Do you run the risk of having participation certificates when there are too
many categories ?
Does that really find the best contesters ? Personally I don't like cluster
use (old school) but if the rules to qualify are such then maybe I need to
re-address my stance if I want to qualify.
I still find it odd in many years I cannot recall an assisted score beating
unassisted in a major contest. (CQWW CQWPX)
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
Paul O'Kane
Sent: Tuesday, 9 December 2014 5:21 AM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Comments / FAQs on WRTC2018 qualification rules
On 08/12/2014 16:40, Yuri wrote:
> Putting this usually endless and useless assisted/unassisted and
> single-op/multi-op discussion behind for now,
If they're so useless, why then does CQ recognise the value of having
separate categories. It's worth taking a look at
http://www.cqww.com/raw.htm?mode=cw - showing the calculated raw scores for
CQWW CW 2014.
There are 46 categories listed, and that's without including the Classic and
Rookie sub-categories. Is anyone complaining?
There are many reasons why CQWW is the world's most popular contest, and the
number of categories is one of them.
This "useless discussion" is unlikely to go away, and it would be helpful if
the WRTC2018 Committee members reconsidered their unanimous decision to
eliminate unassisted categories.
They might all be mistaken.
73,
Paul EI5DI
_______________________________________________
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
|