Before my original post, I thought about this issue in terms of the golf
analogy. Weather and course variables do have substantial impact on the
year-to-year results of tournaments played on the same course every year. A
balmy day at Pebble Beach is quite different from a rainy, windy one. The
course plays completely differently, and the average scores can be 10-20 stokes
apart! That's a big deal to scratch or better golfers.
Interesting conversation on this topic. I'd love to see somebody take existing
results data over a solar cycle, and apply some sort of formulae to produce
seasonal rankings usable at both the Premier and Standard levels of our sport.
73,
Jim K1IR
> Jim makes good points. However, handicaping on the basis of past scores
> leaves out the relative propagation advantage/disadvantage due to variations
> in both solar flux and the geomagnetic field. There are occasions when a
> really fine effort can result in a really dismal score and three years later
> can be exceeded by an order of magnitude with a truly mediocre effort. We
> just need to look at each contest on a case by case basis, try to determine
> how well an individual operator exploited his relative
> advantage/disadvantage, and point out the really well planned, well run
> operations.
Jim
W0UO/5
Jim Idelson <k1ir@designet.com> wrote:
>W6WRT said:
>
>"Finding a way is easy - create a handicap, just like in golf. Average out
>scores of different areas over many contests over many years and come up with
>a
>multiplication factor."
>
>I think golf is a good analogy to consider, but handicapping isn't the whole
>story.
>
>The purpose of handicapping in golf is to allow players of widely varying
>skill
>levels to enjoy a contrived form of competiton in casual play. Better players
>'give strokes' to their less skilled competition. It also allows
>player-leveling in various forms of team play. If you ever play any golf of
>this type, you know that the awards ceremony usually recognizes both 'low
>gross' and 'low net' scorers. Which award would you prefer to win?
>
>This model does not exist in any form of truly competitive golf. A player wins
>>or loses a tournament based on gross score. He/she also rises and falls in
>the >seasonal rankings based on the same numbers. In golf, there are
>definitely
>'unfair' advantages that accrue to certain players. A player who enters a
>tournament played on his 'home course' has a tremendous advantage for that
>weekend. But, the professional playing field is leveled through mechanisms
>like
>the PGA Tour, a series of scheduled events of which certified players must
>take
>part in a large number in order to maintain their ranking. There is some
>flexibility, though, and players will strategically choose which events to
>miss
>based on the likely impact on their ranking.
>
>Another factor that goes into player handicapping is called 'course rating'. A
>>difficult course gets a higher rating than an easier course. When you submit
>a >score to be included in your handicap, you must also specify the course par
>and
>slope, which contribute to the course rating. A good performance on a tough
>par
>72 course will have more impact on handicap than the same performance on an
>easy one.
>
>So, perhaps this IS an interesting model for contesting. Using both
>methodologies in our sport could be a very effective way to increase
>competition, identify our global stars, and recognize those who perform well
>for their level of skill. Formalized handicapping on a contest-by-contest
>basis, using past scores in that contest might be an interesting way to
>increase competition - particularly at the 'mid levels' of skill and
>experience. Recognizing high gross scores also makes sense. And what about a
>seasonal 'Contesting Tour', in which competitors must commit to several
>'majors'? Can we create non-handicapped and handicapped seasonal rankings in
>this way?
>
>How about identifiying contest 'par' and 'rating' for some of our major
>events?
>Should these numbers have regional values? Can we interest any of the really
>smart numbers-guys among us [Ken, Kelly, Pat] to take a look at this?
>
>Jim Idelson K1IR
>email k1ir at designet.com
>web http://www.designet.com/k1ir
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest@contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
<
Jim Idelson K1IR
email k1ir at designet.com
web http://www.designet.com/k1ir
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|