[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] SO vs. SOA Scores

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] SO vs. SOA Scores
From: "Jeff Steinman" <n5tj@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 22:01:03 -0600
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
NS3T wrote:
>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.


Jeff N5TJ

CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>