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

[jimk8mr at aol.com]

Now that contest results are scored by one computer and one program, the sponsors', there is no good reason a contest could be scored by several different metrics.

In the case of CQWW, start with "CQWW Classic".  Then add one based on distance scoring, probably distances between zone centers rather than individual stations. Maybe include one that factors in the degree of polar path propagation. Zone 4 to zone 30 is a lot further than zone 4 to zone 18, but a heck of a lot easier.  There may be other systems worth doing.

People would compete under any or all of the systems. Awards would be make for all the scoring systems. Someone could with in multiple categories. EF8M might win the "Classic".  V47NT might win a distance system. An OH (from OH) might win a polar path factored score system.

Since all scoring is done by computer, there is no reason all qso points have to be integers. So a contact from PJ2 to the USA could be scored a bit more than a qso from V47, but not 50% more.  Maybe 10% more.

Ten years ago I suggested such an idea to the CQWW committee shortly after I had operated CQWW CW in 1999 from 9M6AAC.  But I quickly learned that the CQWW committee has about as bad a case of NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome as exists anywhere in the world.

73  -  Jim  K8MR



-----Original Message-----
From: David Kopacz <david.kopacz at aspwebhosting.com>
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Sent: Sun, Dec 6, 2009 10:08 am
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Is it time to reevaluate CQWW Scoring Rules?


"And if now V47NT wants to win the world he should go to a 3 pts
ountry. "
Yes, this is a great idea! Let's simply move all the best operators and
tations to 3 point countries. I can see it now.
25 station on P40, 32 station on PJ2 and 45 on EA8. This m]akes great
ense.
I never stated that EU stations should continue to only get one point
or EU QSO's while Caribbean stations continue to get 2 points each QSO.
sk any US station if they are frustrated getting 0 points for "in
ountry" QSO's. I merely made a simple observation that V47NT out
erformed EF8M and lost. How is this fair?
This was just ONE observation. There are many more. I simply do not
hink that one person should have an unfair advantage over another
imply because he chooses to go to a 3 point location. Do you have any
dea how much work it is to set up a station on a remote island? I can
ell you just getting the equipment there and clearing customs was a
ajor undertaking! Think about clearing a jungle on the side of a hill
nd then jack hammering through volcanic rock to put up 6 towers and guy
nchors. This is no small task.
I could move the 6Y1V station to PJ2 P40 CT3 EA8 HC8, but how much fun
ould that be for those people already there or for everyone else
orking those more rare multipliers? I am quite certain that everyone in
urope pointing their yagis to NA enjoys working a handful of Caribbean
tations over the thousands of US stations on the band. Think how much
un it would be next year if instead of logging PJ2T 6Y1V and V47NT, you
nstead log PJ2T, PJ2V and PJ2NT.
Think about it, how many stations do you think could operate from HC8
efore the multiplier is diluted? I suggest if I moved 6Y1V there,
either HC8N nor my station HC8V would win a contest simply because
eople wouldn't make an effort to work both of us. Once they worked on
tation for the multiplier the other station would be ignored.
Telling people to choose a 3 point location is NOT the answer. Making
mall adjustments to the scoring in order to level the playing field so
he same stations aren't always winning year after year when they are
learly not making the most QSO's and multipliers is more appropriate.
David ~ KY1V