If it were not for the times when we get good rate contesting would be a
bore!
Nothing like running 300+ an hour from the Carib in the ARRL DX Test..WOW
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jim Smith
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 6:02 PM
Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] 1 pointers for CQWW - More data
A little pistol VE's perspective. No opinion - just a couple of thoughts
60% of my Q's (311 out of 517) were with W's. 230 of them were made in the
last 3 hours. I find contesting a lot more fun when making Q's than when
I'm not (which is a lot of the time). So, for me, it's a real rush just
running W's at the end.
I would venture to say that there are probably lots of W small pistols who
would love to be able to do the same, just for the sake of making lots of
Qs. So, if the W-W Q was worth 1 point, I think we'd see a lot more small
pistol W's trying to run and having a better time than they do now. Would
that be a good thing? For them it would. However, with a bunch more W's
running, it might make it harder to hear the DX. As always, a change is
better for some folks and worse for others.
73, Jim VE7FO
Richard L. King wrote:
>Re-read my post Ken. We actually made a lot more than 300 USA to USA
>QSOs, 613 to be exact. As I said, it was 19% of our total QSOs made.
>
>And yes, I would expect to make more QSOs if the 1 point rule was
>implemented. But since it would effect everyone equally, I don't see
>any major scoring changes shifting to the mid-west. It would just
>eliminate a real contest oddity where you are forced to work USA to USA
>QSOs and not get any value from it other than 6 multipliers.
>
>I can't ethically refuse to work those people since I may be a mult for
them.
>
>73, Richard
>
>At 19:30 11/30/2005, Kenneth E. Harker wrote:
>
>
>>On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 04:54:19PM +0000, Richard King K5NA wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I took this one step further and gave each of the USA QSOs one QSO
>>>point and recalculated our score. This brought our score to the 5.2M
>>>point range. This was not enough for us to catch W4MYA and move up a
>>>notch in the M/M scoring. Our place in the 3830 standings stayed
>>>exactly the same, at 10th place.
>>>
>>>So tell me again how getting 1 QSO point for every same country QSO
>>>is going to dramatically alter the flavor of the CQWW Contest. But
>>>this time try to convince me with some real data.
>>>
>>>
>>If USA-USA QSOs were worth one point apiece, you'd make a lot more
>>than 300 USA-USA QSOs during the weekend.
>>
>>--
>>Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
>>kenharker@kenharker.com
>>http://www.kenharker.com/
>>
>>
>
>k5na@texas.net
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|