[CQ-Contest] Are You Kidding Me??
Jim Neiger
n6tj at sbcglobal.net
Fri Nov 20 12:21:49 EST 2020
My apologies for just trying to get up to speed on what's been done to
the CQ WPX Rules.. Are you kidding me?
If I understand the new rules, the ONLY way a 'serious single operator',
defined as someone who doesn't need anyone else's help to copy a call
sign, can compete is to operate 24 of the 48 hours?? Are you kidding me??
I've enjoyed CQ WPX over the years, have had my share of World No. 1's
and No. 2's, and I've liked the fact that you actually have to copy
something, like the QSO number. But a major dis-incentive has been that
you can only operate 36 hours of the 48. Who wants to buy an airplane
ticket, endure the hours of travel, airport hassles ( trying to get my
Heil boom mike through Rome TSA last year was interesting) and now learn
I have to have my radio OFF for one half of the contest?? Are you
kidding me??
I'm only 81 years old. I want to operate. I can still do 46 or 47 of
the 48 hours. Forecasts for this new cycle are truly exciting. Now
your telling me you can't even operate 36 of the 48?? Are you kidding me?
I feel so privileged to have spent my 65 years of contesting during the
Glory Years. Even ARRL DX back in the 1960's, and earlier, was two
weekends per mode. I was recalling the other day with fellow NCCC
friends, my 1969 ZD8Z ARRL DX CW world record. Only a paltry 5700
QSO's, but privileged to operate 88 of the 96 hours.
A simple question for AA3B and others who have our radio contesting
futures in your hands, why bother even having the contest if you
continue to dumb it down by 1) restricting the operating time and 2)
diminishing everyone's skills by having someone else copy the call signs
for you?? Are you kidding me??
Very 73,
Jim Neiger N6TJ
On 11/19/2020 6:26 PM, Bud Trench wrote:
> Thank you all for your inputs. I have my convictions on the rule changes and I own them. I have provided the rationale in a fully transparent manner. I believe the revised rule are in the long term best interest of WPX and stand by them.
>
> Lastly, the sentiments provided below are FAR from universal.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bud Trench, AA3B
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hal Offutt <hal at japancorporateresearch.com>
> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 8:45 PM
> To: Richard Smith <n6kt1 at sbcglobal.net>; cq-contest at contesting.com; Bud Trench <aa3b.bud at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Released Rules for CQ WW WPX SSB / CW
>
> Rich,
>
> I agree 100% with your conclusion but I think you are being a little
> hard on Bud. Bud is one of the good guys. He's a devoted contester, a
> great op and a radio friend to many of us. Rather than wanting to play
> around with the rules for his own excitement and intrigue, I think it
> more likely that he is being pressured by individuals involved in the
> WPX management to do something that he probably doesn't really support.
> At least I hope that's the case. But it's a black box, and therein lies
> the problem: no transparency, no consultation with fellow competitors
> and sudden unilateral surprises.
>
> It has been made abundantly clear that this decision is unwelcome to a
> very large number of serious contesters. Even those who prefer assisted
> operating have no interest in preventing their their fellow contesters
> from competing in the way they prefer.
>
> The real question now is whether the WPX leadership - whoever it is -
> has the courage to admit their mistake and reverse this divisive
> decision. And think about a better process for rule making in the future.
>
> We'll find out soon.
>
> 73, Hal W1NN
>
>
> On 11/20/2020 7:42 AM, Richard Smith wrote:
>> Hi Bud,
>>
>> It's too bad that you don't seem to have respect for operators who compete the contest for which you are now director.
>>
>> It seems that you intend to change the rules of the WPX Contest based on your own desires to play with the contest rules for your own excitement and intrigue. I pulled a couple of sentences from your email:
>>
>> Bud wrote: "I am particularly excited
>> about the possibilities of increased levels of performance (and scores) in
>> the Single Operator categories now that QSO alerting systems are available
>> to all competitors. .... The possibilities are intriguing."
>>
>> A lot of serious contesters have put huge effort into WPX Contest operations and are rightly proud of their accomplishments. Does removing a category also result in the removal of the score records for which they strived? Will the SOAB World Records and the other records now be discarded, and the huge efforts to achieve them now go unheralded? Would that show respect for the Contesters who achieved those scores?
>>
>> I'm wondering what other categories will be dropped in the future, if the idea intrigues you? Will Multi-Two and Multi-Multi be combined next year? Will QRP be combined with Low Power? Will SO2R be combined with Multi-Single?
>>
>> Sometimes I like to think about Contesting in relation to other sports. I think of Contesting as Radiosport. In that vein, I think about Olympic Sports. Would the Olympic Committee combine the 100m run with the 100m hurdles? Would they put the Javelin and Shotput together as one event?
>>
>> I would seriously ask you to rescind the rules changes that you have posted, and ask for inputs from the competitors who participate in the WPX Contest, before making changes.
>>
>> 73, Rich, N6KT, PJ4K, HC8A, etc.
>>
>> On Monday, November 16, 2020, 05:47:05 PM PST, Bud Trench <aa3b.bud at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The rules for CQ WW WPX SSB / CW are now posted at the CQ WW WPX Website <
>> https://www.cqwpx.com/rules.htm >.
>>
>>
>>
>> The creation of the Multi-Transmitter Distributed category was triggered by
>> the significant reductions in Multi-operator entries in 2020 as a result of
>> COVID-19. Further, it is fully anticipated that COVID-19 will impact the
>> heritage multi-op participants again in 2021. I view 2021 as a test case
>> for the Multi-Transmitter Distributed category, from which we will make
>> adjustments based on lessons learned.
>>
>>
>>
>> The reasons for allowing QSO alerting systems in all Single Op Categories
>> (except the Classic Overlay) have been provided. I am particularly excited
>> about the possibilities of increased levels of performance (and scores) in
>> the Single Operator categories now that QSO alerting systems are available
>> to all competitors. How will the top Single Ops from previous years adjust
>> their operating strategies given that all competitors can leverage increased
>> access to multipliers and high valued QSOs resulting from QSO alerting
>> systems? The possibilities are intriguing.
>>
>>
>>
>> I anticipated that some participants would prefer to have the option to
>> compete without using QSO alerting system, so the Single Op Classic Overlay
>> was continued after its inaugural authorization in the 2020 WPX contests.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Single Op Classic Overlay category, which was first introduced in WPX in
>> 2020, was shortened from 36 hours to 24 hours to be consistent with the
>> Classic Overlay category definition used in CQ WW DX. The Single Op
>> Classic Overlay continues to support separate scoring and awards in the High
>> Power and Low Power categories.
>>
>>
>>
>> 73,
>>
>>
>>
>> Bud AA3B
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list