[CQ-Contest] ARRLDX Single Operator Records have been Eliminated!

[Paul Bourque]

Good morning,

The old records will be preserved. The disappearance of the old records was
an unintentional side effect of the addition of the new single band
categories. We are working in correcting them.

73,
-Paul N1SFE
ARRL Contest Program Manager

On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 9:44 AM Randy Thompson <k5zd at outlook.com> wrote:

> Do we know if they were purposefully deleted?  ARRL is not the best at
> maintaining anything on the web.
>
> Have you written to ARRL to ask? Seems like that would be a good starting
> point.  Depending on their answer, then it would make sense to socialize
> the problem here.
>
> I agree with you that the existing records shouldn't go away just because
> of the ARRL choice to allow self-spotting (as bad as that decision was).
>
> Randy K5ZD
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces+k5zd=outlook.com at contesting.com> On
> Behalf Of kq2m at kq2m.com
> Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2023 9:52 AM
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] ARRLDX Single Operator Records have been Eliminated!
>
>
>
> Last week I was noticed that my single band ARRLDX contest records and
> those of my fellow contesters had been "disappeared", and I suspected that
> they were eliminated because now self-spotting was allowed and the LOW
> Power maximum was reduced from 150 to 100 watts.
>
> The rationalizations I saw coming out of the ARRL are, IMO, pure BUNK.
> Old single band records should persist until or unless they are broken,
> not because of some rule change effectively putting SO into the Assisted
> Class because of self-spotting, or a 2 db drop in power for LOW power ops.
> "Old" records were not eliminated after UBN log-checking started which it
> tougher to set new records than the previous records.  I am not aware of
> any practical reason that necessitates the elimination of existing single
> op NON-Assisted records and certainly NOT for SO HIGH power!
>
> In fact, Mark, N5OT states in his excellent write-up that "It's notable
> that none of the new category records surpassed any of these now-retired
> records".  That's PRECISELY my point.  It is BIZARRE that a lower score is
> now considered by the ARRL to be a "new record" merely because these LOWER
> scores were made after 2021.  What kind of a "record" is that?
>
> This action by the ARRL completely disrespects the ops and station-owners
> of stations where all of those records were set and the effort and strategy
> required to set them!
>
> I have never seen pro sports or the Olympics eliminate records just
> because rules have been changed, there are new technological advancements,
> the run-time of the event has been extended, or for any other reason.  Old
> records that continue to exist and stand the test time despite more
> advantaged conditions now, become the stuff of legends, NOT stuff to be
> removed.
>
> The ARRL should restore the old records precisely because they ARE the
> records and they should be updated only if and when they are legitimately
> beaten under the "new" rules and NOT until then.
>
> 73
>
> Bob, KQ2M
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>
> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.contesting.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcq-contest&data=05%7C01%7C%7C3f6b55b68fc44d4bc96f08db1806e7cc%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C638130190174849971%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=gemSR6lomOqnoPlGk4hFlTBNrraQMkSiA1cm157iltw%3D&reserved=0
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>