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> 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. 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
>
>
> 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]
> Sent: 6. huhtikuuta 2014 21:04
> To: 'cq-contest@contesting.com'; '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]
> Sent: 6. huhtikuuta 2014 15:10
> To: 'cq-contest@contesting.com'; '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
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|