On Jul 28, 2008, at 7:55 AM, k4gun@comcast.net wrote:
> You don't have to wait for the scores to come out. Take a look at
> the log submissions and you'll see that they have the claimed scores
> posted. Put that into a spreadsheet and take a look at the top
> score in each rover category.
I think it is dangerous to extrapolate contest results from claimed
scores and soapbox entries. I think it is also dangerous to come to
conclusions as to the fairness of operating practices of the leaders
based on these results. As you suggested, I did put the scores into
the spreadsheet, however, and sorted them by class. There are two
rover-limited entries with no claimed scores, so if they have high
scores, then the conclusions are also off.
You are right, it is instructive.
Yes, in the rover-limited class, the winner, KG6TOA, had more than
twice the score than the runner up, W3DHJ. Is all of this difference
due to KG6TOA participating in a rover squaring exercise? Other
factors probably contributed to the disparity in scores as well. For
one, KG6TOA operated on 4 bands and W3DHJ operated on only 2. I
suspect that KG6TOA operated on multiple point bands, while W3DHJ
operated on six and 2, both single point bands. KG6TOA visited 15
grids, W3DHJ visited only 4. These will all contribute to the large
score differential between first and second places, not just the
participation of KG6TOA in a grid squaring exercise.
You also wrote:
You will notice that the top in all three have more than double the
next highest score and that the call signs are the same as those
listed in the grid circling soapbox.
In the classic rover class, N6NB claims 270k points, AE5P/R claims
160k points, a ratio of 1.7, not double. There are three more
stations in the classic rover standings before you get to a doubling
of the score. That distribution of scores does not seem out of place
given the small size.
Is there anything wrong with the CA roving group finishing 1-2 in the
Unlimited Rover Category? That is why the category was started. The
interesting thing is that their scores would have been even higher if
the classic rover and limited rover had participated as full members
of the grid squaring expedition. So the new rules seem to have had an
unintended consequence of reducing the unlimited rover scores as well
as participation in this class. There isn't a whole lot of competition
in that class anyway, which was what some people predicted. Perhaps it
will grow.
Note the QRP Portable class. The leader claims 84k points, the runner
up 39k. This is not too different than the ratio in the rover-limited
category in which you are concerned about unfair tactics. Is that
score differential instructive enough to surmise that something unfair
is going on here as well? I suspect not. And no soapbox was posted.
One cannot surmise that there is something unfair going on solely on
the basis of scores.
The ratio in the single op low power class between first and second is
about 1.6, not too different than the ratio in the Classic rover
division. Is something unfair going on there with the leader? Why do
the scores indicate it in one case and not the other?
Interestingly enough there were only 91 rovers this year compared to
98 last year. I hope that this is not a trend. Rovers rove! Don't
worry about where the rules put you in the standings!
I am not sure where all of this is going. It probably has ceased being
productive, but if you are going to make these claims about the scores
indicating unfair operating practices, then the numbers should support
them.
Support your local rover. Work him in every grid on every band. - Duffey
--
KK6MC
James Duffey
Cedar Crest NM
_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting
|