New Categories
bmelvin at benthos.com
bmelvin at benthos.com
Thu Dec 14 13:06:28 EST 1995
I think the new categories are great! I fit the tribander and wires
category, but this doesn't mean I'm going to enter it. I just put up a
tower with just enough antennas to enjoy each band. After next summer
I'll have too many wires in the air to fit this category. If I put in
a full effort with a good score I'll submit it under low power, all
band, and compete against the likes of W2TZ and W1PH. I would much
rather finish in the top 10 of that category than first in
tribander/wires. But, if this category were present last year when all
I had were 3 dipoles for 20, 40 and 80, I may have actually operated.
The motivation would have been to see if I could beat out tribanders
with dipoles.
73 de Bob WT1O
>From RUSSELL S. RINN" <miltex at bga.com Thu Dec 14 18:48:36 1995
From: RUSSELL S. RINN" <miltex at bga.com (RUSSELL S. RINN)
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 12:48:36 -0600 (CST)
Subject: New Categories - replt to Bill
Message-ID: <199512141848.MAA18692 at zoom.bga.com>
>
> >In conclusion...
> >
> >Once again it must be a difference in philosophy. In basketball I always
> >want to guard the other teams best player. How can I test myself if I play
> >against someone who has my identical skills.
>
> You missed the point. With subcategorization, an attempt is made to
> equalize the STATIONS, not the skills.
>
> The contest itself is always a test of skill.
No, you missed my point. Perhaps the wrong choice of words but what I was
saying is how can I test MYSELF if I contest against someone with
the same equipment that I have. If we're both average op's we should be
fairly close in score. I want to compare myself against those with bigger
antennas and see how I do.
Russ--
>From Bill Fisher KM9P <km9p at akorn.net> Thu Dec 14 19:53:35 1995
From: Bill Fisher KM9P <km9p at akorn.net> (Bill Fisher KM9P)
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 14:53:35 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Ten Tec Reflector
Message-ID: <Pine.BSD/.3.91.951214144842.15307A-100000 at paris.akorn.net>
I'm setting up a mail reflector for Ten Tec users. Hopefully take some
of that traffic off of this reflector.
If you are interested... Send a message to tentec-request at akorn.net. In
the body of the message type only "subscribe". Without the quotes of
course.
73
Bill Fisher, KM9P
>From H. Ward Silver" <hwardsil at seattleu.edu Thu Dec 14 20:13:05 1995
From: H. Ward Silver" <hwardsil at seattleu.edu (H. Ward Silver)
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 12:13:05 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Categories vs. Ratings
Message-ID: <Pine.3.07.9512141205.E28412-b100000 at bach.seattleu.edu>
We seem to go through this exercise about once yearly ;-) I'd like to
mention (to those of you that haven't been on the reflector that long)
that in response to the more-categories issue, a group of us developed a
Rating System designed to evaluate operator performance over yearly
time-scales.
Addressing the sailing analogy, which is much like bicycle racing, we
started to develop the system with class-based competition. What we found
was that the density of contesters is too low in most areas to give a
reasonable geographic set of "peers" in any specific contest. In deciding
whether to keep geographic-based or class-based evaluation, we dropped the
classes. They could be added if contester density increases, though.
The basic idea of the system is to evaluate your performance by comparing
it to the best in your area. The evaluation is made over a year's window
and includes the effects of scores over about a three-year period. It's
pretty useful to evaluate your own performance and amongst others in your
area. Worldwide, it tends to break down, depending on where you operate
from, but in the populated countries it's *reasonable*. Not perfect, but
reasonable.
The system was published in the May/June issue of NCJ. I would be happy
to send the set of ASCII files to anyone who wants to take a look. Any
feedback is welcomed. WA7BNM's letter in the Nov/Dec issue of NCJ
misses the point by choosing inappropriate examples, but his own evaluation
is a pretty good indication of how the system works.
My personal feelings lean towards no additional categories, but more
regional reporting and analysis. I'm not for-or-against the new WPX
categories and consider it a noble experiment. Let's see how it plays.
73, Ward N0AX
>From floydjr at nr.infi.net (jim floyd) Thu Dec 14 19:40:06 1995
From: floydjr at nr.infi.net (jim floyd) (jim floyd)
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 15:40:06 -0400
Subject: ARRL 10 Meter Contest 95 Scores III
Message-ID: <199512142040.PAA25839 at moe.infi.net>
ARRL 10 Meter Contest 1995
Raw Scores
Compiled by
WA4ZXA
Date Posted: 12/14/95
CALL HRS SCORE QSO'S PTS SEC DX
________________________________________________________________________
Single OP/QRP
>SSB<
>CW<
>Mixed<
WF2V 160 12 4
Single OP/HP/Unassisted
>SSB<
ZS9F 195,716 866 1732 42 70
ZS6BRZ 150,876 762 1524 39 60
K4VUD 78,800 704 44 12
ZS6BRH 67,490 397 35 50
N3BB 66,660 555 42 18
N8RA/1 65,800 731 32 13
KE5FI 37,026 363 29 22
KQ4HC 21,620 235 35 11
WB1GQR 16,056 223 446 28 8
KF8UM 18 7,488 117 26 6
N9ITX/7 4,524 78 22 7
VE6JY 2,268 63 126 10 8
KK5DK 4 2 1
>CW<
K1ZX/4 151,956 567 45 22
KM9P 102,620 420 48 14
N8RR 10 24,300 135 36 9
AA7BG 31 21,328 172 25 6
K7FR 19,000 190 680 28 6
K3JT 18,176 142 29 3
KM0L 1,920 32 128 14 1
VSYBG 4 1 1
VR2GO 4 1 1
>Mixed<
AC4NJ (OP WC4E) 245,952 820 86 26
K3ZO 28 197,802 669 69 30
NC0P 143,000 473 102
K6LL 103,500 493 1500 51 18
W9XT 99,120 415 1180 84
KE9A 13 97,328 426 58 19
WD0T 55,700 287 54 15
WM2C 9 51,688 324 994 44 8
W9UP 19,902 151 43
KI8W 3 9,042 274 33
WF1B 6,500 100 260 24 1
K6XO/7 3,058 96 11
WX9E 2,272 42 16
KD6DAE 1,656 184 9
AE2T 384 15 7 1
Single OP/LP/Unassisted
>SSB<
N3ADL 13 38,352 408 30 17
N9ISN 16,926 217 25 14
WA4ZXA 9 5,640 94 18 12
KB4OGM 3,720 62 124 21 9
GW0GEI 3,360 80 21
>CW<
N4BP 122,264 493 1972 62
AC1O/4 82,700 397 40 12
W5HUQ 56,000 280 39 11
KP4VA (OP KP4TK) 31,960 170 680 36 11
N9XBM @KO9Y 29,184 191 29 9
KR4DL 24,864 168 672 29 8
WA2SRQ 6 21,080 170 26 58
K8HVT/1 7,912 86 18 5
W3CPB 6,480 90 360 15 3
K7NPN 4 5,400 90 15
K7MM 5,112 71 284 13 5
WB0OLA 448 16 64 5 2
AB7GM 204 17 3
KD0AV/9 1 204 17 2 1
>Mixed<
W3EP 108,000 484 59 17
AA4GA 73,472 315 896 65 17
WA6KUI 48,768 247 64
K2UF 41,600 211 45 19
WA0QOA 30,184 232 686 33 11
WA0X 28,600 276 30 17
WA7BNM 26,600 242 31 7
K8JLF 4 7,776 109 324 20 4
WF2L 7,600 59
N7STU 2,204 40 116 15 4
KK7A 820 27 82 8 2
Multi-Single
N4ZC 263,000 723 83 36
NU4Y 170,000 671 77 27
NC0P 140,000 473 102
AA3JU 100,864 610 1576 47 17
AA5UO 71,500 398 45 28
N5RP 63,992 291 842 76
N2MZH 46,176 315 40 12
KR4YL @WB2LES 37,576 246 616 42 19
K0LUZ 23,120 170 680 28 6
WA8QYJ 29,464 202 508 40 18
K0RC 16,000 127 35 7
KC4UCK/T 13 8,878 157 386 23
VE5MX 784 19 6 8
Multi-Operator
WS4F 180,576 572 80 34
N2BIM 162,000 516 62 20
K3WW 150,858 560 64 23
AA4NC 127,000 585 72 31
AA3JU 100,800
WB8NER 90,480 350 62 25
WS1C 13 89,200 415 62 13
WC9M 42,840 630 68
K7UP 30,000 200
AB4RU 27,000 170 43 12
AA8SM 5,366 74 186 23 3
***************************************************************************
73's Jim
Amateur Call: WA4ZXA
Email: floydjr at nr.infi.net
Packet Node: N4ZC
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list