I agree... cqww is what it is and hopefully will stay that way. NO, it is
not 'fair' if you compare stations around the world. But then again much of
life is not 'fair'. No, it is not possible to level the playing field world
wide, nor should it be. The rules are what they are and we, the
participants, have accepted them and have had many years of fun with them...
and hopefully will for many more years. If you don't like the rules, or
think you are being discriminated against in some way, go find another
playground... join the extreme cw contest, or make up your own contest with
points scored however you want, just leave cqww alone!
David Robbins K1TTT
AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://dxc.k1ttt.net
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:cq-contest-
> email@example.com] On Behalf Of firstname.lastname@example.org
> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 00:09
> To: CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] It Is What It Is
> > CQWW has evolved in a manner that first of all ensures it's
> > survival by not giving one group an overwhelming advantage over any
> other, but
> > it also affords opportunities for winning scores if you choose a
> > strategic location. No, it is not perfect, and I know of no way that it
> ever will be.
> > Simply, it is what it is.
> > Paul, K5AF
> Did you read what you wrote? :-)
> Like, uhm contradicting yourself and proving the point that we are not
> looking for ideal, fairest contest in CQ WW but for scoring system that
> would eliminate gross lopsided scoring. Have you looked what people get
> for the same amount of QSOs and multipliers from US, NA, NAf, N SA ?
> Notion that this will turn into the (US) QSO party is just as ridiculous.
> Did WPX turned into one? It would just give us sane scoring system that
> reduces gross inequalities and allows stations on low bands to work
> somebody for points instead of spending 1 hour to work 5 stations and half
> of them ZEROES (pointers).
> >Others argued<
> "You would work "stateside QSO party"
> Like we are so stoooopid to work 1 pointer US stations instead of "juicy"
> 3 pointers DX? Gimme a break.
> Another question, how many make more QSOs on the second day in CQ WW than
> on first? My experience is that I make about half. Wouldn't you rather
> still work some "QSO Partiers" instead, for "lousy" one point, rather than
> deflecting them? Look to WPX, it became more fun and participation and
> popularity jumped.
> I am some times dazzled by some of the "ham radio logic", maybe I have
> been for too long away from it to understand it?
> Can some understand that CQ WW DX evolved from "some contest" to work DX,
> into major unofficial world championship (with skewed scoring system that
> discriminates against countries with large ham population). This is why it
> DESERVES to be improved by adjusting the scoring to 1-2-3 pointers.) Think
> why? (Help: because most can work most everybody and get even lopsided
> points for it.) The 9, 33 etc. Zoners will still have advantage due to
> propagation and 30% more points, but not 60% like now.
> Europeans (and everybody else) also deserve 2 points for own continent
> Oh, and if CQ WW CC doesn't read the CQ-Contest reflector, than what are
> we doing talking about all this? Better go watch the real time scoring
> Yes, we are bringing this up, because most serious contesters see the
> lopsided scoring system that does not reflect the prestige and purpose of
> this world's best contest with archaic scoring system.
> 73 Yuri, K3BU
> Oh, and congratulations to IG9C for winning "All Time Most Spotted Single
> Band Station K1TTT Trophy".
> Seems Lampedusa has something strange going on for it esp. on 160.
> I bet he was SO un-ass-isted :-)
> CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest mailing list