[CQ-Contest] Is it time to reevaluate CQWW (2pts analisys)
David Kopacz
david.kopacz at aspwebhosting.com
Sat Dec 5 13:00:32 PST 2009
Mike,
I doubt that's the case. Having a great deal of experience operating
from the Caribbean, I can tell you this:
1) there is a limited timeframe for working non US stations, such as
Europeans and Japan, we never point yagis to US when band is open
elsewhere.
2) there are very limited South American stations to work, and less in
Africa where there are only mults
3) US stations are loud and even when we point to Europe, US stations
break the pileups with ease and we have very sharp antennas uncommon in
Caribbean
4) to work JA's, we usually switch from stack to top antenna only, which
brings the JA signals up slightly and slightly reduces US strength, but
still difficult to work JA's unless we ask US to QRX or listen very
carefully for the JA's. Most Caribbean stations use a low tribander and
no possibility to do this. They have no choice but to work the louder US
stations and only the loudest JA's
As you can see, 6Y1V can and did beat PJ2T, but look how many more Q's
and mults it took to do it and still the margin isn't that great. An
average Caribbean station can't do this with modest antennas. Even more
important is the level of skill it takes to keep up a high rate often
with 30 to 50 stations calling at once.
Europeans have a very distinct advantage over US stations because
although similar in size and population, the EU stations get one point
for working each other PLUS a multiplier, where US stations get 0 points
and have only 3 zone mults and one country mult as compared to Europe
which has many countries and several zones. If we are encouraging
working DX, there is less incentive for Europeans to work another
continent than US stations. Even with this advantage, how often do you
see a EU station at the top of the scoring list in any category? This is
why the committee has created separate categories for EU and US, but
this leaves out the Caribbean stations. There is a plaque for 1st US,
1st EU and 1st SA, but none for 1st place NA.
Now compare EA8 and CT3. They are Africa and even though close to EU
like Caribbean is to the US, they get 3 points to Caribbean 2 points.
The system is quite skewed. Sure, I could have put our station on 9Y,
P4, PJ2 or PJ4 but I guarantee you it would have caused as huge uproar.
We even hinted about going to PJ4 and the group down there was in an
uproar. Talking about P40 was worse. There are already a half a dozen
stations there. None want a 6Y1V station there.
I don't think changing the scoring to give equal points for all QSO's
will eliminate the DX'ing aspect of the contest. Everyone likes working
DX. In fact, working South East Asia from 6Y1V, through the US roar, is
extremely difficult even with our antenna systems, yet it's so fun and
challenging that each year I waste precious time in pileups trying to
work XU 9M BV BA HS and others fully knowing that each mult is worth
only 14 or 15 Q's which takes as less than a few minutes to put in the
log and breaking these pileups sometimes takes 10 or 15 minutes for even
the most skilled operators.
I guess if the CQWW committee isn't interested in reevaluating the
system, perhaps what is needed is a secondary recognition system. There
is nothing to prevent another group to request logs, score them more
fairly and issue certificates and plaques.
The bottom line is that V47NT was the best operator and EF8M gets the
plaque. I don't see fairness in that.
David ~ KY1V
-----Original Message-----
From: W0MU Mike Fatchett [mailto:w0mu at w0mu.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 1:38 PM
To: 'Felipe J Hernandez'; 'Albert Crespo'; David Kopacz
Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Is it time to reevaluate CQWW (2pts analisys)
Maybe V47NT spent a bit too much time focusing on the US? Would that
not be
a strategy that one must consider?
CC Packet Cluster W0MU-1
W0MU.NET or 67.40.148.194
"A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you
may
never get over." Ben Franklin
-----Original Message-----
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Felipe J
Hernandez
Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 11:46 AM
To: Albert Crespo; David Kopacz
Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Is it time to reevaluate CQWW (2pts analisys)
This is how the scores would look on a perfect world 2 pts per Q..
Perhaps we can confirm the assumptions of the previous posts or still
feel
that the scoring is unfair.
Standing New standing Old rank
1 EF8M
V47NT #2 NA
2 V47NT
CR2X #7 Eu
3 CR3E
EF8M #1 Af
4 8P5A
8P5A #4 NA
5 ZS4TX
CR3E #3 Af
6 P49Y
NP4Z #11 Na
7 CR2X
ZS4TX #7 AF
8 6W1RW
VY2TT #9 Na
9 VY2TT
P49Y #6 Sa
10 4L0A
VE2IM #13 NA
11 NP4Z
4L0A #10 AS
12 ZC4T
6W1RW #8 AS
13 VE2IM ZC4T
#12 NA
Interesting Ah? these are my remarks on the exercise:
a.. Top 5, 2 AFrica, 2 NA and one Europe.
a.. v47nt on top like it should, he was the better op in all respects
b.. CR2X great operator in a well engineered stn from 7 to #2 a
deserved
spot
c.. EF8M Third. skilled operator from an advantaged location
d.. 8P5A a great op, Fair spot (he will win very soon)
e.. CR3E super op but with station not fully developed like Cr2X
f.. Np4z went from 11 to 6.. with a morale boost Hi Hi
g.. zs4tx on 7 th place previously on 5th with an incredible score
from S.
africa
h.. VY2TT Amazing score from so hi up in NA.. good stn good op
i.. p49y good operator but with limited experience on ww
j.. VE2IM close to vy2tt, like it should, good ops with good loc in NA
k.. 4L0A What to say, another amazing score from Dick and rounding the
top 10
l.. 6w1RW good op, on good location but with very limited low bands
antennas
m.. ZC4T good op at a good loc with very small antennas Without
having
significant prescence from Europe like other years is a little harder to
see
how they would have played this year, having the likes of BLE, GI0KOW,
Oe2s,
and other big European SO would have made it even more interesting
surely
wished that Es5TV and 4O3A would have operated SO AB unassisted.
Good representation of the different continents still with 2 pts
scoring.
Anyone to analize the multi ops or other point structure?
Felipe
NP4Z
----- Original Message -----
From: Albert Crespo
To: David Kopacz
Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com
Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2009 4:25 AM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Is it time to reevaluate CQWW Scoring Rules?
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
>
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list