Be careful what you ask for Rick. You purport to want to level the playing
field (something which really can never be done). In fact, you're going to
make a perceived disadvantage even worse. If you allow one point for in
country QSOs, I can guarantee you that KC1XX, W3LPL, and K3LR are going to have
an absolute field day (literally) on 40 and 80 meters working W1s, W2s, W3s,
W8s, W4s, and W9s all afternoon long. Our bread and butter in the Sweeps is
on 40 and 80 meters. It would only get worse when it comes to aggregate score.
73 Rich NN3W
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Dougherty NQ4I" <nq4i@contesting.com>
To: "Ken Claerbout" <k4zw@comcast.net>; <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 7:34 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW and 0 pointers
> Hi Ken...nice analysis, but you have missed the mark...the two cases stated
> are not as representative as the past 10 years worth of contest data...I
> have historically had more zero pointers than anyone...why??
>
> I am loud in the NE US...my first hop I am guessing is in that area.....my
> competition is beaming EU also and they have that area to the rear of their
> antennas...its fairly obvious that I will make more zero pointers than they
> will...
>
> For me to beam JA, I have my first hop in the NW US...another disadvantage
> but not as serious as the NE US...
>
> Its really not about leveling the playing field for me to compete with the
> NE M-M's...its really more about making qso's and not getting any credit!
> Plain and simple...
>
> Sure there is some dead air time when we cq and are not productive...but
> even 50% of my previous post is a reasonable number and that 3 hours+.....it
> sure would be nice to have an extra 3 hours to work some more dx!
>
> I think the post by W4NZ hits the whole issue square on the head!
>
> de Rick nq4i
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ken Claerbout" <k4zw@comcast.net>
> To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2007 11:56 PM
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] CQWW and 0 pointers
>
>
>> >it would go a long ways toward leveling the playing field with my NE
>> >M-M's....a great
>>>example of this is how much more fairer the cqwpx contest has become since
>>>they give one points for same country....what it really will fall back to
>>>is
>>>that this is still a dx contest...until I can work as many as the other
>>>M-M's, we will still be playing catch up....but if I had 6.25 more hours
>>>to
>>>find and work other stations my score would also reflect that...go figure?
>>
>> There are a couple of problems with this simple analysis.
>>
>>
>>
>> 1.) The numbers given are not put in any context relative to the
>> competition. In the 2006 CQWW DX SSB contest, NQ4I had about 800 zero
>> point US QSO's. K3LR (#1 high claimed and beacon station on all bands),
>> had approximately 640 zero pointers. Roughly a delta of 160 zero point
>> QSOs. In the 2006 CQWW CW contest, NQ4I had roughly 390 zero point US
>> QSO's and W3LPL (#1 high claimed and another beacon station) had
>> approximately 440 zero point US stations. In this case a delta of about
>> 50 QSO's to LPL's supposed disadvantage.
>>
>> 2.) If these zero pointers are wasting time that would otherwise be
>> spent working something for point value, then the contact would have to be
>> made during medium to peak rate periods. No doubt that is the case for
>> some percentage of the overall total. But, I'll bet a lot of the zero
>> point QSO's are also followed by one or more CQ's before the next station
>> is worked. Anyone who has operated at a multi-multi knows there are a lot
>> of slow periods especially as you wait for bands to open or, on bands that
>> are not very active at this point in the sunspot cycle (10 & 15 meters for
>> example). Rates the second day are almost always slower than the first
>> too.
>>
>>
>>
>> If someone wants to make the case that these QSO's should have a point
>> value because working them is senseless or a PITA, then fine. (I
>> certainly don't support it though) But, if you want to claim it should be
>> done because it would level the playing field with the Northeast
>> multi-multi's, I don't think the data is there to support it. At least
>> not to the extent it is being portrayed.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ken K4ZW
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
|