CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc

To: <PaulKB8N@aol.com>, "CQ Contest" <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] zero pointers etc
From: "Gerard Lynch" <gerrylynch@freenetname.co.uk>
Reply-to: Gerard Lynch <gerrylynch@freenetname.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:55:56 -0000
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <PaulKB8N@aol.com>

> I had a non-antenna on 160M that would not get me out of the state of 
> Texas
> if I was using it here, yet in Europe, I had almost 30 mults on that band.
> Countries like LX, HB, ON, PA. and a multitude of eastern bloc countries 
> were
> readily workable at 2 points each.

Er... not quite.  They were readily workable at *1* point each.  That's a 
big difference.  Only North America benefits from the 2-point 
intra-continental rule.

[Warning: Long rant follows]

I can understand the logic of this given that W dominates North America in 
terms of contesting population in a way that no other does... even JA 
doesn't even come close within Asia.  Or at least I can understand it for W 
stations - I can't understand why a VE or a C6 gets 2 points for working 
endless W stations next door, while I get 1 point for working DLs, or even 
more bizarrely a TA2 gets 1 point for working JAs half a world away.

Of course, there is always going to be a huge advantage in being just the 
other side of a boundary... which is why, of course, EA8, CN, CT3 and IH9 
are such good contesting locations.  3 points and a gaggle of multipliers on 
your doorstep and still with easy access to North America.  IH9 is simply 
the best location in the world for low band contesting, given the current 
points structure, with an endless supply of Europeans at 3 points a time, 
not to mention making easy meat of all the European multipliers.

Well, there we are.  That's life.  Contesting can't be an absolutely fair 
sport, and those who win maximise their advantages within the rules and 
scoring framework.  Sure, not everyone can travel to DX locations for a 
contest, but then again, some people live on the top of a mountain and 
others live in the bottom of a valley.  A station on the Asian side of 
Istanbul gets 0 points for working a station 2000km away on the Iranian 
border, only 1 point for working a station at the Eastern tip of Siberia 
8000km away on a difficult path, but 3 points for working a station on the 
other side of town who he can see from his shack window - maybe as little as 
2km away.  You could move the boundaries, you can change the points 
structure, you can try and make it as fair as possible but ultimately you'll 
still have people with big advantages from being just on the right side of a 
boundary.

And you can't change the laws of physics... the biggest densities of contest 
activity are in Europe and Eastern North America.  Someone stuck in the 
middle of the Pacific can't do anything about being on the wrong side of the 
pole and JA and W6 just don't make up the numbers.  Similarly, someone in JW 
can't do much about being crippled by Aurora (did you notice the rough AC 
note JW1CCA had this weekend?) while somebody in HC or YB will have great 
high bands propagation in the middle of the night.

Of course we could move to a points per kilometre scoring system like is 
used in Europe on VHF, with us all exchanging 6 character locators.  But 
then there would still be big advantages in being in some places... 
specifically dead South, and a long way South, of as much of Europe and 
Eastern North America as possible.  LUs would be unbeatable in that 
situation or maybe ZD8 would be the killer location.  Maybe it would be 
somewhere else, I'm just musing out loud.  But in any case, people would 
invest considerable time in effort in finding out where they could win from, 
just like they do at present.

Now, all this applies to CQ WW... now that USA stations (rightly) get a 
point for working each other in WPX I don't see the need for the double 
points bonus within North America in that contest.  Let's change *that* rule 
before we start tackling the more robust CQWW structure.  (Let the flames 
begin).

73

Gerry G0RTN
Vanity Page at http://www.gerrylynch.co.uk
"In days of old, when ops were bold, and sidebands not invented,
The word would pass, by pounding brass, and all were well contented." 

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

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