CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Non-Assisted vs. Assisted

To: kenlow7@aol.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Non-Assisted vs. Assisted
From: "Martin , LU5DX" <lu5dx@lucg.com.ar>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 08:41:49 -0300
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Big big mistake by WRTC committee.
But well, they rule the game.
There are creepy situations about this.
Too sad.

73.

Martin, LU5DX

On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 12:04 AM, <kenlow7@aol.com> wrote:

>
>
> >> From: Hal Kennedy <halken@comcast.net>
> >> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Hal Kennedy wrote:>
> >> Meanwhile, it is accepted that to date the best SO (A)
> >> scores continue to besomewhat below the best SO scores.
>
> Hal -
>
> There's an easy 4-letter explanation for that:  W-R-T-C.
>
> As long as the WRTC qualifying rules penalize Assisted entries, there's no
> way the top guys will choose that category for their Single-Op efforts.
> This has been the case ever since people recognized WRTC was a truer test
> of operating ability since there is a referee present at all times.
>
> In recent years, several excellent SO2R operators have already
> demonstrated what happens when they enter Assisted in a major 48-hour
> contest:  the multiplier count increases by 20% and they blow away the
> Unassisted entries.
>
> 73,
>
> Ken KE3X
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

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