[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL DX "Leveling, Handicapping, Equalizing"

To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] ARRL DX "Leveling, Handicapping, Equalizing"
From: "WW3S" <ww3s@zoominternet.net>
Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2011 14:53:28 -0400
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
why not do what golf does...publish a GROSS and NET score....

On 7/2/2011 1:30:55 PM, David Gilbert (xdavid@cis-broadband.com) wrote:
> Handicap systems have a lot of problems, especially if part of the goal
> of any potential rule change is to encourage more participation.   Any
> scoring system that says you need to participate for at least X number
> of years before you have a chance of placing high in the rankings sounds
> like a major disincentive to me.  The same would hold for any scoring
> system that discourages participation in different categories (high vs
> low power, single band vs all band, etc) from year to year.
> I do find the discussion on distance versus path to be interesting,
> though, and I even tried to come up with a way to use WRTC-type score
> normalization to reference
> everyone's scores to the highest score in
> their geographical area (state/province/section/country/whatever) but I
> wasn't
> clever enough to figure out how to translate that to a national
> or world ranking.  And even if I could, do we really want to normalize
> out the random acts of nature that in some years create bad propagation
> for one part of the country (or world) while leaving another part of the
> country (or world) unscathed?
> More and more, it seems to me that true USA national rankings of
> operator/station competence ar
CQ-Contest mailing list

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