Hi Martin,
Unfortunately I didn?t write that down in my Excel sheet, but I believe they
were mostly (probably all) zone 9.
I agree about the zones, it?s the same with EU: zone 14 is not the same as
15 & 16, and for NA, zone 8 is not the same as z3-5, etc.
But for now, I?d like to focus on the narrow topic of the artificial NA
exception to the rules. Apart from that exception the rules are the same for
everybody, and some locations are better than others.
73
Kim
From: monsalvo@gmail.com [mailto:monsalvo@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Martin ,
LU5DX
Sent: 7. huhtikuuta 2014 21:59
To: Kim Östman
Cc: CQ-Contest
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] The two/four-point rule in WPX
Hi Kim.
What zone in SA are you referring as to being in the top spots?
Zone 9 is certainly not the same as zone 12, 13.
73
Martin, LU5DX
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Kim Östman <kim.ostman@tut.fi
<mailto:kim.ostman@tut.fi> > wrote:
Hi Dave,
Thanks for your thoughts. To move beyond impressions, let's take a look at
what the data say.
I combed through the WPX results articles for 2005-2013, i.e., all that are
currently available at cqwpx.com <http://cqwpx.com> . To make sure we only
look at serious
entries, I included only the categories that can with certainty be said to
be very competitive throughout most of the world: SOAB HP, SOAB LP, and
SOSB10-160 HP, all unassisted.
During 2005-2013, the number of top spots (total: 9 x 8 = 72) has been
divided by continent as follows:
AF: 18
AS: 2
EU: 18
NA: 6
OC: 4
SA: 24
Of the EU top spots, 15/18 are in SOSB80 and SOSB160, which clearly do favor
the high station concentration in EU. However, that means that ONLY 3 are
actually left for EU in the other, more competitive categories.
In the SOAB HP category, which is arguably the toughest and most respected,
we have the following number of top-5 finishes per continent:
AF: 12
AS: 3
EU: 1
NA: 15
OC: 4
SA: 10
North America with its 2/4-point exception has 15 top-5 finishes, i.e., the
most, and 4 of them are victories. Europe has *only one* top-5 finish, and
let's just say that it's not because of a lack of trying. Asia and Oceania
don't fare much better.
=> EU is not the place to be for the most serious WPX efforts.
The QSO-point rule based on the continental divide is flawed and needs a
fix, as we all know. But when the North American contest sponsor tries to
tweak that big "wrong" by maintaining a second "wrong" that rigs the whole
game in favor of a select few? In political science there's a name for that
type of system.... :)
73
Kim OH6KZP
-----Original Message-----
Kim,
After reading your email I thought that surely if EU stations labored under
such a disadvantage that they must rarely achieve first place world scores
in their chosen category. So I looked at the 2013 results and --
lo-and-behold -- European stations predominate in first place world
finishes! Are we talking a bout the same contest? See:
www.cqwpx.com/results_2013_wpx_ssb_article.pdf
<http://www.cqwpx.com/results_2013_wpx_ssb_article.pdf>
Tell me again what your complaint is, because the results indicate the EU
is the place to be for this contest if one's goal is world-high. South
America works for some categories, Caribbean and Africa third, USA dead
last.
Dave K3ZJ
-----Original Message-----
From: Kim Östman [mailto:kim.ostman@tut.fi <mailto:kim.ostman@tut.fi> ]
Sent: 6. huhtikuuta 2014 21:04
To: 'cq-contest@contesting.com <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com> ';
'director@cqwpx.com <mailto:director@cqwpx.com> '
Subject: RE: The two/four-point rule in WPX
To clarify, my two questions are related specifically to WPX. No need to
rehash the CQWW discussion. Sorry!
73
Kim
-----Original Message-----
From: Kim Östman [mailto:kim.ostman@tut.fi <mailto:kim.ostman@tut.fi> ]
Sent: 6. huhtikuuta 2014 15:10
To: 'cq-contest@contesting.com <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com> ';
'director@cqwpx.com <mailto:director@cqwpx.com> '
Subject: The two/four-point rule in WPX
Hi,
The so-called "2-point rule" exception for intra-NA QSOs in CQWW was
discussed at length on the reflector in November 2013. Please see for
example
http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/cq-contest/2013-November/104819.html
and the related discussion.
Many serious non-American operators see this exception as the contest
sponsor giving an unfair advantage to NA Caribbean stations, particularly as
compared to EU stations. The basic continental divide point system is flawed
too, but exceptions that favor a select group are certainly not an
appropriate solution.
It was recently brought to my attention that WPX also has a similar
exception, with 2 points for intra-NA QSOs on the high bands, 4 on the low
bands.
Thus I would like to ask: What is the rationale for maintaining this
exception in modern times? Why does the contest sponsor disadvantage
European stations as compared to Caribbean stations in this manner?
73
Kim OH6KZP
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com <mailto: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
|