The corollary to your point, Trent, if true, is that then it shouldn’t matter
if unassisted operators cheat…
That said, we are now seeing an inversion of what had been reality for a long
time: assisted operators are now beating unassisted. Look at the 2017 ARRL DX
CW, for example: KI1G was almost a million points ahead of K3CR (LZ4AX, op.).
Indeed, it’s not until the No.4 spot in SO Unlimited High Power before the
assisted operator is beat by an unassisted. Such doesn’t hold on the DX side,
but it’s easy to chalk that up to the Top 3 (the only ones to beat the assisted
high power ops) being 8P5A, TI5W and 6Y2T — with huge propagation advantages —
over the No. 1 SO Unlimited High Power winner, D4C.
A similar pattern held in ARRL DX CW in 2016.
A similar pattern is developing in CQ WW, as well. In 2016, K5ZD, running
assisted, beat unassisted W1KM by almost 600,000 points. It didn’t hold up for
World scores, but again, the top world stations were run by N6MJ (aka, master
of duelling pileups), KL9A (@TI5W), CT1BOH and W2SC (@8P5A). No slight to any
of the assisted world Top 6, but the Top 4 World ops are arguably all at the
top of the heap in terms of mastering dual radio contesting.
A contest where it hasn’t happened, yet, is SS. In that case, and as author of
results articles for 17 years, I’ve followed it closely, some of the operators
report using very little assistance. As well, with a maximum 83 multipliers,
the benefits to spotting mults is greatly reduced. (Those who use assistance
use it more to find fresh meat, usually on the second radio, than anything,
often having secured their sweeps through CQing.) Most of the operators I’ve
polled in regards to why assisted don’t beat un will say either the top
unassisted operator is really just THAT good (such as N2IC, N9RV), had a
tremendous propagation advantage (WP3R) or they knew they had factors working
against them (location, etc.).
I offer none of this in support of merging categories. Just helping set the
record straight.
The challenge, when running assisted, it seems to me, is striking a balance
between being distracted from rate and adding to your score. If you watch
videos of N6MJ, for instance, you’ll see he needs no assistance as he usually
has massive pileups on both radios without it. The mults come to him.
73, kelly, ve4xt
> On Jul 31, 2017, at 8:18 AM, Trent Sampson <vk4ts@outlook.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry Stan
>
> But the statistics do not support your biased view - Plain and simple - Troll
> through ALL the results and let us know how many times ASSISTED beat
> UNASSITED - the answer will highlight your biased response
>
> Cheers
>
> VK4TS
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stan Stockton [mailto:wa5rtg@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, 31 July 2017 11:11 PM
> To: Trent Sampson
> Cc: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Assisted - Is it just another Urban Myth ?
>
> Here we go again.
>
> The answer to your question has zero relevance on whether they should be
> combined.
>
> Do the results show being assisted is a detriment like QRP is a detriment as
> compared to low power. If so, it's like me saying that QRP scores don't beat
> low power scores so why not combine those categories.
>
> If anyone thinks that SO scores would not be as good if those top operators
> used the internet to provide them a list of multipliers to work, they have no
> clue. If a survey was taken of those who operate SO in serious fashion the
> result would be they don't want them combined.
>
> I have yet to see any logical reason to eliminate the category other than it
> is difficult to enforce the rules.
>
> 73... Stan, K5GO
>
>
>
> Sent from Stan's IPhone
>
>
>
>> On Jul 31, 2017, at 6:26 AM, Trent Sampson <vk4ts@outlook.com> wrote:
>>
>> The Assisted category in the CQWW is 25 years old this year;
>>
>> It was created because of the advantages" given to operators who were using
>> the spotter networks
>>
>> In all of the 25 years of assisted categories in the CQWW how many times has
>> the world SOAB (Assisted) beaten the SOAB (Unassisted) ? - It is a trick
>> question
>>
>> Based on factual information is there any reason to not combine the
>> categories ? before you answer look at the data...
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|