CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Is it time to reevaluate CQWW Scoring Rules?

To: "Martin Durham" <w1md@cfl.rr.com>, <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Is it time to reevaluate CQWW Scoring Rules?
From: "David Kopacz" <david.kopacz@aspwebhosting.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2009 10:21:17 -0600
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Martin,

I am amazed. Where do you come up with this stuff?

"If you focused as much effort on 'having fun' as you do on trying to
make changes to the rules...Man, I can only imagine how much fun you'd
be having"

How many contests have I operated from 6Y1V? A dozen or more. 

How many complaints have I made about the scoring? One.

I have plenty of fun. Having fun doesn't preclude an effort to evaluate
and possibly change a scoring system that induces an unfair advantage
based solely upon location rather than skill.

You mention a scoring system that has worked well for many years, but
when you really examine the scores across many years, you see the real
picture. The same guys wining over nad over based on location, not
necessarily skill. There are many examples of this other than the one
that I chose. Look at the European scores. In M2 alone, there have been
scores from Europe that have more Q's and more multipliers but are 7th
8th and lower in the standings simple because they must work other
europeans and get only 1 points for these contacts.

I never compared this contest with ARRL, not would I. I am not saying
the scoring needs to be setup like ARRL or WAE, I am meerely saying it
needs to be examined, and adjustments could be made to "level the
playing field" so that guys like Andy, who work hard and clearly out
perform their competitor, can win.

You state " I go to V26 for ARRL because it is closer to the US than PJ2
and P40...but it's not as close as 6Y1V...and you guys have the
advantage...big time...on the lower bands...but we don't complain about
it."

There's nothing to complain about here. The scoring is fair. PJ2T has
beat us. We have beat them. We beat you not because of scoring, but
because of antennas. If you were to erect a stack of 40 meters yagis,
install an 80 meter four square and a 160 meter full size delta loop at
140', you would compete with us very well. 

In CQWW it's a diffierent story. Look how much effort it took us to
barely beat PJ2T. It's absurd. The gap is huge and it's that way all
around the world, not just the Caribbean. If you can't see this, then I
am sorry. There's really no point in further "discussions" with you.

I have received dozens of emails form people that agree with me. The
system needs adjustment. Someone has to bring it up. It might as well be
me!

By the way, nice job at NQ4I. I am always rooting for Rick and his team!

David ~ KY1V



-----Original Message-----
From: David Kopacz [mailto:david.kopacz@aspwebhosting.com] 
Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 8:42 PM
To: Martin Durham
Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Is it time to reevaluate CQWW Scoring Rules?

Next you said...

"Stop beating a dead horse...if you want to make a 'play' for revamping
the
rules for CQWW then use another argument"

There is no other argument. Not everyone can operate from the limited 3
point islands, nor can we put, or should we put, 10 or 15 stations on
one of
them.

My argument wasn't about whether or not they knew the rules or
consequences,
my argument is much more simple.

One operator outperformed the other and lost. Because of which location
you
say "he chose" is not a good reason to lose.

The scoring system is not fair, has never been fair and needs to be
re-evaluated. I simply used this one case as an example. There are
dozens
more just like it.

So again, I say your statement is ludicrous. The problem IS the scoring
system sucks!

Sincerely, 

David Kopacz, CTO
Rational Certified Developer, MCSE+I 

ASPwebhosting.com, LLC
Microsoft Certified Partner
4044 Fort Campbell Blvd, #308, Hopkinsville, Kentucky 42240
1.888.277.9320
U.S. & Canada
1.502.410.2922 International 

SIP: dial@freecall.aspwebhosting.com 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: 
The information contained in this electronic transmission is PRIVILEGED
and
CONFIDENTIAL information intended only to be viewed by the individual,
entity or entities named as recipient(s). You are hereby notified that
any
dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly
prohibited and a violation of your service agreement. If you have
received
this communication in error, please notify ASPwebhosting.com, LLC
immediately by electronic mail or by telephone and permanently delete
this
message from your computer.


-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Durham [mailto:w1md@cfl.rr.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 7:22 PM
To: David Kopacz
Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Is it time to reevaluate CQWW Scoring Rules?

Dave,

Nowhere did I say "just because something "is""...makes it right. What I
said was that V47NT and EF8M both understood the rules and scoring of
the
contest prior to going to their respective 'corners' and competing...

Tell me how THAT is ludicrous...

v/r

Marty
W1MD

-----Original Message-----
From: David Kopacz [mailto:david.kopacz@aspwebhosting.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 6:44 PM
To: w1md@cfl.rr.com
Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Is it time to reevaluate CQWW Scoring Rules?

You argument is ludicrous.

Just because something IS, doesn't make it right!


Sincerely, 

David Kopacz, CTO
Rational Certified Developer, MCSE+I 

ASPwebhosting.com, LLC
Microsoft Certified Partner
4044 Fort Campbell Blvd, #308, Hopkinsville, Kentucky 42240
1.888.277.9320
U.S. & Canada
1.502.410.2922 International 

SIP: dial@freecall.aspwebhosting.com 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: 
The information contained in this electronic transmission is PRIVILEGED
and
CONFIDENTIAL information intended only to be viewed by the individual,
entity or entities named as recipient(s). You are hereby notified that
any
dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly
prohibited and a violation of your service agreement. If you have
received
this communication in error, please notify ASPwebhosting.com, LLC
immediately by electronic mail or by telephone and permanently delete
this
message from your computer.


-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of w1md@cfl.rr.com
Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 2:40 PM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Is it time to reevaluate CQWW Scoring Rules?

It's "fair" because BOTH parties new exactly what they were up against
BEFORE the contest started.

Stop beating a dead horse...if you want to make a 'play' for revamping
the
rules for CQWW then use another argument. When folks go to 2pt. land vs.
3pt. land they know before the contest starts that they are going to be
disadvantaged. You knew it before you decided to invest in 6y1v...

W1MD


---- David Kopacz <david.kopacz@aspwebhosting.com> wrote: 
> "And if now V47NT wants to win the world he should go to a 3 pts 
> country. "
> 
> Yes, this is a great idea! Let's simply move all the best operators
and
> stations to 3 point countries. I can see it now.
> 
> 25 station on P40, 32 station on PJ2 and 45 on EA8. This makes great 
> sense.
> 
> I never stated that EU stations should continue to only get one point 
> for EU QSO's while Caribbean stations continue to get 2 points each
QSO.
> Ask any US station if they are frustrated getting 0 points for "in 
> country" QSO's. I merely made a simple observation that V47NT out 
> performed EF8M and lost. How is this fair?
> 
> This was just ONE observation. There are many more. I simply do not 
> think that one person should have an unfair advantage over another 
> simply because he chooses to go to a 3 point location. Do you have any

> idea how much work it is to set up a station on a remote island? I can

> tell you just getting the equipment there and clearing customs was a 
> major undertaking! Think about clearing a jungle on the side of a hill

> and then jack hammering through volcanic rock to put up 6 towers and
guy
> anchors. This is no small task.
> 
> I could move the 6Y1V station to PJ2 P40 CT3 EA8 HC8, but how much fun

> would that be for those people already there or for everyone else 
> working those more rare multipliers? I am quite certain that everyone
in
> Europe pointing their yagis to NA enjoys working a handful of
Caribbean
> stations over the thousands of US stations on the band. Think how much

> fun it would be next year if instead of logging PJ2T 6Y1V and V47NT,
you
> instead log PJ2T, PJ2V and PJ2NT.
> 
> Think about it, how many stations do you think could operate from HC8 
> before the multiplier is diluted? I suggest if I moved 6Y1V there, 
> neither HC8N nor my station HC8V would win a contest simply because 
> people wouldn't make an effort to work both of us. Once they worked on

> station for the multiplier the other station would be ignored.
> 
> Telling people to choose a 3 point location is NOT the answer. Making 
> small adjustments to the scoring in order to level the playing field
so
> the same stations aren't always winning year after year when they are 
> clearly not making the most QSO's and multipliers is more appropriate.
> 
> David ~ KY1V
>       
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

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