[Top] [All Lists]


Subject: Ratings
From: 0004146960@mcimail.com (Adam S. Kerner)
Date: Wed Jun 9 16:51:00 1993
     Ah, summer-time, and things do warm up!  A coupla reflections on the
recent      rating system discussion. 
     I think that the idea of recognition is important.  For two reasons: 
First, as      Jim said, what's the point of a piece of paper taped to the
wall, if nobody sees      it??  (I remember a sign in the head at an office I
used to work in:  "Working      here is liking wetting your pants in a blue
suit.....It gives you a warm feeling      inside but no one notices").  Perhaps
the NCJ would be a possibility.  Perhaps      a newsletter format to dues
payers (rated players).  The second reason is that      strategically it's
important to know who the other competitors are in your      category.  This
would be listed in the newsletter, and would obviously change      with each
contest as people shuffled around in the ratings. 
     I really hadn't given much thought to people moving down in the ratings. 
Is      this important?  If you've been a winner in your category before,
should you      be able to "sandbag" a few contests to get a "killer rating"? 
Or if      business/family/etc. keep you off the air for a season, should you
enter at a      lower rating than you've already been proven at when you get
back on the air? 
     Perhaps ARRL sections and countries is not the right breakdown.  States?
Call      areas for US/VE/JA?  I don't have a good feel for the grid fields
suggestion.      Does this seem like the right breakdown?  The nice thing about
using the more      commonly established fields is that the results can be
picked up from the      existing contest results, simplifying contestant
     It does seem that some means of pre-qualification to a higher level than
cat. 4      should be considered.  It would be easy to submit past results at
time      registration in order to be placed.  Mebbe by percentile in the
contests used      for scoring?  This could be used during the start-up period.
 After the thing      gets rolling, all would enter at cat. 4.  If you're good,
you'll move up. 
     As far as contests go, I kinda like Eric's suggestion.  WW, WPX, ARRLDX   
  plus "continental" tests.  State QSO parties, great fun, but too small a
region      for a qualifier. 
     As N0AX said, this is not to level the playing field.  The idea is not to
have      K1AR or W7XR say "another tower, nah, why bother, it'll just penalize
my      rating and make it that much tougher to win".  The idea is to get all
to      compete in the same contests, while creating a sort of secondary,
global      contest which spans contest to contest and year to year. 
     As far as the attitutide of just being happy with personal goal
realization, I      can't think of any truly competitive sport where the idea
of winning does not      enter the equation of "what's the point?"  By
definition, competitions have      winners and losers.  If we just wanted to
reach personal goals, DXCC would      do it.  Sure, personal goals are
important.  But so is recognition for reaching      those goals, and in
competition, this is WINNING.  This system might give      each of us a chance
to compete against other contesters of proven similar      capability, while
still playing on the same field as those with both more and      less
resources/time/skill/etc.      / 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Ratings, Kris Mraz
    • Ratings, Adam S. Kerner <=