Comments on WRTC

[cmschonewaldcox at ucdavis.edu]

2C:\wrtc6
Dear WRTC,
1. The latest proposal from the WRTC committee is a BIG step in the
right direction. It is much fairer. However, Europe/JA and USA are
not the same.
    1. The USA is one country in NA.(31% of all QSO's in CQWW)
    2. JA is one country in AS. (23% of all QSO's in CQWW)
    3. Europe is many countries (34% of all QSO's in CQWW)
       12% = rest of the world.
So choosing teams from JA and USA can not be the same as Europe.
The other QSO contributer from NA is VE. The rest of NA and AS
account for a small % of QSO's.

USA:
If the contest results are the only method of choosing teams then
only the NE USA will have teams. I agree with WA8YVR comments.

The reason that "the East appears"  to have good operators is that
they are the only ones who can win in the major contests. There are
equally talented contesters in W7, W6, W0, W8 etc as there are in
MA, CT, MD and NH.

I once asked a constant top 10 USA CQ WW contester to trade places
with me. I said, you come to CA and operate at the best station you
can find I will go to MA and operate with a tribander + 2 on 40.
Then we will see if you still win. The answer is obvious. He stayed
in MA.

JA:
The same geographic advantage exists in JA. JA8,JA7,JA0,JA5 > rest

The scheme of using various international contests is a good one.
So choose winners of CALL AREAS in the USA and JA. It makes for
good feelings and is more representative of the true talent pool.
A second etc. team from a deserving call area should be considered
possible.
Of course there are other areas of NA than the US so add 2 or 3
other teams.

2. Europe: what do europeans think? Has anyone asked those guys?

3. Change the deadline.

Tks especially to the guys that have to "do the right thing".
Congrats to Howard W6AXX on winning a TROPHY in the CQWW! I bet you
did't know yet.
Good Job WRTC committee
73 Bob K3EST


>From Norton, Richard" <nortonr at MRD.SRL.dsto.gov.au  Thu Sep 15 01:35:00 1994
From: Norton, Richard" <nortonr at MRD.SRL.dsto.gov.au (Norton, Richard)
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 94 17:35:00 PDT
Subject: WRTC Team Selection Criteria
Message-ID: <2E7796D8 at msmail.dsto.gov.au>


I personally thank the WRTC committee for fielding input from others and 
responding positively to it. Most of us realize that putting an event like 
this on is no small amount of work.

Regarding team selection, after reading K3NA's latest proposal a few times, 
and reformulating what I have written a few times, my opinions are:

1) It ain't bad.

2) I don't think it is necessary to have such a detailed structure for team 
selection, but it's ok. With the overall goals set forth, I think the 
committee can use its judgement in rearranging the balance of teams, add or 
subtract a few teams, or whatever.

3) The concept of team mates choosing each other is good.

However,

4) I have heard the comment, "How would you like it, if the contest were 
held in UA land, and the UAs got to pick the team representing the USA?" I 
think, last time, national societies and/or contest groups in other 
countries were solicited to designate teams. I think it worked reasonably 
well, and should be considered for at least some of the teams this time.

5) There is no way to eliminate subjectivity in team selection. Even if 
published results are used, you have subjectively discounted location and 
station, two of the most important ingredients in contest outcome. If you 
assign a black hole multiplier, you are being subjective. I don't know how 
to compare the performance of JAs with 4Xs in any contest. It's ok to be 
somewhat subjective. There is no other way.

For example, if I were going to rate operators, I might consider the 
following items:

a) Overall contest management strategy skills

b) Callsign identification skills

c) Operating coordination skills

d) Situation assessment skills

e) CQing - pile up management skills

f) Search-and-pounce calling skills

Some pretty big contests can be won without d) and f), if you are in the 
right location, and are good at CQing. In fact the Sprint is probably the 
only contest in which a balance of these skills is tested, and there are 
good operators who do not operate it. Even if these 6 components were rated 
accurately, to produce an overall number 1, you would need to weigh the 
components, which is subjective.

I have an opinion on how I would rate the skills of many operators, but it 
is certainly subjective.

I would like to see representatives of geographically disadvantaged areas 
there. My final suggestion may eliminate the problem.

6) The phone or CW issue still concerns me, and might be given a little 
thought even with respect to team selection. Keep in mind:

     a) There are some pretty good phone operators who essentially do not 
know the code.

     b) People whose primary language is not English, or have not had 
significant exposure to English far in excess of what amateur radio contests 
may provide, have a severe handicap on phone. People whose primary language 
differs markedly from English, such as Japanese, will get blown out of the 
water, far worse than their skill may deserve.

Generally, contests are either CW or phone. It is tough to balance these two 
items in a one multiop event. I don't like the previously proposed method, 
because of b). I hesitate to recommend a weighting like K3EST's 3:1 in favor 
of CW.

I also hesitate to suggest that some of the teams could be phone and others 
CW. Then there would be two winners. Some would want a combined category, 
and were back where we started, except with 3 winners.

I don't have a good answer.

7)  Unsponsored entrants? If you still use home stations, which I  think 
should at least  be required to all use something like UA1DZ antennas 
(whatever they are.  Hey, what are they?) at some designated height only to 
somewhat equalize them, then I'd suggest that any team who didn't get 
selected could enter as an unsponsored entrant. If they found another nearby 
station themselves, or set up on the shores of the Potomac, and all they 
required from the WRTC was judging of their entry, I'd let them participate 
as on-site entrants. This would take heat off the selection committee. The 
worst they could do to a guy was make him set up himself , a not too 
difficult task.

73,

Dick N6AA

new E-mail address (in 2 days):      ae327 at LAFN.ORG

>From Peter G. Smith" <n4zr at netcom.com  Wed Sep 14 10:25:31 1994
From: Peter G. Smith" <n4zr at netcom.com (Peter G. Smith)
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 02:25:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: RFI proof phones
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9409140217.A12767-0100000 at netcom12>

Darn!  Spoke too soon.  I can't find the file.  Can anyone out there to 
whom I sent the FCC report file 3-4 months ago help both me and Fred my 
e-mailing it to us?

73, Pete                                       
N4ZR at netcom.com
"Better, faster,cheaper -- choose any two"

On Tue, 13 Sep 1994, Fred Cady ieefc at msu.oscs.montana.edu wrote:

> Hi Pete, your are a veritble fountain of information, thanks.  I have
> not seen the FCC report but several others have mentioned it.  I would
> appreciate a copy.  Thanks, Fred
> 

>From Field, Don" <field at btq2ec.igw.bt.co.uk  Wed Sep 14 12:31:00 1994
From: Field, Don" <field at btq2ec.igw.bt.co.uk (Field, Don)
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 94 11:31:00 GMT
Subject: WRTC team selection
Message-ID: <2E76DF42 at smtpgate.agw.bt.co.uk>

I have been following the debate about WRTC rules and team selection with 
interest and not a little wry amusement.

While I applaud the thought of trying to level the playing field as much as 
possible, much of the rules debate is irrelevant. There are pros and cons 
concerning most rules, and no ideal answer. For example, choosing CW to 
avoid giving English speakers an advantage has some benefits, but does 
nothing about producing a world champion who is an all-rounder. Insisting 
that phone operators all use Esperanto (anybody remember Esperanto?) might 
level the language playing field, but not many QSOs will be made! Perhaps we 
need to decide what sort of "World Champions" we are actually looking for. 
No wonder most Olympic sports have many medals for different categories - 
top athlete? top runner? top 200m runner? Different types of champion, 
different criteria. Top contester? top CW contester? top non-radio contester 
(PED etc)? All valid, all different.

But then, that's part of contest strategy. A good all-round contest operator 
is one who recognises that no two contests are the same, either in their 
rules or in the propagation which prevails at different times of the year, 
and develops a strategy to make the most of what is on offer. A contest 
operator who treats all contests the same will never make it to the top. My 
recommendation would be to decide fairly quickly what the rules will be, and 
then let the teams select themselves to meet the challenge (for example, if 
Eric decides, quite reasonably perhaps (?) that in this digital age the 
contest modes will be PACTOR and SSTV (gets over the language problems 
and friends recognising your voice/fist problems quite nicely!) there is 
little point in selecting the best CW ops ....!).

Which brings me on to team selection. It is all very well trying to achieve 
some carefully crafted balance, but reality has to prevail. there is no 
obvious mechanism for selecting teams by CQ zone, ITU zone, degree of 
political correctness, or whatever. However, there ARE mechanisms in place 
for selecting teams on a country basis in that all countries have a national 
society (and run national contests). Why do the contest organisers have to 
lay down the selection criteria which there are no means for applying on the 
ground? Why can't decisions be made locally through organisations already in 
place? In any case, there are some very practical criteria which have yet to 
be aired. I got involved last time round in helping find a team to represent 
the UK. Many of my "ideal" candidates were unable to make themselves 
available due to work or other commitments, were unable to raise the funds, 
or were simply not interested. Fortunately, those who did come forward 
included a handful of the UK's very best contesters and we were able to field 
a team (G3YDV and G4BUO) who put in an extremely creditable performance.

So, let's know the rules, and then leave it to the locals to select the best 
team available in the circumstances.

Don G3XTT
field at btq2ec.igw.bt.co.uk