Good morning,
This is a well rehearsed debate but the issues keep coming up and for those of
us who are concerned about the potential changes to our hobby, it is difficult
not to comment.
I am with Bill and Jim on this one.
A top SOSB unassisted entrant will not, ON AVERAGE, match the performance of
similarly located and equipped stations within a MM situation. Apart from the
definite and clear advantage (my opinion - I also believe there is evidence) of
having access to some sort of spotting network, MM stations also benefit
enormously from passing multipliers between bands, something the legit SOSB
cannot do.
Comparisons between SOAB-U and SOAB-ASS, or even SOSB and MM individual station
scores are very difficult in the context of this debate, since we are not
comparing like with like - the test does not control for operator skill,
station, location etc. Averages might help, taking a single year tells you
nothing.
There are many, many situations where spotting assistance WOULD increase your
score, over-riding any perceived disadvantage of arriving to find a
'packet-pile up' underway.
I was heartened and relieved to read that CQWW has no plans to drop the
unassisted category.
Keith GM4YXI (GM7V)
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Alfred Frugoli
Sent: 20 January 2010 03:11
To: Bill Tippett
Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] AN OPEN LETTER TO THE CQ CONTEST COMMITTEE
Bill,
Again, really? I'm not buying it in either theory, or looking at the mult
totals. For a top SOSB entrant, I would expect to see totals similar to a MM
because just like a MM, a SOSB entrant can be on that band for 48 hours
straight, working the weird short small openings that are not worth a SOAB
entrant chasing. In fact, the chart I just posted on my blog (
http://wp.me/pdJH2-1y) using CQWW SSB 2007 results shows that the world winner
SOSB entrants (who cannot use assistance) matched or beat the world winner MM
(who can use assistance) in mults. In reverse, I don't see the SOAB being able
to chase all those weird openings on all 6 contest bands and still be able to
keep the rate up on the primary band. I don't believe that SOAB mult totals
will ever rival those of SOAB or MM entries, even with lots of assistance. Big
MM stations have all 6 bands going during many hours of the contest. Unless we
start having SO6R stations, we're not going to see SOAB mult totals at the
level of MM entrants.
I also don't believe that "assistance" really helps you increase your score.
I think it does help you increase your DXCC and WAZ totals. Unless you've got
the antenna farm that KC1XX, K3LR or W3LPL have, once it's on packet, you're
too late, you're fighting the pile, not working the mult on the 1st call and
moving on to keep the rate up. A local skimmer might make a bigger difference
in the CW part of the event since you're seeing the "spot" before others who
get it on the "cluster", but we already have skimmer spots being fed into the
cluster network.
73 de Al, KE1FO
-----
Check out my Amateur Radio Contesting blog at ke1fo.wordpress.com.
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> N6TJ wrote:
>
> > (3) Of course, major crutches like packet and skimmers will make
> all past > records null and void. Single Operator - Assisted
> multiplier totals will > soon rival those of the Multi-multi
> submittals.
>
>
> KE1FO replied:
>
> > Really?
> > Seems like the numbers show that for the most part you're going to
> work the most mults by working the most q's, which you don't do when
> you're hunting down mults on packet. And even if you do work more
> mults by using packet, you won't work as many q's as the unassisted
> guy.
>
> Jim is correct about **multiplier** totals, although there is
> some truth in your latter comment regarding total score. I speak from
> personal experience in several SOSB/10 entries where a competitor
> consistently had 10m multiplier totals rivalling KC1XX/W3LPL/K3LR
> (N6TJ's premise). Even with that assistance, I was still able to beat
> him because of more QSO points. He was later reclassified to SOA (or
> totally removed) once the log checkers were on to him. It doesn't
> take rocket science to know something is fishy when an "unassisted"
> single op posts multiplier totals close to the Big 3.
>
> However, I do believe it would be easy to augment scores using
> spots only for rare mults. It would still require experience to know
> which might be worthy of chasing rather than simply having them come
> to you.
>
> 73, Bill W4ZV
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
The University of Aberdeen is a charity registered in Scotland, No SC013683.
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|