[CQ-Contest] What is Multi to you?

[Ria Jairam]

CQWW did have an extreme category which allowed things like remote
receivers and other "innovative" ideas. It died due to lack of interest.

I wonder if anyone who was considering it would probably explain why they
decided against competing in it. That would be interesting to know.

Ria
N2RJ

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Gerry Hull <gerry at yccc.org> wrote:

> Great ideas, Stan.
>
> Filtering the results sounds like a good idea, but would cause a hell of a
> lot of work for the committee and volunteers.   Overlays makes sense -- in
> any category.
>
> Creating a new class of entry just so other people can win (or have more
> opportunity to win) as a criteria on it's own makes little sense.   In VHF
> Contesting in North America, ARRL created the "Limited Multioperator"
> category, essentially because one group has dominated the Unlimited
> category for almost the entire life of the June/September contests. (Even
> is this was not the case, it sure looks that way.)    This had had the
> effect of depressing QSOs on the microwave bands, probably something that
> was not expected or wanted.   Contests thrive on more participation, not
> less.
>
> In the case for HF contests,  I see no downside of Classic, or other
> additional overlays  in general..  I don't think it would increase
> participation, and it might just increase activity.  The tension seems to
> be between those who want to preserve records for all time in a particular
> class, and those who want to bring new folks into the field.   Classic
> scores could be compared to historical values prior to the addition of the
> overlay.
>
> The Rookie overlay is a great motivator.   Young/New contest ops don't need
> "baby" contests where there's no real competition or participation.  They
> want to be real competitors in real events.   Overlays give them something
> to shoot for as they grow in skill.
>
> As many have mentioned, mentoring is a big part of M/S...  perhaps we need
> an overlay recognizing that,  so that those who "take the hit" for bringing
> new ops into the fold are recognized.  Hey, how about even giving more
> recognition to those new ops who were NEW members of a winning M/S, M/2 or
> M/M?
>
> On the other end of the spectrum, why not an Overlay for "Extreme" -- those
> who advance the state of the art (such as many, many in-band stations for
> M/S).   No one would think less of their accomplishment.  In fact, one
> would think it would be a badge of honor to win in such an overlay
> category.
>
> The challenge between Overlays and Entry Categories is records:  if a
> station wins an overlay category, do they still win the category?  In
> today's world, yes.
> Is an overlay a declaration, like a category, or, is it something decided
> during scoring/adjudication?  (I mean in the future).
>
> 73, Gerry W1VE
>
> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 6:45 AM, Stan Stockton <wa5rtg at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Radio contesting is a lot like golf.  You need to be happy comparing your
> > results in your own mind to what you have done in the past, how well you
> > played based on how well you feel you should have played, comparing to
> > others who you feel are at the same level, etc.
> >
> > There are very few (I'm aware of none and certainly there are none with
> > any meaning) golf tournaments where handicaps are used to lump everyone
> in
> > the same competition.  If you ever find one that does you will
> undoubtedly
> > find few good golfers who have low handicaps who choose to participate.
> > You will NEVER find a golfer with a 1 handicap who believes he "lost" to
> > someone with a 12 handicap when they play together and the scores are 74
> > and 83.  If you ever find a 12 handicapper who actually believes he
> "beat"
> > a 1 handicapper because he got within 9 strokes, you've just found a
> > delusional idiot.
> >
> > I think to make everyone happy the results should be able to be filtered
> > however you want and certificates should be able to be printed for
> whatever
> > your filtered results determine.  One could perhaps print a certificate
> > that shows the entry came in 3rd place in North America for low power 15m
> > SSB with a general license, operating only one radio with spotting
> > assistance from your own QTH and a wire antenna up less than 50 feet.
>  If
> > the operator would be proud to frame that certificate and put it on the
> > wall, great; no harm to anyone.  Most would be happy instead to have fun
> > and believe they did well using what they had.
> >
> > To attempt to "handicap" that station's operation by spotting it 2
> million
> > points over a station that was well equipped with a good operator and
> then
> > saying that the lesser station "won" because the superior station only
> had
> > 1.8 million more points is totally absurd.
> >
> > One thing I have seen here that makes sense is perhaps having a "Classic"
> > multi single category that allows multiple operators to share one
> > transmitter.
> >
> > 73... Stan, K5GO
> >
> > > On May 10, 2017, at 11:56 AM, W0MU Mike Fatchett <w0mu at w0mu.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Why can't contesting be both.  A place for friends and novices to get
> > together and have a good time and have a chance to do well and feel like
> > you have a chance to win.  How many people really have a chance to really
> > win?  Very few.  It used to be you could go down to the Caribbean with a
> FD
> > style setup and win.  That is very very difficult now with the Multi
> > stations with 8 rigs, multiple 100 ft towers etc.  I applaud their
> > dedication, time and money to build great stations but there is little
> > competition.
> > >
> > > If golf if you participate in a tournament (contest) you are allowed to
> > get a handicap which while certainly not perfect is an attempt to level
> the
> > playing field so that you can feel like you have a shot.  There are
> always
> > going to be talented people that most likely can win but in golf anything
> > is possible as everyone plays the exact same course on the same day.  In
> > contesting we have a bunch of golf tournaments going on all on separate
> > courses and then we crown a winner when none of the courses are the same.
> > >
> > > The goal here is to attract new people. I applaud those that continue
> to
> > work on personal goals.  You cannot sell that to new folks and to the
> > younger generations.
> > >
> > > W0MU
> > >
> > >
> > >> On 5/10/2017 9:28 AM, Tony Osman wrote:
> > >> Gerry
> > >>
> > >> I am enjoying this thread and listening to the various arguments. I
> > have participated in all entry classes in CQWW  (with the exception of
> QRP)
> > and I have enjoyed them all. I do find that multi-single (when keeping to
> > the rules) is one entry where you can have other operators manning the
> > multiplier station who are guys newer to contesting and could be
> > intimidated by the abilities of others to run at high rates, but know
> that
> > they are fully participating by finding new mults.  It is a good
> > opportunity to bring someone into the contesting game.  Are you going to
> > win? probably not, but mentoring has its own winning....
> > >>
> > >> I am in awe of the guys who can sustain very high rates (running
> > 150-200 qs per hour as an AVERAGE!).  They have a special talent and I
> can
> > only wonder at it - the same as I wonder at golfers who can shoot a 64
> on a
> > course that I shoot 64 (on the back 9!). It is interesting to see some
> M/S
> > QSO totals that are almost as high as M/2 (within 10%). Participants in
> M/S
> > can have advantages when a M/M station uses its resources to supply many
> > more multiplier operators, but I doubt if this has anything like the same
> > advantage that the geographical advantage has - 3 point vs 2 point per
> > QSO.  The running station still has to make a very large number of
> contacts
> > and yes, if you have multiple people of the same high skill level
> > available, they are going to be able to run faster for shorter periods of
> > time than the 48hr marathon, but that is just the nature of the team and
> > the category.
> > >>
> > >> However, none of this does not stop me from competing.  My goal is
> > always to beat my personal best, in this I am competing solely against
> me,
> > the same station, the same antennas (mostly) but each time a year
> older!  I
> > also enjoy team competition where I no longer have to try and stay the
> full
> > course and  the camaraderie for the weekend is even better than the
> actual
> > contest (well - almost).
> > >>
> > >> I also remember that this is not my livelihood but a hobby. So I will
> > be happy to have a beer with you and Yuri at Dayton too!
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Tony
> > >> VE3RZ
> > >>
> > >>> On 5/10/2017 9:02 AM, Gerry Hull wrote:
> > >>> Hi Yuri,
> > >>>
> > >>> No offense taken.
> > >>>
> > >>> Take the NASCAR analogy.   Yes, I expect people to push the rules --
> > like
> > >>> they do in car racing.   When they found certain techniques were
> > causing
> > >>> completely out-of-bound results, they reigned in the rules.
> > >>>
> > >>> My point of view is yes, an 8-station M/S certainly is advancing the
> > state
> > >>> of the technology art -- and I have no problem with the people doing
> > it, in
> > >>> fact I'm in awe from the technology perspective..  However, what is
> it
> > >>> doing for contesting overall?   Maybe I'm a bit too altruistic.    If
> > the
> > >>> three or four stations worldwide who use this technique dominate M/S
> > for
> > >>> many years to come, what have they proven?   That they can win by
> > pushing
> > >>> the rules to the absolute limit.  There is inherently nothing wrong
> > with
> > >>> that -- that is part of what competition is.
> > >>>
> > >>> What does it do to participation in the category is another question
> > >>> completely.
> > >>>
> > >>> I can argue the same point about remote:  So far, in general, it have
> > >>> proven a challenge to generate the same level of scores from a remote
> > as
> > >>> you can from being on location.  As skills and technology improve, I
> > think
> > >>> you will see this change.  The ability to put rare multipliers on,
> > and, the
> > >>> ability of contesters to come back into the fold (who are QRT in
> > >>> covenant-restricted QTHs), I would argue, has huge benefit to all the
> > in
> > >>> the contest community.  Just ask a lot of contesters in southern
> > California
> > >>> or Florida.
> > >>>
> > >>> The purpose of this reflector, hopefully, other than a bitch session,
> > is to
> > >>> express ideas.  Let's continue the discussion.
> > >>>
> > >>> Yuri, we can talk about it more over a beer in Dayton...
> > >>>
> > >>> 73, Gerry W1VE
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>