Contesting Online Speak Out

Speak Out: WRTC 2002 Score Tracking

26 opinions on this subject. Enter your opinion at the bottom of this page.
[Speak Out Home Page]

N2MG on 2002-07-23
One or another A-non wrote:

"Your thinking is why radio contesting will NEVER be a serious sport. All serious sports have real rules and limits."

Radio contesting has inherent problems. The variations of propagation (from site to site and from year to year) have a huge effect. Most of contesting's rules rely on the honor system for policing (and a little peer pressure). These are some of the reasons WRTC is around. Same antennas, same location, on-site referees. Serious contesting.

Home-based contesting is what it is. It's an amateur activity undertaken solely for fun. It is not the NBA or World Cup. For it to be SERIOUS-SERIOUS I suspect you'd need/want referees on site. Just doesn't seem to be worth it anymore.

"Think about what indy or nascar would be like if the teams could do whatever they wanted."

Funny you should mention NASCAR. What makes you think guys haven't tried funny stuff? For years guys like Smokey Yunick took liberties with the (lack of specific) rules by implementing reverse rotating motors, oversized gas tanks, etc., causing the very rules of the sport to change. That's the way the movers and shakers in sports operate. They read the rules, operate inside them, but barely. Contesting has real rules and limits. Just not the ones YOU want.

I guess the only TRUE contesters are those that operate with 50W and a wet noodle in the Podunk QSO Party.

Anonymous on 2002-07-23
N5ot:The WRTC selection system - election by peers - is not broken. It works well.
##########################################
Agreed. It is the nomination system that is broken because it is based on selecting operators based on broken competitions.

Until the major contests address the fairness (or you listening do nothings on the CQWW committee) WRTC and Amateur contesting in general will never grow in interest. Look at how the ARRL treats contests. Nope, no scores in QST. Even K1KI voted to remove them.

N5OT on 2002-07-23
Anonymous: "Until we can achieve a statistical means of leveling the playing field realtime scoring is nothing more then computer masturbation."

Can't argue with that. That doesn't mean it is of no value. Contesting is nothing more than radio masturbation, but it has a place in many peoples' lives, as does the WRTC.

Anon: "So what you have is a bad system used to choose the so called best operators...."

So we're back to this. You're what we call in contesting an "alligator." You have a loud signal in this pulpit, but youre not hearing very well because we've been over this.

The WRTC selection system - election by peers - is not broken. It works well.

Anonymous on 2002-07-22
Anonymous wrote: ""Limit all serious entires to a tribander@ 50' and a dipole."

I don't think this is a realistic suggestion because there is no way, besides the honor system, to ensure the entrants follow this rule.



In reality there is no way in Amateur radio contests to ensure the entrants follow the rules. Period. So what you have is a bad system used to choose the so called best operators for to take

The ONLY reason this is successful on-site at WARC is because of the individual adjudicators, one per station.

Thus we are back to my first point Amateur radio contests are not fair. Therefore a realtime scoring system is completely meaningless. Until we can achieve a statistical means of leveling the playing field realtime scoring is nothing more then computer masturbation.

N5OT on 2002-07-22
Anonymous wrote: ""Limit all serious entires to a tribander@ 50' and a dipole."

I don't think this is a realistic suggestion because there is no way, besides the honor system, to ensure the entrants follow this rule.

The ONLY reason this is successful on-site at WARC is because of the individual adjudicators, one per station.

This is off-topic enough for me. I am going to restrict my future comments to the question at hand. 73, N5OT

Anonymous on 2002-07-22
Anonymous wrote:
"Limit all serious entires to a tribander@ 50' and a dipole."

Jeez, no benefit for those that aspire to put up a bigger antenna...what progressive thinking...

No logical thinking. This would go along with a real scoring system based upon propagation and location. You can still put up as big of antennas as you want. You just can't use them in the contest.



"Get rid of 160/80 as contest bands."

Yep, let's only use those bands where it's easy to make contacts...

Yep, KC1XX 900 EU Qso's. WB0O 0 EU Qso's. Real fair.


"Make Europe 1 multipler (European Union)."

Sure, let's remove the DX from the DX contests...

EU is now no different then the US or haven't you heard.

"Need more?"

Not like these. I guess I should have asked for sensible suggestions; my mistake.

These are sensible. Your the one being non-sensible by only thinking about what is not what could be.

Anonymous on 2002-07-22
N2MG:

Your thinking is why radio contesting will NEVER be a serious sport. All serious sports have real rules and limits. Think about what indy or nascar would be like if the teams could do whatever they wanted. To prevent the passing problem team X made there car a double wide. "There was nothing in the reals", sayth team capitan Hot Shot Bob.

N2MG on 2002-07-22
Anonymous wrote:
"Limit all serious entires to a tribander@ 50' and a dipole."

Jeez, no benefit for those that aspire to put up a bigger antenna...what progressive thinking...

"Get rid of 160/80 as contest bands."

Yep, let's only use those bands where it's easy to make contacts...

"Make Europe 1 multipler (European Union)."

Sure, let's remove the DX from the DX contests...

"Need more?"

Not like these. I guess I should have asked for sensible suggestions; my mistake.

N5OT on 2002-07-22
This is getting interesting. Anonymous said: "Wouldn't the 'activity distribution' be better if W0AIH stood a chance of fairly beeting KC1XX in CQWW?"

Maybe. I won't say "no." But remember, however, that the Society of Midwest Contesters won the SS gavel this time - and that activity was HUGE in the vicinity of W0AIH. The SMC was one of the clubs which sent a team. I think you're focusing too much on CQWW and not remembering that there are other contests which don't have the particular shortcomings of the CQWW.

Anonymous said: "We think the best ops are the ones that do well in broken contests."

I don't think that and I don't think you are speaking for everyone else. I don't think anyone says contests don't have shortcomings. I think calling them "broken" is a bit exaggerated.

Anonymous: "The do nothings on the CQWW committee...."

This statement is not a true statement but rather a cheap shot. Now I feel you're flying your true colors, and your credibility is suffering.

Anonymous: "If you do a good job"...what joke. You now it would never happen."

Actually I don't. In fact, I have known operators who did so well with crappy stations that they got included in some pretty spectacular operations. There are plenty of guys who have wound up at the WRTC whose attention-getting accomplishments took place at multis using other peoples' callsigns.

I suppose in a perfect world, one would have but to get on the air to be miraculously recognized for the vastly superior operator one must be.

But this is not a perfect world.

Anonymous on 2002-07-22
Anonymous wrote:

"Make the contests fair first."

PLEASE...a suggestion or two
##############################################
Limit all serious entires to a tribander@ 50' and a dipole. Get rid of 160/80 as contest bands. Make Europe 1 multipler (European Union). Need more?

Page 1 -->

Enter your opinion about WRTC 2002 Score Tracking:

The opinions expressed within Contesting Online Speak Out are those of the contributor, and not necessarily that of Contesting Online. Contesting Online simply provides a forum for people to express their opinions on various amateur radio contesting subjects of interest.

Do you have an idea for a Speak Out topic? Email our Speak Out Manager with your ideas.