CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] 2 point rule

To: <k5zd@charter.net>, "'Bob Kupps'" <n6bk@yahoo.com>, <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] 2 point rule
From: "Tonno Vahk" <tonno.vahk@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 12:19:39 +0200
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Generally I have been very indifferent on the scoring as to my mind NA, AF,
EU, etc are in totally different categories and who cares how the other
continent is being scored.

But looking at the CQWW MM claimed scores this year I suddenly find us
having a really great competition with K3LR and W3LPL. Isn't that wonderful?

Looking at EU/US MM top 10 (below) I conclude that the scoring is totally
fair. EU and US are mixed and all depends on the conditions and the effort.
What else would be a better indicator of the level playing field than MM
scores??

SSB

ES9C    19531   206     818     48      40,682,496      
K3LR    14363   202     805     48      39,054,481      
DR1A    16154   200     793     48      34,127,424
W3LPL   10709   198     750     48      28,061,748
II9P    14573   191     737     48      26,949,120      
WE3C    9993    194     739     48      26,013,906
LZ9W    12562   193     723     48      21,748,588
KL7RA   12913   176     506     48      21,358,194      
ED1R    11944   185     671     48      20,629,600
DFØHQ   11010   196     769     48      20,177,185

CW

K3LR    11884   210     840     48      35,226,450
W3LPL   11643   206     839     48      34,338,700
ES9C    15508   219     875     48      32,562,910      
9A1A    14366   209     827     48      30,040,892
W2FU    10497   198     783     48      28,793,331
WE3C    9596    199     799     48      27,379,132
DR1A    12785   212     832     48      26,915,364
ED6A    14480   203     737     48      24,012,300
LZ9W    12199   212     797     44      23,589,411
NR4M    8946    192     722     48      23,407,540

73
Tonno
ES5TV

-----Original Message-----
From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of
Randy Thompson K5ZD
Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 5:42 AM
To: 'Bob Kupps'; cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] 2 point rule

Attempts to introduce scoring changes for other areas of the world was
included as a question topic in the 2013 CQ WW participant survey.  Review
the voting results and the comments in the pdf file at
http://cqww.com/blog/?p=150

The first level challenge is to define the problem (or even if there is
one).  Then to define what the scoring should optimize.  Only then can you
rationally discuss the options.

Maintaining the status quo is strong with reflector readers.

Randy, K5ZD

> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf 
> Of Bob Kupps
> Sent: Friday, November 29, 2013 12:22 AM
> To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] 2 point rule
> 
> Hi and thanks for all the comments.
> 
> I am persuaded by the arguments in favor of retaining the 2 point rule 
> for NA. In fact those arguments apply to other continents as well and 
> IMO applying the 2 point rule equally across the globe for all intra- 
> continental Qs would seem to go a long way toward reducing by half the 
> penalty for crossing over arbitrary continental boundaries (3-2 vs 3-1).
> 
> Would this rule change be an affront to anyone's sense of good 
> sportsmanship and fair play?
> 
> 73 Bob
> _______________________________________________
> 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

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>