[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Non-Assisted vs. Assisted

To: Stan Stockton <wa5rtg@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Non-Assisted vs. Assisted
From: "Martin , LU5DX" <lu5dx@lucg.com.ar>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 12:17:05 -0300
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Howdy Stan.

Thanks for your note.

Actually it is quite complex for me to explain well since I need to
translate my thoughts from Spanish to English and most of the time I'm
pretty sure I end up not saying exactly what I originally meant in my own

But let me try.

I really don't care much whether WRTC allows assistance during the
competition or not. It could be totally okay not to do so, since there is a
referee present during the whole contest at each of the 52 stations. So you
can really prove no one was using packet, phones, VHF links, whatsoever to
take and unfair advantage over the other competitors.

Now, during the qualifying run, there is no way at all for organizers to
prove that. In fact using or not using packet assistance has no impact in
causal or part time contesters at all, but it certainly has a big impact
where close races take place among top entrants.
E.g. Two SOAB pretty close to each other. One Ends up with 11 M the other
with 11.2. How can we tell none of them did not use packet even to find
5-10 mults over the weekend. If they are smart, we simply cannot tell at
all. Top notch contesters are indeed very smart people when it comes to
achieving more and more points.

With assisted being penalized respect to SO, of course ops avoid entering
that category and they enter SO. Some will "kill" for a spot in WRTC. Even
friends fight hard for a spot, using all possible means, like avoiding
competition and things like that. And of course some use packet, very
cleverly, to take an unfair advantage.

And you bring up a great point too! How come MS scores higher than SOAB(A).
 I usually come close to MS scores in my area or even higher like in
2012 CQ WWCW. MS teams consists of 4-6 ops also using packet. They can
achieve 1000 points and I get 800.  I train my brain, body to stay awake
during the whole test, take time off the job to be well rested for the
event, but still the fact that I use packet removes most of the merit of
what I and others do by entering SOAB(A).

I've been asking this to WRTC organizers since long ago. Some said, well MS
represents more "the spirit of WRTC" since it's a multi op
environment...well okay, but if you want to "mimic" the spirit of the
actual WRTC then make sure they don't use packet either...right? But that
is not the case.

So, all in all, it is just a bunch of forced arguments to penalize those
who honestly declare that they use dx spotting to determine when or where
to call a mult or not, and indirectly it impacts on WRTC itself, since you
cannot say all of the ops there did not use packet at all. Not only for
chasing mults, but also for a lot other activities packet or dx spots can
be used for: monitoring openings, monitoring the competition, finding less
crowded portions of the band, etc, etc.

About your statement about assisted involving less skills than SO to
achieve certain score,  it really depends on how you look at it. And it
really depends from where activity takes place. I can tell for sure it is a
lot easier to achieve a higher score SOAB from zone 13 than it is using
packet. It would really take long to explain, but the number of multipliers
involved (or better said available down here), the hour of opening to
certain locations, etc., make it easier for you to fully concentrate on
running and passing mults calling you than actually devoting time to
calling big packet generated pile ups.

Packet presents you a a lot of information, but you still need to be very
careful at how you take advantage of it. In some cases reducing focus on
the running aspect of the operation is detrimental to the score, so there
is a balance that is really hard to maintain, you need to know a whole lot
about the details of propagation, to make sure you don't waste time calling
a mult that's showing in the band map that may be really easy to work half
an hour later.

If you ask me, in my case SO is a lot simpler than SOAB(A). Again, this is
my case. To me tuning the second radio's VFO and working what I hear quite
loud is a lot simpler than having a bunch of information and deciding what
is best for the operation. In fact lots of mults (juicy muts) are found
easier during my operations, not by looking at the band map, but tuning the

Nonetheless, if you put two good ops side by side, one with packet and one
without it. The one using it will be able to make a difference (even a
small difference) in the long run. If you put one good op and one average
op. The good one without packet and the average one using it; the Single op
will still certainly beat the one with spotting assistance.

Vy 73.

Martin, LU5DX

On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Stan Stockton <wa5rtg@gmail.com> wrote:

> Martin,
> I wonder why you believe it is a mistake for assisted to be "penalized"
> relative to unassisted?  I would agree you would have a point if you also
> thought the WRTC competition should include assistance.
> The fact is that an operator with less ability will score closer to a
> better operator if both use assistance than if neither uses assistance.
>  Running stations on one radio, working new stations and new multipliers on
> another, and moving stations from one band to another takes a lot more
> skill than clicking on spots that are loaded by skimmer and knocking them
> off one after the other.  As the activity is automated or includes the
> ability to point and shoot, the station's antenna performancat relative to
> pure operator talent becomes more and more important.
> The WRTC allows up to six qualifying entries (half) with full points in
> the MS category where the operator can use assistance and actually doesn't
> even have to make but one contact in a winning effort for it to count.  It
> should be relatively easy to get half the maximum number of points needed.
>  At some point in time, however, the successful qualifier has to prove
> him/herself as a by doing well without the assistance of skimmers and
> packet in a few contests.
> 73...Stan, K5GO
> Sent from my iPad
> On Jan 31, 2013, at 5:41 AM, "Martin , LU5DX" <lu5dx@lucg.com.ar> wrote:
> > Big big mistake by WRTC committee.
> > But well, they rule the game.
> > There are creepy situations about this.
> > Too sad.
> >
> > 73.
> >
> > Martin, LU5DX
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 12:04 AM, <kenlow7@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>> From: Hal Kennedy <halken@comcast.net>
> >>>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Hal Kennedy wrote:>
> >>>> Meanwhile, it is accepted that to date the best SO (A)
> >>>> scores continue to besomewhat below the best SO scores.
> >>
> >> Hal -
> >>
> >> There's an easy 4-letter explanation for that:  W-R-T-C.
> >>
> >> As long as the WRTC qualifying rules penalize Assisted entries, there's
> no
> >> way the top guys will choose that category for their Single-Op efforts.
> >> This has been the case ever since people recognized WRTC was a truer
> test
> >> of operating ability since there is a referee present at all times.
> >>
> >> In recent years, several excellent SO2R operators have already
> >> demonstrated what happens when they enter Assisted in a major 48-hour
> >> contest:  the multiplier count increases by 20% and they blow away the
> >> Unassisted entries.
> >>
> >> 73,
> >>
> >> Ken KE3X
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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

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