[CQ-Contest] Packet statistics

[N7MAL]

Scott:
While I agree with you whole-heartedly think of the consequences to this 
reflector. It might have to revert to meaningful discussions about 
contesting instead of mindless/mindnumbing drivel about a subject that no 
one has or will ever have any control over. You would put K1TTTTTT right out 
of business.
All seriousness aside whether we like it or not packet is here to stay and 
eventually, probably not in our lifetime, the ARRL and CQ will realize using 
packet is not as big a deal as guys like TTTTTTTT try to make it out to be 
and they will drop the ass/isted category.
I missed working you this weekend, guess I should have used packet then I 
would 8 VE1's instead of 7.
73

MAL              N7MAL
BULLHEAD CITY, AZ



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Nichols" <snichols at mvosprey.com>
To: <CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 16:41
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Packet statistics


> Interesting to read the annual hubbub about packet in CW SS...
>
> Some stats:
>
> 2004 SS CW - Claimed Scored to Nov 9/04:
>
>  Prec B - Avg score of top 30 stations - 198,120 with 27 of 30 achieving 
> sweeps
>  Prec U - Avg score of top 30 stations - 141,151 with 25 of 30 achieving 
> sweeps
>
> 2003 SS CW - Official Results:
>
>  Prec B - Avg score of top 10 - 215,552
>  Prec U - Avg score of top 10 - 172,820
>
> 2002 SS CW - Official Results:
>
>  Prec B - Avg score of top 10 - 219,552 with 10 sweeps
>  Prec U - Avg score of top 10 - 176,499 with 9 sweeps
>
> SS CW All Time Divisional Records:
>
>  Prec B - Avg score of 16 Divisional all-time records - 220,296
>  Prec U - Avg score of 16 Divisional all-time records - 168,026
>
> Now, I'm no statistician, and I'm sure there are 5,000 other factors to 
> consider in evaluating the above, but it appears to me that "B" top scores 
> consistently are ahead of "U" top scores, at least in CW 
> Sweepstakes...Does this not seem to indicate that packet provides no big 
> advantage in achieving a top score ? I'd like to do the same type of 
> analysis for CQWW...Might be a different story in a contest with many, 
> many mults...
>
> I personally think the Europeans have it right by allowing packet in all 
> categories in most of their contests...Eliminates the packet class 
> cheaters...If you think it helps, connect and use it...If you think its a 
> waste of time, don't use it...At least the playing field is even...It's 
> become a fixture in radiosport...Lets face it....If you want to WIN, you 
> have to run, run, run and get Q's...Most of the mults will come to you 
> anyway...Using packet adds an element of fun for those of us who like to 
> do DXCC on 3 bands in CQWW, or are fascinated at being able to click on a 
> callsign on a screen and instantly be in the middle of a nice juicy pileup 
> etc etc...Same as SO2R adds an element of fun for those guys...No seperate 
> SO2R class yet, but much bigger advantage in my opinion...
>
> One thing I will comment on, last weekend in CW SS, I could tell when I 
> was spotted by the sudden flurry of stations calling me after a 
> lull...Interestingly, many of them were giving me B's, A's or Q's...These 
> are the ones I consider packet class cheaters...
>
> 73, and CU in all of the next 4 or 5 weekends...Gotta love this time of 
> year...
>
> Scott VE1OP
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>