[CQ-Contest] CQWW and 0 pointers

[Ken Claerbout]

>it would go a long ways toward leveling the playing field with my NE M-M's....a great 
>example of this is how much more fairer the cqwpx contest has become since 
>they give one points for same country....what it really will fall back to is 
>that this is still a dx contest...until I can work as many as the other 
>M-M's, we will still be playing  catch up....but if I had 6.25 more hours to 
>find and work other stations my score would also reflect that...go figure?

There are a couple of problems with this simple analysis.

 

1.)      The numbers given are not put in any context relative to the competition.  In the 2006 CQWW DX SSB contest, NQ4I had about 800 zero point US QSO's.  K3LR (#1 high claimed and beacon station on all bands), had approximately 640 zero pointers.  Roughly a delta of 160 zero point QSOs.  In the 2006 CQWW CW contest, NQ4I had roughly 390 zero point US QSO's and W3LPL (#1 high claimed and another beacon station) had approximately 440 zero point US stations.  In this case a delta of about 50 QSO's to LPL's supposed disadvantage.

2.)      If these zero pointers are wasting time that would otherwise be spent working something for point value, then the contact would have to be made during medium to peak rate periods.  No doubt that is the case for some percentage of the overall total.  But, I'll bet a lot of the zero point QSO's are also followed by one or more CQ's before the next station is worked.  Anyone who has operated at a multi-multi knows there are a lot of slow periods especially as you wait for bands to open or, on bands that are not very active at this point in the sunspot cycle (10 & 15 meters for example).  Rates the second day are almost always slower than the first too.  

  

If someone wants to make the case that these QSO's should have a point value because working them is senseless or a PITA, then fine.  (I certainly don't support it though)  But, if you want to claim it should be done because it would level the playing field with the Northeast multi-multi's, I don't think the data is there to support it.  At least not to the extent it is being portrayed.     



Ken K4ZW