[CQ-Contest] Comments on the 2000 CQ WW CW Results

[Barry]

The rules are the rules, whether we like them or not, and let's 
please not create the hanging chads in contesting. BTW, if anyone 
has the time and inclination, I would like to see a similar analysis 
of SOA scores, and how they compare with the SO scores...
73,
Barry

On 4 Sep 01, at 10:56, Bill Tippett wrote:

> 
> K1AR wrote:
> 
> >I'm now even more inclined to strive to join that sub-1% club.
> 
>         I noticed something which underscores John's comment for the
> CQ WW.  Assuming a 1X penalty (as ARRL uses) instead of CQ's 3X
> penalty, I calculated that K1AR would have won by a hair.  Especially
> in the CQ WW, I like to remind myself that the only rate that counts
> is NOT what is on the rate meter but accurate QSO's less penalties per
> hour.  Still, an outstanding job by both and special kudos to N6RT for
> a total -2.51% score reduction...WOW!
> 
>                                    73,  Bill  W4ZV
> 
> Published Score    with 1/2 QSO-point loss (2X total instead of 4X
> total)
> 
> K1AR:  8,559,474     8,925,116
> K5ZD:  8,756,568     8,921,956
> 
> 
> --
> CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
> Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com
> 


--
Barry Kutner, W2UP              Internet: w2up at mindspring.com
Newtown, PA                     Frankford Radio Club
        


--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://lists.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST at contesting.com