At least 95% of EF8DM's QSOs were worth 3 points, compared to V47NT in
which perhaps 40 %of his QSOs were with NA and only worth two points. V47NT
(N2NT) decided to operate from a location he does not live as did RD3F. For
whatever strategy reasons they decided on in being in these QTHs, they
produced great scores.
In 1983, WA6VEF at AI6V won CQWW SSB SOAB. Miracles do happen, but that
was when there were lots of JA's to work. That could never happen today with
the shift in active ham populations from JA to Europe. Still a great feat,
but one would never today try to repeat from California.
Africa is a long ways from the USA where a great percentage of the ham
population is located. 160 meter QSOs from the Caribbean into W6/W7 land
are quite common, not so with Africa. That is why the point difference.
The only fair scoring is what is used in the 160 meter Stew Perry Contest,
and that will never happen in CQWW.
--------------------------------------------------
From: "David Kopacz" <david.kopacz@aspwebhosting.com>
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 5:32 PM
To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Is it time to reevaluate CQWW Scoring Rules?
>
> What's wrong with this picture?
>
> EF8M(RD3AF) 7374 131 409 48 11,888,100
> V47NT(N2NT) 7402 135 457 48 11,231,424
>
> Let's see, V47NT has more Q's more zones and significantly more
> countries, but a lower score!
>
> So basically, he out-performed EF8M in all aspects and still loses.
>
> I think it's time for an evaluation of the scoring rules.
>
> What do you think?
>
> David ~ KY1V
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|