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

[K3ZJ David Siddall]

While ARRL gets this problem sorted, one can try to find records using the
Wayback Machine.  I found the U.S. records as of 2015.
The oldest in this subset was 1982, so some records persist for quite a
while. See: https://tinyurl.com/29k8j5jh.

73, Dave K3ZJ

On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 12:17 PM <john at kk9a.com> wrote:

> There are still a few older records still showing on the ARRL DX Contest
> site but most record scores are from 2022.  This has to be an error, Bob!
> It
> would be great if you could see all scores over the years as you can on the
> CQ sites.
>
> For example: In 1985 I did an 80m single band effort in the ARRL DX Phone
> contest operating as KK9A/PJ7. My antenna was just a low dipole at a guest
> house but by some freak of nature I had a record score of 403,389 points.
> This record lasted for decades and it may still be the highest score ever,
> however the ARRL website shows an Italian station as the 80m record holder
> with only 75,294 points.
>
>
> John KK9A
>
>
>
>
>
> kq2m wrote:
>
>
> 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
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>