2C:\wrtc6
Dear WRTC,
1. The latest proposal from the WRTC committee is a BIG step in the
right direction. It is much fairer. However, Europe/JA and USA are
not the same.
1. The USA is one country in NA.(31% of all QSO's in CQWW)
2. JA is one country in AS. (23% of all QSO's in CQWW)
3. Europe is many countries (34% of all QSO's in CQWW)
12% = rest of the world.
So choosing teams from JA and USA can not be the same as Europe.
The other QSO contributer from NA is VE. The rest of NA and AS
account for a small % of QSO's.
USA:
If the contest results are the only method of choosing teams then
only the NE USA will have teams. I agree with WA8YVR comments.
The reason that "the East appears" to have good operators is that
they are the only ones who can win in the major contests. There are
equally talented contesters in W7, W6, W0, W8 etc as there are in
MA, CT, MD and NH.
I once asked a constant top 10 USA CQ WW contester to trade places
with me. I said, you come to CA and operate at the best station you
can find I will go to MA and operate with a tribander + 2 on 40.
Then we will see if you still win. The answer is obvious. He stayed
in MA.
JA:
The same geographic advantage exists in JA. JA8,JA7,JA0,JA5 > rest
The scheme of using various international contests is a good one.
So choose winners of CALL AREAS in the USA and JA. It makes for
good feelings and is more representative of the true talent pool.
A second etc. team from a deserving call area should be considered
possible.
Of course there are other areas of NA than the US so add 2 or 3
other teams.
2. Europe: what do europeans think? Has anyone asked those guys?
3. Change the deadline.
Tks especially to the guys that have to "do the right thing".
Congrats to Howard W6AXX on winning a TROPHY in the CQWW! I bet you
did't know yet.
Good Job WRTC committee
73 Bob K3EST
>From Norton, Richard" <nortonr@MRD.SRL.dsto.gov.au Thu Sep 15 01:35:00 1994
From: Norton, Richard" <nortonr@MRD.SRL.dsto.gov.au (Norton, Richard)
Subject: WRTC Team Selection Criteria
Message-ID: <2E7796D8@msmail.dsto.gov.au>
I personally thank the WRTC committee for fielding input from others and
responding positively to it. Most of us realize that putting an event like
this on is no small amount of work.
Regarding team selection, after reading K3NA's latest proposal a few times,
and reformulating what I have written a few times, my opinions are:
1) It ain't bad.
2) I don't think it is necessary to have such a detailed structure for team
selection, but it's ok. With the overall goals set forth, I think the
committee can use its judgement in rearranging the balance of teams, add or
subtract a few teams, or whatever.
3) The concept of team mates choosing each other is good.
However,
4) I have heard the comment, "How would you like it, if the contest were
held in UA land, and the UAs got to pick the team representing the USA?" I
think, last time, national societies and/or contest groups in other
countries were solicited to designate teams. I think it worked reasonably
well, and should be considered for at least some of the teams this time.
5) There is no way to eliminate subjectivity in team selection. Even if
published results are used, you have subjectively discounted location and
station, two of the most important ingredients in contest outcome. If you
assign a black hole multiplier, you are being subjective. I don't know how
to compare the performance of JAs with 4Xs in any contest. It's ok to be
somewhat subjective. There is no other way.
For example, if I were going to rate operators, I might consider the
following items:
a) Overall contest management strategy skills
b) Callsign identification skills
c) Operating coordination skills
d) Situation assessment skills
e) CQing - pile up management skills
f) Search-and-pounce calling skills
Some pretty big contests can be won without d) and f), if you are in the
right location, and are good at CQing. In fact the Sprint is probably the
only contest in which a balance of these skills is tested, and there are
good operators who do not operate it. Even if these 6 components were rated
accurately, to produce an overall number 1, you would need to weigh the
components, which is subjective.
I have an opinion on how I would rate the skills of many operators, but it
is certainly subjective.
I would like to see representatives of geographically disadvantaged areas
there. My final suggestion may eliminate the problem.
6) The phone or CW issue still concerns me, and might be given a little
thought even with respect to team selection. Keep in mind:
a) There are some pretty good phone operators who essentially do not
know the code.
b) People whose primary language is not English, or have not had
significant exposure to English far in excess of what amateur radio contests
may provide, have a severe handicap on phone. People whose primary language
differs markedly from English, such as Japanese, will get blown out of the
water, far worse than their skill may deserve.
Generally, contests are either CW or phone. It is tough to balance these two
items in a one multiop event. I don't like the previously proposed method,
because of b). I hesitate to recommend a weighting like K3EST's 3:1 in favor
of CW.
I also hesitate to suggest that some of the teams could be phone and others
CW. Then there would be two winners. Some would want a combined category,
and were back where we started, except with 3 winners.
I don't have a good answer.
7) Unsponsored entrants? If you still use home stations, which I think
should at least be required to all use something like UA1DZ antennas
(whatever they are. Hey, what are they?) at some designated height only to
somewhat equalize them, then I'd suggest that any team who didn't get
selected could enter as an unsponsored entrant. If they found another nearby
station themselves, or set up on the shores of the Potomac, and all they
required from the WRTC was judging of their entry, I'd let them participate
as on-site entrants. This would take heat off the selection committee. The
worst they could do to a guy was make him set up himself , a not too
difficult task.
73,
Dick N6AA
new E-mail address (in 2 days): ae327@LAFN.ORG
>From Peter G. Smith" <n4zr@netcom.com Wed Sep 14 10:25:31 1994
From: Peter G. Smith" <n4zr@netcom.com (Peter G. Smith)
Subject: RFI proof phones
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9409140217.A12767-0100000@netcom12>
Darn! Spoke too soon. I can't find the file. Can anyone out there to
whom I sent the FCC report file 3-4 months ago help both me and Fred my
e-mailing it to us?
73, Pete
N4ZR@netcom.com
"Better, faster,cheaper -- choose any two"
On Tue, 13 Sep 1994, Fred Cady ieefc@msu.oscs.montana.edu wrote:
> Hi Pete, your are a veritble fountain of information, thanks. I have
> not seen the FCC report but several others have mentioned it. I would
> appreciate a copy. Thanks, Fred
>
>From Field, Don" <field@btq2ec.igw.bt.co.uk Wed Sep 14 12:31:00 1994
From: Field, Don" <field@btq2ec.igw.bt.co.uk (Field, Don)
Subject: WRTC team selection
Message-ID: <2E76DF42@smtpgate.agw.bt.co.uk>
I have been following the debate about WRTC rules and team selection with
interest and not a little wry amusement.
While I applaud the thought of trying to level the playing field as much as
possible, much of the rules debate is irrelevant. There are pros and cons
concerning most rules, and no ideal answer. For example, choosing CW to
avoid giving English speakers an advantage has some benefits, but does
nothing about producing a world champion who is an all-rounder. Insisting
that phone operators all use Esperanto (anybody remember Esperanto?) might
level the language playing field, but not many QSOs will be made! Perhaps we
need to decide what sort of "World Champions" we are actually looking for.
No wonder most Olympic sports have many medals for different categories -
top athlete? top runner? top 200m runner? Different types of champion,
different criteria. Top contester? top CW contester? top non-radio contester
(PED etc)? All valid, all different.
But then, that's part of contest strategy. A good all-round contest operator
is one who recognises that no two contests are the same, either in their
rules or in the propagation which prevails at different times of the year,
and develops a strategy to make the most of what is on offer. A contest
operator who treats all contests the same will never make it to the top. My
recommendation would be to decide fairly quickly what the rules will be, and
then let the teams select themselves to meet the challenge (for example, if
Eric decides, quite reasonably perhaps (?) that in this digital age the
contest modes will be PACTOR and SSTV (gets over the language problems
and friends recognising your voice/fist problems quite nicely!) there is
little point in selecting the best CW ops ....!).
Which brings me on to team selection. It is all very well trying to achieve
some carefully crafted balance, but reality has to prevail. there is no
obvious mechanism for selecting teams by CQ zone, ITU zone, degree of
political correctness, or whatever. However, there ARE mechanisms in place
for selecting teams on a country basis in that all countries have a national
society (and run national contests). Why do the contest organisers have to
lay down the selection criteria which there are no means for applying on the
ground? Why can't decisions be made locally through organisations already in
place? In any case, there are some very practical criteria which have yet to
be aired. I got involved last time round in helping find a team to represent
the UK. Many of my "ideal" candidates were unable to make themselves
available due to work or other commitments, were unable to raise the funds,
or were simply not interested. Fortunately, those who did come forward
included a handful of the UK's very best contesters and we were able to field
a team (G3YDV and G4BUO) who put in an extremely creditable performance.
So, let's know the rules, and then leave it to the locals to select the best
team available in the circumstances.
Don G3XTT
field@btq2ec.igw.bt.co.uk
|