[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] How about ditching ARRL DX top 10 completely?

To: cq-contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] How about ditching ARRL DX top 10 completely?
From: Doug Smith W9WI <w9wi@earthlink.net>
Date: 07 Apr 2005 09:03:46 -0500
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 08:10, Scott R. wrote:
> determining factor in who "wins".  In lieu of rule changes to make the
> contest scoring based on the distance of contacts (which REALLY would
> help even out contest scoring - we have sophisticated computers and
> software, how hard could it be?), why not have the reporting done is a

I don't know that distance-based scoring really would even things out. 
I don't know that it would be that much different from a
geographically-based "handicapping" system that gives additional points
to people off the coast.

Would such a plan eliminate multipliers?  Operating from the west
reduces multiplier count as well as QSO count.  Just giving more QSO
points for longer-distance QSOs doesn't close the gap.

But that's just the tip of the iceberg.  Did 15 open to Europe only from
W1/W2?  W9 will need a pretty big distance multiplier on 20 to make up
for W2's 15m QSO/mult count.  Oh, but next year 15 didn't open at all? 
Oops, W9 got a correction for a problem that didn't exist...  

Point is that score does not vary linearly, smoothly, consistently, or
predictably with distance from Berlin.  I don't think you can even come

> fashion so that the regional results are what counts and the overall
> score totals don't make any difference?  

This is (IMHO) the right way to fix the issue.  It won't completely
eliminate inconsistencies (Jacksonville, FL and Jackson, AL are in the
same Division but the propagation is decidedly different) but it comes
reasonably close without changing the fundamental nature of the contest.
Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View (Nashville), TN  EM66

CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>