To my own amazement, I am quite ambivalent. For the more than two decades
that I have been contesting, I have always been resigned to the fact that in
the WW, the best I could ever hope to do is take zone 3 in my category.
Comparing a zone 3 to an east coast score is loosely like comparing an east
coast to Caribbean score (and even then there are regional differences as
has been pointed out), etc. Even here in zone 3, as it is, the stations in
Arizona, Nevada and even Oregon do far better than we do in the Pacific
Northwest, particularly at the bottom of the cycle.
On the one hand, it would be interesting to see how our scores would compare
nationally if there were some geographic scoring equalizer or handicap. On
the other, it is what it is. As someone once told me, if you want to
improve your score, move! Sure, it is disconcerting that a modest station
and good operator in the east coast will beat us hands down, no matter how
much investment and effort we might make in hardware and practice. Yet,
there are even major differences in scores between one local contester whose
station sits above a 300 foot bluff with salt water to EU and JA and mine
where the closest salt water here at 200 feet ASL is a mile away of sloping
terrain.
The change of scoring will not change geographic anomalies. Taken to an
illogical conclusion, my local competitor on the bluff should be handicapped
because his antennas are effectively 500 feet ASL and mine are not; he has a
major competitive advantage. Yet had I wanted that advantage badly enough,
I would have bought property on my own bluff. I didn't, and am not
expecting handicaps to change my ability to compete with him.
One concept might be to apply develop some algorithm that would compensate
for major geographic distinctions, for example zone 3 to zone 4 and 5,
northern stations v. more southerly stations, simply as a relative
indication of a comparative score, and NOT to actually rescore the end
result. I suspect that this would be no easy task, but would be an
interesting experiment. In my mind, there is no effective geographic
equalizer. While I am not necessarily saying to leave well enough alone, I
am also not so sanguine as to believe that any effort to create scoring
handicaps would result in a more equitable process.
Andrew
W7VJ
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 22:41:21 -0400
From: "Felipe J Hernandez" <fhdez@islandnetjm.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Is it time to reevaluate CQWW Scoring Rules?
To: "Kelly Taylor" <theroadtrip@mts.net>, <w1md@cfl.rr.com>,
<cq-contest@contesting.com>
Message-ID: <01ff01ca7879$18293490$901513ac@coopaca.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Im sure theres room to improve but like always this point things stays on
debates.
But I wonder how the US operators outside the east coast feel about the cqww
dx contest?
is there room for them to at least have a decent score?
Seems that for all stations outside the east coast there are not many points
to get when propagation is
like it is today, and with less and less JA's active the whole thing is
becoming harder for them..
Maybe it should be considered to allow US stations to work each other for
points, because Europe can certainly
work each other for points and mults, plus they have more population to the
east than USA to the west
and Ja's are about the same distance from EU as they are from the USA.
It seems that the European contesters are growing and in the usa they are
less everyday, I think this contest
should provide more options for these stations in a way of points incentives
or maybe just a decent
award system that gives them a chance to compete amongst themselves for
Awards and get recognition
for their hardwork building stations and contesting from areas that are not
as affortunate.
I see the ARRL contests with a more comprehensive award program.
Felipe
np4z
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|