Here's an interesting set of figures I pulled from CQ Magazine which I
think backs up what David has been saying about there being a problem
with the scoring for those operating close to continental boundaries.
CQWW SSB 2008 results in the Single Op Single Band 80M High Power.....
EA8CMX 476,652 1264 27 105 (Op OH2BYS)
GI0KOW 414,392 2270 26 110
Can anyone really say it is fair that someone with a much larger QSO
total (almost 80% more) and higher overall mult total should finish
lower in the standings? I think this is the type of unfair result David
was referring to in the original message in this thread before the focus
got diverted.
In the interests of full disclosure, I was aware of this result before
this thread started because GI0KOW is a good friend of mine and I had an
interest in where he placed when the results came out as I used to
contest from his station in years gone by. That said, I have nothing
against OH2BYS and I'm just using this result as an example of what
David was referring to and could probably find other similar ones
instead if I did the research.
Vy 73,
Andrew AC6WI / GI0NWG
On 08/12/09 08:37, Kelly Taylor wrote:
> Marty,
> I think you may be getting a little overly ad hominem in your debating style
> here.
>
> Dave has never said his concerns are about guaranteeing a win. He has never
> said his concerns are ONLY about 6Y1V.
>
> He is simply raising some points that have occurred to me as well: namely,
> if I'm within line-of-sight with a station, should our QSO really count as
> DX? Why is a QSO across the Strait of Gibraltar worth more than a QSO from
> the northwest corner of B.C. to the southern tip of Florida?
>
> Indeed, one could say that those arguing in favour of the status quo are
> only arguing to maintain their competitive advantage. I'm not saying that's
> necessarily the case, but it does suggest that those who would try to throw
> stones at someone's motives may be living in glass houses.
>
> Sticking to a factual debate may be more difficult, but the results are
> certainly more worthwhile than being dismissive.
>
> 73, kelly
> ve4xt
>
>
>
> On 12/7/09 3:21 PM, "w1md@cfl.rr.com" <w1md@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Dave,
>>
>> I guess from the same place that N6TJ does...although Mr. Niger is much more
>> eloquent in his posting...and gets the sentiment of what I was trying to
>> say...only head said it more clearly (thanks Jim).
>>
>> FYI...never said "you" were comparing CQ to ARRL...read closely...and
>> building
>> a MEGA station does not automatically guarantee a win...which is I guess why
>> you are looking to change the rules...
>>
>> W1MD
>>
>> ---- David Kopacz <david.kopacz@aspwebhosting.com> wrote:
>>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|