>Tree, I must disagree. The facts and figures from contests don't support
>claim that assisted ops routinely have higher scores.
>UN-assisted operators typically score BETTER - not worse than assisted.
>The UN-assisted don't win everytime - but they come very close.
>Just look at the top claimed scores on 3830 from the major contests in
Although the scores show SOA as being lower than SO, I agree w/ Tree as to
the cause. It's the competition level.
Given the same station+operator+antennas in an all band category, the use of
assistance (call it packet) should always result in a higher score. If not
then the station and/or operator aren't optimized.
In a contest that is rich in multipliers, like CQWW or ARRL DX, the use of
packet will must result in a higher multiplier total than without. A
single-op, even the best w/ SO2R, simply are going to leave a lot of
possible mults on the table. Some argue that packet will cause lower QSO
totals as it "distracts" people while chasing spots. That may be somewhat
true, but I would argue packet could also help increase QSO totals as it can
be used to not only find needed mults, but on Sunday, when the rate is
slower, to find needed QSOs. those that do well in SOA have learned how to
balance the distractions of chasing spots w/ mainting a run.
As far as combining SO and SOA into one SOA category - I am not for it. But
that's a personal choice. Yes, I done a few serious SOA entries over the
years. It's a different kind of challenge, one I find less enjoyable that
tuning a receiver to find multipliers.
CQ-Contest mailing list