposite.  If the fast, loud guys are
> zero-beat, the smart guys call more slowly at the edges of a pileup,
> especially at the low edge where there cw note is lower in pitch and stands
> out better.  When I use my 500/2000 cw filter split (I only use cascaded
> 500hz in crowded cndx) I hear them first EVERY time!  I listen for them!
> Sure – not every listens the way that I do, but the best ops often do.
>
> If cndx are marginal and/or there are few callers, I will slow down to ~
> 24 – 28 wpm.  But that is from stateside – in CQWWCW with an almost endless
> stream of callers to someone who maybe the only opr. in the country in the
> contest, slowing down is silly 98% of the time, even if it offends someone.
>
> Please take this reply in the spirit in which this intended – as
> educational and instructional.  I hope that you will work to improve your
> cw skill and speed – we want and need everyone to participate – and I hope
> that DX ops will likewise think about slowing down more often as their
> operating conditions permit.
>
> 73
>
> Bob  KQ2M
>
>
> From: Adam Mercier
> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 10:01 AM
> To: Gerry Hull
> Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CW slow? No problem
>
> Does high-speed CW have a place in contesting?  Absolutely!  I don’t think
> anyone would argue that.  However, I think you’d agree that CQing with no
> answers (which happens to even the mega-stations later in the contest) is,
> in fact, unproductive points-wise.  I’m not suggesting that you’re “doing
> it wrong” or even that you need a major strategy adjustment.  My  position
> is simply that it’s mutually beneficial to QRS and complete the QSO with
> the slower stations when your rate is low.  How much time does that take?
> If you log a QSO when you otherwise wouldn’t, does it matter?  A fact I CAN
> claim is that there are several fast stations who do not have my call in
> their logs because they wouldn’t QRS.  At the elite level they are working
> at, when the scores are tallied and competitors are close, those single
> missed Qs make a difference.  Maybe my Q is only worth one or two points on
> its face, but with the loads of multipliers already in the log for the 20M+
> scores, it may actually be worth more to your score.
>
> From a philosophical standpoint, your assertion that us slower ops
> essentially need to keep up or get out of the way is interesting...If there
> is no place in CW contests for us average Joes, eventually it might just be
> the powerhouses that all work each other in the first few hours of the
> contest and you’ll have a perpetual tie.  Where’s the fun in that?
>
> Just my observation...
>
> Adam, KM7N
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Nov 30, 2017, at 05:49, Gerry Hull <gerry at yccc.org> wrote:
> >
> > While 45 might seem a bit excessive, guys like ZF2MJ and TI7W, known
> > World-class contesters, were using speeds like that.  As a run op at an
> M/2,
> > I spent 95 percent of my CQ time at 40 WPM and backed down to 38 at
> times.
> > I did not feel it was non productive.
> >
> > Fast CW is impearitive to make 20 to 30 million point scores.  Also,
> > To make those scores, the operators on the other end of the pile must
> > Be able to copy.
> >
> > So. if your CW speed does not cut it, listen to QSOs until you copy.
> > Fast CW can and will be a part of these contests.  Attempting to  claim
> it
> > is non productive is disproven by the facts.
> >
> > 73, Gerry W1VE
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 1:34 PM K9MA <k9ma at sdellington.us> wrote:
> >>
> >> I completely fail to understand why so many operators insist on calling
> >> CQ at 45 wpm, when no one is coming back.  (There were lots of them last
> >> weekend, especially from zone 33.)  This seem entirely
> >> counterproductive.  Not only does it discourage operators who aren't
> >> comfortable at that speed, but it also makes the call impossible to copy
> >> under some conditions for even the best operators.  Isn't a slow QSO
> >> better than no QSO?
> >>
> >> 73,
> >> Scott K9MA
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

-- 
Charly, HS0ZCW