[CQ-Contest] 2000-2001 UBN Analysis (longish)
Dick Green
dick.green at valley.net
Sat Sep 1 17:09:22 EDT 2001
USA Contesters,
I've always been interested in how top USA contesters compare in terms of
accuracy and have wanted to do some sort of analysis. Given the fairly
dramatic shuffle in ranking between the claimed scores and final results for
CQWW CW 2000, I thought such an analysis would be useful to everyone.
Below is the output from a spreadsheet showing claimed scores and final
scores for the top 20 USA ops in CQWW CW 2000 and ARRL DX CW 2001 (there
was some shuffling below the top ten in both contests and if I hadn't gone
down to the second ten my score wouldn't be included!) I can view this data
when I expand my e-mail window to full screen. If you can't, maybe turning
off word wrap will help. Otherwise, you should be able to copy the text to a
text processor and get rid of the extra newlines. If anyone would like to
post this data on the web, I'd be happy to supply the Excel spreadsheet.
It's hard for me to fully analyze this data because I'm not exactly sure
about the rules used by CQ and ARRL for UBN checking. My recollection is
that CQ imposes a three QSO penalty for a BAD call and ARRL does not. My
CQWW UBN reports seems to indicate that CQ just removes one QSO when it's
NIL. I'm not sure what ARRL does. I guess this would lead to the difference
in average QSO error percentage being less than 3x between the two contests
(it's less than 2x). Unfortunately, I don't think it's possible to draw any
conclusions about whether the CQ or ARRL rules make a difference in relative
standings. There aren't enough common calls between the two contests and the
sample is too small (some ops did relatively better in one contest than the
other, which could be due to a lot other factors.) It would be interesting
to do a long-term analysis across several years of contesting, although
changes in op efficiency would make that difficult.
The average score penalty is much higher in CQWW, but that's probably due to
the three-QSO penalty and the fact that you're much more likely to lose a
mult in that contest -- just look at the absolute number of mults lost
between the two contests. That's probably because in CQWW there are more
mults to lose and more rare mults.
I'd be very interested in any other observations, especially from the old
hands.
I did this partly because I was bummed out by my UBN performance in ARRL DX
CW. I was the dunce in that contest -- I had the highest error rate in the
top 20, dropped more spots than anyone else, and missed what would have been
my first top ten finish in a major contest from home. I was below average in
CQWW, too. The lesson is -- accuracy counts! K1AR has already made wise and
humble observations on that. I'm sure he feels worse than I do, but he's got
more plaques and top ten certificates on the wall than I do (XX to zero, I
believe.) I'm not at all against log checking -- I think it's great and
should be as tough as they can make it. The three QSO penalty is probably
irrelevant as long as it's applied uniformly to all ops. It does put a
premium on copying calls correctly, which is a good thing. Perhaps there
should be some incentive to copy the zone correctly, but let's not talk
about that ;-)
I only wish that ARRL would let us access the actual UBN report like CQ
does. I'm planning on comparing the CQWW report to my log to figure out my
pattern. I've already seen that transposition of 7 and 8, B and D, etc. is a
problem. I'll be looking at my '98, '99 and '00 reports to see if there are
times when I'm more likely to copy badly. I'm especially interested in why
my UBN percentage increased so much in 2000. It was 7.3% in '98, 4.6% '98
and 9.5% in 2000. I think it's because I crossed the 40 hour boundary and
fatigue played a bigger role, but I won't know until I look at the logs.
Does anyone else have a pattern like this? Were UBNs generally worse in
2000? If so, was that due to different UBN rules, propagation conditions,
new DX ops, or what?
I'd like to congratulate the ops who turned in UBN performances that were
nothing short of stunning. Under 5% in CQWW and under 1% in ARRL DX is
fantastic. As badly as I feel about my own performance, I want to recognize
their acheivement. I'm hoping to join that crowd and my attitude about log
checking is that it provides an incentive and opportunity for me to become a
better contest operator. Bring it on!
Here's the data:
2000-2001 UBN Analysis
CQ WW CW 2000
3830 CQ Lost %QSOs 3830 CQ Lost %Lost 3830 CQ
Points Pct 3830 CQ
QSOs QSOs QSOs Lost Mult Mult Mult Mult Score
Score Lost Lost Rank Rank
K1AR @K1EA 4668 4573 -95 -2.04% 679 679 0 0.00% 9,290,757
8,559,474 -731,283 -7.87% 1 2
K5ZD 4534 4484 -50 -1.10% 698 692 -6 -0.86% 9,228,956
8,756,568 -472,388 -5.12% 2 1
KQ2M 4503 4397 -106 -2.35% 684 674 -10 -1.46% 8,953,560
8,023,296 -930,264 -10.39% 3 4
K1ZZ (NT1N) 4390 4345 -45 -1.03% 690 688 -2 -0.29% 8,650,000
8,307,600 -342,400 -3.96% 4 3
W9RE (N9RV) 4203 4131 -72 -1.71% 664 651 -13 -1.96% 8,054,320
7,472,178 -582,142 -7.23% 5 5
K1DG 4106 4033 -73 -1.78% 647 647 0 0.00% 7,700,000
7,199,169 -500,831 -6.50% 6 6
W1KM 3858 3812 -46 -1.19% 643 639 -4 -0.62% 7,274,902
6,871,806 -403,096 -5.54% 7 7
N2NT 3836 3777 -59 -1.54% 629 625 -4 -0.64% 6,978,126
6,527,500 -450,626 -6.46% 8 8
K2UA 3846 3763 -83 -2.16% 597 592 -5 -0.84% 6,649,386
6,075,104 -574,282 -8.64% 9 9
W4AN (W4PA) 3526 3420 -106 -3.01% 607 602 -5 -0.82% 6,137,377
5,389,104 -748,273 -12.19% 10 12
K4ZW 3505 3457 -48 -1.37% 584 581 -3 -0.51% 6,001,768
5,643,253 -358,515 -5.97% 11 10
N2LT 3440 3404 -36 -1.05% 578 577 -1 -0.17% 5,811,212
5,574,974 -236,238 -4.07% 12 11
N2IC/0 3258 3171 -87 -2.67% 615 611 -4 -0.65% 5,686,290
5,373,745 -312,545 -5.50% 13 13
WC1M 3443 3370 -73 -2.12% 534 528 -6 -1.12% 5,344,272
4,838,592 -505,680 -9.46% 14 16
W1WEF 3141 3091 -50 -1.59% 567 564 -3 -0.53% 5,165,937
4,827,276 -338,661 -6.56% 15 17
W6EEN (N6RT) 3056 3031 -25 -0.82% 602 602 0 0.00% 5,086,298
4,958,674 -127,624 -2.51% 16 15
K5MR 3057 2972 -85 -2.78% 565 559 -6 -1.06% 4,960,000
4,362,995 -597,005 -12.04% 17 18
K8DX 2989 2838 -151 -5.05% 547 537 -10 -1.83% 4,763,823
3,753,630 -1,010,193 -21.21% 18 24
W3UR @K3ZO 2581 2513 -68 -2.63% 601 595 -6 -1.00% 4,494,879
3,976,385 -518,494 -11.54% 19 20
KR1G 2862 2780 -82 -2.87% 533 523 -10 -1.88% 4,456,413
3,874,507 -581,906 -13.06% 20 21
Average 3640 3568 -72 -2.04% 613 608 -5 -0.81% 6,534,414
6,018,292 -516,122 -8.29%
No 3830 post: W3BGN (finished #14)
K8GL rose from #22 to #19
ARRL DX CW 2001
3830 QST Lost %QSOs 3830 QST Lost %Lost 3830
QST Points Pct 3830 QST
QSOs QSOs QSOs Lost Mult Mult Mult Mult Score
Score Lost Lost Rank Rank
KQ2M 4441 4400 -41 -0.92% 485 484 -1 -0.21% 6,461,655
6,388,800 -72,855 -1.13% 1 1
K5ZD (W4PA) 4527 4464 -63 -1.39% 464 462 -2 -0.43% 6,291,840
6,187,104 -104,736 -1.66% 2 2
K1DG 4077 4033 -44 -1.08% 472 469 -3 -0.64% 5,773,032
5,674,431 -98,601 -1.71% 3 3
K2UA 4089 4050 -39 -0.95% 432 432 0 0.00% 5,299,344
5,248,800 -50,544 -0.95% 4 4
K5GN @W5KU 3463 3402 -61 -1.76% 449 446 -3 -0.67% 4,643,109
4,551,876 -91,233 -1.96% 5 6
N2IC/0 3563 3489 -74 -2.08% 439 439 0 0.00% 4,635,840
4,595,013 -40,827 -0.88% 6 5
VE3EJ 3465 3386 -79 -2.28% 444 444 0 0.00% 4,567,428
4,510,152 -57,276 -1.25% 7 7
W9RE 3605 3547 -58 -1.61% 422 420 -2 -0.47% 4,560,000
4,469,220 -90,780 -1.99% 8 8
WC1M 3573 3500 -73 -2.04% 418 415 -3 -0.72% 4,480,542
4,357,500 -123,042 -2.75% 9 11
K3ZO 3556 3538 -18 -0.51% 419 419 0 0.00% 4,469,892
4,447,266 -22,626 -0.51% 10 9
N2LT 3437 3414 -23 -0.67% 433 431 -2 -0.46% 4,464,663
4,414,302 -50,361 -1.13% 11 10
KR1G 3643 3578 -65 -1.78% 403 400 -3 -0.74% 4,404,387
4,293,600 -110,787 -2.52% 12 12
W1WEF 3336 3305 -31 -0.93% 422 420 -2 -0.47% 4,223,376
4,164,300 -59,076 -1.40% 13 13
K9NW @K9UWA 3153 3113 -40 -1.27% 444 444 0 0.00% 4,199,796
4,146,516 -53,280 -1.27% 14 14
KC1F 3102 3082 -20 -0.64% 400 400 0 0.00% 3,722,400
3,698,400 -24,000 -0.64% 15 15
K8GL 2822 2810 -12 -0.43% 423 423 0 0.00% 3,581,118
3,565,890 -15,228 -0.43% 16 16
N3BB 2743 2705 -38 -1.39% 417 416 -1 -0.24% 3,431,493
3,375,840 -55,653 -1.62% 17 17
N4ZR 2899 2882 -17 -0.59% 357 357 0 0.00% 3,104,829
3,086,622 -18,207 -0.59% 18 18
N9CK 2448 2439 -9 -0.37% 399 399 0 0.00% 2,929,059
2,919,483 -9,576 -0.33% 19 19
K9MA 2321 ? ? ? 371 371 0 0.00% 2,780,274
2,768,031 -12,243 -0.44% 20 20
Average (19) 3471 3428 -42 -1.19% 429 427 -1 -0.27% 4,486,516
4,426,059 -60,457 -1.30%
(error in QST mults for K9MA, but did not affect score)
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list