[CQ-Contest] Is it time to reevaluate CQWW Scoring Rules?

[Albert Crespo]

At least 95% of EF8DM's QSOs were worth 3 points, compared to  V47NT in 
which perhaps 40 %of his QSOs  were with NA and only worth two points. V47NT 
(N2NT) decided to operate from a location he does not live as did RD3F. For 
whatever strategy reasons  they decided on in being in these QTHs, they 
produced great scores.
In 1983, WA6VEF at AI6V won    CQWW SSB SOAB.  Miracles do happen, but that 
was when there were lots of JA's to work. That could never happen today with 
the shift in active ham populations from JA to Europe. Still a great feat, 
but one would never today try to repeat from California.
Africa is a long ways from the USA where a great percentage of the ham 
population is located.  160 meter QSOs from the Caribbean into W6/W7 land 
are quite common, not so with Africa. That is why the point difference.
The only fair scoring is what is used in the 160 meter  Stew Perry Contest, 
and that will never happen in CQWW.

--------------------------------------------------
From: "David Kopacz" <david.kopacz at aspwebhosting.com>
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 5:32 PM
To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Is it time to reevaluate CQWW Scoring Rules?

>
> What's wrong with this picture?
>
> EF8M(RD3AF)       7374   131   409    48 11,888,100
> V47NT(N2NT)       7402   135   457    48 11,231,424
>
> Let's see, V47NT has more Q's more zones and significantly more
> countries, but a lower score!
>
> So basically, he out-performed EF8M in all aspects and still loses.
>
> I think it's time for an evaluation of the scoring rules.
>
> What do you think?
>
> David ~ KY1V
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>