The CQWW Contest is undoubtedly the largest and most prestigious event in our hobby. Over the decades, the contest has grown and evolved, but precisely because of its size and significance, it is important that we continue to reflect on how to improve it.

Through this open letter, I would like to present several key proposals, based on practical observations, logic, and official contest data, which I believe would contribute to a healthier, fairer, and more inclusive CQWW contest.

1. Contest Duration – Health and Competitive Aspects

The contest currently lasts 48 hours, with no time restriction for participants. This rule is outdated, harmful, and counterproductive for several reasons:

• Health risks: Operating for 48 hours without sleep, under high intensity and constant pressure, with maximum concentration, poses a serious medical risk. The combination of mental, intellectual, and physical effort can have serious consequences – especially for older operators, who make up the majority of the contest community.
• Unequal playing field: Only a small number of individuals can endure such a pace. The contest becomes a test of physical endurance rather than skill and technical preparation, which should be the true essence of radio sport.
• Abuse and unfair practices: Due to excessive fatigue, some participants are using unauthorized assistance – including operator rotation, remote support, and similar means – which further undermines the integrity of the contest.

Proposal: Introduce a time limitation – for example, a maximum of 36 hours of active operating within the 48-hour contest period, with a flexible operating window.

Outcome? More serious participants, a fairer competition, fewer violations, and greater motivation within the community.

2. Scoring System – Unfair Geographical Imbalance

The current scoring system is structured as follows:

• 3 points for DX contacts (between continents)
• 2 points for contacts between the Caribbean and North America
• 1 point for contacts within the same continent

This system gives a massive advantage to stations located in areas with easy access to other continents (e.g., Africa). Operators from Europe, Asia, North America, or the southern part of South America — even with more QSOs and better performance — often have no realistic chance to compete at the top.

Before presenting a proposal, let’s review some top results and compare them to get a clearer picture of the actual value and difficulty behind certain scores, which are currently favored by the existing scoring rules.

Let’s take the world record in CQWW CW, SOAB HPU from last year and compare it with the other top scores achieved from the Caribbean and Europe, which are currently disadvantaged by the point structure.

CQWW CW – SOABHPU Category

Official results:

Rank	Station	QSOs	Zones	Cty	Score
1	D4DX	9563	171	557	20,263,880 – World Record
2	ZF1A	11840	169	539	20,188,620
3	D4C	9227	165	578	19,905,713
4	TI7W	11224	162	534	18,316,632
5	CR6K	10141	168	549	14,345,736

Stations from Africa (D4DX, D4C) receive 3 points for virtually all their contacts. Caribbean stations (ZF1A, TI7W) earn 2 points for contacts with North America. European stations like CR6K receive only 1 point for most of their contacts.

Rescored (all contacts = 3 points):

Rank	Station	QSOs	Zones	Cty	Score (3p)
1	ZF1A	11840	169	539	25,148,160
2	TI7W	11224	162	534	23,435,712
3	CR6K	10141	168	549	21,813,291
4	D4DX	9563	171	557	20,263,880 – World Record
5	D4C	9227	165	578	19,905,713

Conclusion: The best actual performances were by ZF1A, TI7W, and CR6K — but the system fails to recognize them because they are in the “wrong” location. These numbers clearly show that results depend less on operator skill and more on geography. Equal scoring for all contacts would create a level playing field and motivate more stations to develop their setups.

These were comparisons in the SOAB category.

Let’s now look at a Single Operator, Single Band (40m) comparison, where the discrepancy is even more striking.

I compared the world record and the next two best all-time scores with the results of S52AW and 4O3A, which — under current scoring — rank only 45th and 77th, respectively.

Comparison – Single OP, Single Band (40m)

Official results:

Rank	Station	QSOs	Zones	Cty	Score
1	CN3A	4286	36	135	2,156,652
2	CN2R	3910	35	141	2,006,576
3	EA8EA	3660	38	137	1,877,050
45	S52AW	3703	38	155	1,303,715
77	4O3A	3865	35	141	1,186,994

Rescored with 3 points per contact:

Rank	Station	QSOs	Zones	Cty	Score (3p)
1	CN3A	4286	36	135	2,156,652
2	S52AW	3703	38	155	2,144,037
3	4O3A	3865	35	141	2,040,720
4	CN2R	3910	35	141	2,006,576
5	EA8EA	3660	38	137	1,877,050

Again, the data is clear: The real value of European scores is drastically underestimated. With equal scoring, S52AW and 4O3A would be top contenders.

3. Proposal for a New Category: SO2B – Single Operator, Two Bands

Another critical factor affecting participation and competitiveness is the contest category structure.
While we already have a wide range of categories — which is positive — there is room for meaningful improvement.

For the past two years, I’ve been actively discussing with the contesting community the idea of introducing a new category: Single Operator – Two Bands (SO2B).

Why SO2B?

Let’s start from the beginning.

SOAB is the most demanding and prestigious category, and many of us aspire to compete in it. However:

• A competitive SOAB station requires serious infrastructure: a large property on a suitable location, with a house and all infrastructure.
• Tall towers, serious antennas for all 6 bands, and full hardware for 160–10m.
• Automation and a complex technical system.

These setups are expensive, difficult to build, rare — and often big guns end up competing only among themselves. Meanwhile, the majority of operators are discouraged, as it’s almost impossible to be competitive without a "superstation."

And we all know the answer to this question: If many great operators had the technical and financial resources to build such stations, would those who currently dominate still be the best?

Introducing SO2B – Single Op, Two Bands (of your choice)

With the SO2B category, many barriers would be removed:

• Significant reduction in investment, size and complexity of station
• A way more accessible for a wider group of operators
• Each participant chooses any two bands they prefer

South America, Africa, and Oceania would be highly competitive on the higher bands. Europe and North America could combine high and low bands depending on propagation.

This would open up many new opportunities and significantly increase the number of serious participants in this category. Just roughly, in ex YU I am sure that at least 30 serious participants will fight for title, with equal chance. We could have few hundreds of very competitive and serious participants in SO2B, with equal playing field and chance to win. Sounds like impossible? But it is.

SO2B would retain all the exciting technical aspects of SOAB operation — such as SO2R and 2BSIQ techniques.

Importantly, SO2B would be a single, unified category, regardless of which two bands are chosen — making it even more attractive, and perhaps more exciting than SOAB itself.

Key Features:

• Operator selects any two bands (e.g., 20m + 40m or 10m + 15m)
• All contacts must be on those two bands
• Techniques such as SO2R and 2BSIQ are allowed
• No subcategories by band combinations — everyone competes together

Benefits of SO2B:

• Lower technical and infrastructure barriers — more accessible and affordable
• Competitive opportunities without big stations
• Strategic flexibility — operators choose bands based on location and propagation
• Increased participation — many more serious entries with modest investment

SO2B keeps the challenge of SOAB but makes the competition more inclusive and dynamic for a wider operator base.

Conclusion

My “dream CQWW” would include the following changes:

• 36 hours of operating time within the 48-hour contest window
• Equal scoring for all contacts — 3 points per QSO
• A new category: SO2B – Single Operator, Two Bands
• Live score tracking during the contest

These changes would:

• Make the contest healthier
• Make it fairer
• Attract more serious participants
• Eliminate unfair geographical advantages
• Reignite enthusiasm, especially among younger generations

I invite the CQWW Committee to seriously consider these proposals and open the door to rule modernization. Our hobby has massive potential — let’s make it more accessible, healthier, and exciting for everyone.

73,
Ranko – 4O3A