Hi Stan
It is a quagmire
We have assumed that SOAB A is an advantage – but with even top operators like
D4B, N5TJ and W2GD, never in the 25 years of CQWW and CQWPX has the SOAB A
category exceeded the score of the SOAB Winner.
It appears to be simply an urban myth that has perpetuated.
Let’s answer all of your hypothesis
Do you believe there is an advantage in having a list of everyone on the band
and identification as to whether each callsign is a new multiplier or a new
contact? NO that data shows the myth is wrong
Do you believe that in general the top operators in the assisted category could
do as well or better if they did not have the assistance? NO that data shows
the myth is wrong
Do you believe that in general the top operators in the unassisted category
would widen the margin of victory if the two categories were combined? NO that
data shows the myth is wrong
What possible relevance do the scores between the two cateogries have to do
with whether they should be combined? None
Why would you propose combining categories when overwhelmingly those who
operate unassisted want to continue operating unassisted? That is why they
choose that category. They have a choice and choose the one they prefer. Even
you choose the unassisted category. Agreed however that data shows the myth
is wrong
Looking at your scores in the CQWW do you really have a dog in this fight ?
My basis for the questions is I am looking at doing SOAB during the low sunspot
years and I am wondering what all the fuss is about
Regards
Trent Sampson
VK4TS
Po Box 275 Mooloolaba QLD 4557
Mobile 0408497550
From: Stan Stockton [mailto:wa5rtg@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 1 August 2017 11:50 PM
To: Trent Sampson
Cc: sawyered@earthlink.net; cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Assisted - Is it just another Urban Myth ?
Trent,
Please clarify so everyone will understand your thinking.
Do you believe there is an advantage in having a list of everyone on the band
and identification as to whether each callsign is a new multiplier or a new
contact? I think the answer is yes.
Do you believe that in general the top operators in the assisted category could
do as well or better if they did not have the assistance? I think the answer
is no.
Do you believe that in general the top operators in the unassisted category
would widen the margin of victory if the two categories were combined? I think
the answer is yes.
What possible relevance do the scores between the two cateogries have to do
with whether they should be combined?
Why would you propose combining categories when overwhelmingly those who
operate unassisted want to continue operating unassisted? That is why they
choose that category. They have a choice and choose the one they prefer. Even
you choose the unassisted category.
The fact is that if you asked someone who won the CQ WW Contest in any given
year the respondent will go to the SOAB results to give you the answer. Most
will not ask you whether you mean the assisted category or the category where
someone used a tribander and wires or whether you are talking about low power
on 40m with a dipole and internet assistance. There are several who push to
combine these categories every year and not yet have I seen a logical
explanation as to why they want to do it. Certainly whether the scores are
higher or lower in one category has absolutely nothing to do with whether
categories should be combined. Would you feel differently if a top operator
who could perhaps win the unassisted category ventured over to the assisted
category and blew away the competition. It has already been done.
Everything else being equal, a single operator using the internet to identify
every double multiplier that comes on the band will beat the guy who doesn't
have that information every single time. The plain and simple fact is that
unassisted operators usually (not always) beat the ones using assistance
because they are better operators operating from better stations.
73...Stan, K5GO
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 7:59 AM, Trent Sampson
<vk4ts@outlook.com<mailto:vk4ts@outlook.com>> wrote:
Hi Ed,
You said,
"Others are simply looking at the efficiency gain of being fed spots and the
fact that their eyes add another receptor beyond their 2 ears and that adds to
their efficiency as well."
Please find one example in the High Scores of the CQWW or the CQWPX that
supports your hypothesis ...
By the way I prefer SOAB unassisted - if on the rare occasion I am not in a
multi op
Regards
Trent Sampson
VK4TS
Po Box 275 Mooloolaba QLD 4557
Mobile 0408497550
-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com<mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com>]
On Behalf Of Ed Sawyer
Sent: Tuesday, 1 August 2017 9:23 PM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com<mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Assisted - Is it just another Urban Myth ?
What is the motivation for Assisted Operators to even care if there is an
unassisted class? How is it harming you in any way that other - equally as
important as you - people choose to contest the way we grew up and enjoyed it?
It doesn't bother me that its "possible" for someone in the class to cheat. It
didn't bother me that it was "possible" for someone to cheat in Low Power class
when I choose to compete in that class. I know what I am doing and I know when
something smells bad out there as well.
I choose to compete in unassisted because I love the balance. Others are
simply looking at the efficiency gain of being fed spots and the fact that
their eyes add another receptor beyond their 2 ears and that adds to their
efficiency as well. I have no strike against those and realize, it helps.
Good for them.
Until someone can tell me how what I choose to do for my better enjoyment harms
them, I respectfully ask for the ability to choose the class I better enjoy.
Thank you.
Ed N1UR
_______________________________________________
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<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
|