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

Wed Dec 9 01:09:47 PST 2009

Dave,
If CQWW decided to create a new contest based upon distance, would the next 
step be to handicap those who are in a location that has better propagation 
then others ( P4 verus OH)? Does this become never ending?

--------------------------------------------------
From: "David Kopacz" <david.kopacz at aspwebhosting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 3:13 AM
To: "Andrew" <ac6wi at comcast.net>; <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Is it time to reevaluate CQWW Scoring Rules?

>
> EA8CMX   476,652   1264   27   105
> GI0KOW   414,392   2270   26   110
>
> This is an excellent example. Some have said, "just do better, work
> harder". How hard does one have to work to win? It's nearly impossible
> when the odds are stacked against you. A few have said, "choose a better
> location", but not everyone has the luxury. I received one response
> stating "location location location" to which I respond, this isn't a
> retail store, it's a radio contest by hobbyists. I have seen responses
> stating "it's just for fun", and though we all have fun, some of that
> fun is lost when you lose after you have outperformed your competition.
>
> Of the few that have replied negatively to my original post, there are
> dozens that have written to me privately agreeing with my observation
> that the current scoring is unfair. Unfortunately, due to attacks from
> fellow contesters, many simply won't state their opinions publicly. I
> can't say I blame them. Personally, I can take all that can be dished
> out and I am not interested in popularity, so I speak my mind no matter
> the cost.
>
> I am pleased to see a few others willing to support discussion publicly
> despite the likely hood of being attacked because of their opinions.
>
> I am very interested in ideas how the scoring system could be changed in
> a manner that gives everyone a fair chance to win, regardless of
> location.
>
> David ~ KY1V
>
>
>
>
> Here's an interesting set of figures I pulled from CQ Magazine which I
> think backs up what David has been saying about there being a problem
> with the scoring for those operating close to continental boundaries.
>
> CQWW SSB 2008 results in the Single Op Single Band 80M High Power.....
>
> EA8CMX   476,652   1264   27   105  (Op OH2BYS)
> GI0KOW   414,392   2270   26   110
>
> Can anyone really say it is fair that someone with a much larger QSO
> total (almost 80% more) and higher overall mult total should finish
> lower in the standings?  I think this is the type of unfair result David
> was referring to in the original message in this thread before the focus
> got diverted.
>
> In the interests of full disclosure, I was aware of this result before
> this thread started because GI0KOW is a good friend of mine and I had an
> interest in where he placed when the results came out as I used to
> contest from his station in years gone by.  That said, I have nothing
> against OH2BYS and I'm just using this result as an example of what
> David was referring to and could probably find other similar ones
> instead if I did the research.
>
> Vy 73,
>
> Andrew AC6WI / GI0NWG
>
>
>
> On 08/12/09 08:37, Kelly Taylor wrote:
>> Marty,
>> I think you may be getting a little overly ad hominem in your debating
> style
>> here.
>>
>> Dave has never said his concerns are about guaranteeing a win. He has
> never
>> said his concerns are ONLY about 6Y1V.
>>
>> He is simply raising some points that have occurred to me as well:
> namely,
>> if I'm within line-of-sight with a station, should our QSO really
> count as
>> DX? Why is a QSO across the Strait of Gibraltar worth more than a QSO
> from
>> the northwest corner of B.C. to the southern tip of Florida?
>>
>> Indeed, one could say that those arguing in favour of the status quo
> are
>> only arguing to maintain their competitive advantage. I'm not saying
> that's
>> necessarily the case, but it does suggest that those who would try to
> throw
>> stones at someone's motives may be living in glass houses.
>>
>> Sticking to a factual debate may be more difficult, but the results
> are
>> certainly more worthwhile than being dismissive.
>>
>> 73, kelly
>> ve4xt
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/7/09 3:21 PM, "w1md at cfl.rr.com" <w1md at cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dave,
>>>
>>> I guess from the same place that N6TJ does...although Mr. Niger is
> much more
>>> eloquent in his posting...and gets the sentiment of what I was trying
> to
>>> say...only head said it more clearly (thanks Jim).
>>>
>>> FYI...never said "you" were comparing CQ to ARRL...read closely...and
> building
>>> a MEGA station does not automatically guarantee a win...which is I
> guess why
>>> you are looking to change the rules...
>>>
>>> W1MD
>>>
>>> ---- David Kopacz <david.kopacz at aspwebhosting.com> wrote:
>>>> Martin,
>>>>
>>>> I am amazed. Where do you come up with this stuff?
>>>>
>>>> "If you focused as much effort on 'having fun' as you do on trying
> to
>>>> make changes to the rules...Man, I can only imagine how much fun
> you'd
>>>> be having"
>>>>
>>>> How many contests have I operated from 6Y1V? A dozen or more.
>>>>
>>>> How many complaints have I made about the scoring? One.
>>>>
>>>> I have plenty of fun. Having fun doesn't preclude an effort to
> evaluate
>>>> and possibly change a scoring system that induces an unfair
> advantage
>>>> based solely upon location rather than skill.
>>>>
>>>> You mention a scoring system that has worked well for many years,
> but
>>>> when you really examine the scores across many years, you see the
> real
>>>> picture. The same guys wining over nad over based on location, not
>>>> necessarily skill. There are many examples of this other than the
> one
>>>> that I chose. Look at the European scores. In M2 alone, there have
> been
>>>> scores from Europe that have more Q's and more multipliers but are
> 7th
>>>> 8th and lower in the standings simple because they must work other
>>>> europeans and get only 1 points for these contacts.
>>>>
>>>> I never compared this contest with ARRL, not would I. I am not
> saying
>>>> the scoring needs to be setup like ARRL or WAE, I am meerely saying
> it
>>>> needs to be examined, and adjustments could be made to "level the
>>>> playing field" so that guys like Andy, who work hard and clearly out
>>>> perform their competitor, can win.
>>>>
>>>> You state " I go to V26 for ARRL because it is closer to the US than
> PJ2
>>>> and P40...but it's not as close as 6Y1V...and you guys have the
>>>> advantage...big time...on the lower bands...but we don't complain
> about
>>>> it."
>>>>
>>>> There's nothing to complain about here. The scoring is fair. PJ2T
> has
>>>> beat us. We have beat them. We beat you not because of scoring, but
>>>> because of antennas. If you were to erect a stack of 40 meters
> yagis,
>>>> install an 80 meter four square and a 160 meter full size delta loop
> at
>>>> 140', you would compete with us very well.
>>>>
>>>> In CQWW it's a diffierent story. Look how much effort it took us to
>>>> barely beat PJ2T. It's absurd. The gap is huge and it's that way all
>>>> around the world, not just the Caribbean. If you can't see this,
> then I
>>>> am sorry. There's really no point in further "discussions" with you.
>>>>
>>>> I have received dozens of emails form people that agree with me. The
>>>> system needs adjustment. Someone has to bring it up. It might as
> well be
>>>> me!
>>>>
>>>> By the way, nice job at NQ4I. I am always rooting for Rick and his
> team!
>>>>
>>>> David ~ KY1V
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: David Kopacz [mailto:david.kopacz at aspwebhosting.com]
>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 8:42 PM
>>>> To: Martin Durham
>>>> Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Is it time to reevaluate CQWW Scoring
> Rules?
>>>>
>>>> Next you said...
>>>>
>>>> "Stop beating a dead horse...if you want to make a 'play' for
> revamping
>>>> the
>>>> rules for CQWW then use another argument"
>>>>
>>>> There is no other argument. Not everyone can operate from the
> limited 3
>>>> point islands, nor can we put, or should we put, 10 or 15 stations
> on
>>>> one of
>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>> My argument wasn't about whether or not they knew the rules or
>>>> consequences,
>>>> my argument is much more simple.
>>>>
>>>> One operator outperformed the other and lost. Because of which
> location
>>>> you
>>>> say "he chose" is not a good reason to lose.
>>>>
>>>> The scoring system is not fair, has never been fair and needs to be
>>>> re-evaluated. I simply used this one case as an example. There are
>>>> dozens
>>>> more just like it.
>>>>
>>>> So again, I say your statement is ludicrous. The problem IS the
> scoring
>>>> system sucks!
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>
>>>> David Kopacz, CTO
>>>> Rational Certified Developer, MCSE+I
>>>>
>>>> ASPwebhosting.com, LLC
>>>> Microsoft Certified Partner
>>>> 4044 Fort Campbell Blvd, #308, Hopkinsville, Kentucky 42240
>>>> 1.888.277.9320
>>>> U.S. & Canada
>>>> 1.502.410.2922 International
>>>>
>>>> SIP: dial at freecall.aspwebhosting.com
>>>>
>>>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
>>>> The information contained in this electronic transmission is
> PRIVILEGED
>>>> and
>>>> CONFIDENTIAL information intended only to be viewed by the
> individual,
>>>> entity or entities named as recipient(s). You are hereby notified
> that
>>>> any
>>>> dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is
> strictly
>>>> prohibited and a violation of your service agreement. If you have
>>>> received
>>>> this communication in error, please notify ASPwebhosting.com, LLC
>>>> immediately by electronic mail or by telephone and permanently
> delete
>>>> this
>>>> message from your computer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Martin Durham [mailto:w1md at cfl.rr.com]
>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 7:22 PM
>>>> To: David Kopacz
>>>> Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Is it time to reevaluate CQWW Scoring
> Rules?
>>>>
>>>> Dave,
>>>>
>>>> Nowhere did I say "just because something "is""...makes it right.
> What I
>>>> said was that V47NT and EF8M both understood the rules and scoring
> of
>>>> the
>>>> contest prior to going to their respective 'corners' and
> competing...
>>>>
>>>> Tell me how THAT is ludicrous...
>>>>
>>>> v/r
>>>>
>>>> Marty
>>>> W1MD
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: David Kopacz [mailto:david.kopacz at aspwebhosting.com]
>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 6:44 PM
>>>> To: w1md at cfl.rr.com
>>>> Subject: RE: [CQ-Contest] Is it time to reevaluate CQWW Scoring
> Rules?
>>>>
>>>> You argument is ludicrous.
>>>>
>>>> Just because something IS, doesn't make it right!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>
>>>> David Kopacz, CTO
>>>> Rational Certified Developer, MCSE+I
>>>>
>>>> ASPwebhosting.com, LLC
>>>> Microsoft Certified Partner
>>>> 4044 Fort Campbell Blvd, #308, Hopkinsville, Kentucky 42240
>>>> 1.888.277.9320
>>>> U.S. & Canada
>>>> 1.502.410.2922 International
>>>>
>>>> SIP: dial at freecall.aspwebhosting.com
>>>>
>>>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
>>>> The information contained in this electronic transmission is
> PRIVILEGED
>>>> and
>>>> CONFIDENTIAL information intended only to be viewed by the
> individual,
>>>> entity or entities named as recipient(s). You are hereby notified
> that
>>>> any
>>>> dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is
> strictly
>>>> prohibited and a violation of your service agreement. If you have
>>>> received
>>>> this communication in error, please notify ASPwebhosting.com, LLC
>>>> immediately by electronic mail or by telephone and permanently
> delete
>>>> this
>>>> message from your computer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
>>>> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> w1md at cfl.rr.com
>>>> Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 2:40 PM
>>>> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
>>>> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Is it time to reevaluate CQWW Scoring
> Rules?
>>>>
>>>> It's "fair" because BOTH parties new exactly what they were up
> against
>>>> BEFORE the contest started.
>>>>
>>>> Stop beating a dead horse...if you want to make a 'play' for
> revamping
>>>> the
>>>> rules for CQWW then use another argument. When folks go to 2pt. land
> vs.
>>>> 3pt. land they know before the contest starts that they are going to
> be
>>>> disadvantaged. You knew it before you decided to invest in 6y1v...
>>>>
>>>> W1MD
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---- David Kopacz <david.kopacz at aspwebhosting.com> wrote:
>>>>> "And if now V47NT wants to win the world he should go to a 3 pts
>>>>> country. "
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, this is a great idea! Let's simply move all the best operators
>>>> and
>>>>> stations to 3 point countries. I can see it now.
>>>>>
>>>>> 25 station on P40, 32 station on PJ2 and 45 on EA8. This makes
> great
>>>>> sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> I never stated that EU stations should continue to only get one
> point
>>>>> for EU QSO's while Caribbean stations continue to get 2 points each
>>>> QSO.
>>>>> Ask any US station if they are frustrated getting 0 points for "in
>>>>> country" QSO's. I merely made a simple observation that V47NT out
>>>>> performed EF8M and lost. How is this fair?
>>>>>
>>>>> This was just ONE observation. There are many more. I simply do not
>>>>> think that one person should have an unfair advantage over another
>>>>> simply because he chooses to go to a 3 point location. Do you have
> any
>>>>
>>>>> idea how much work it is to set up a station on a remote island? I
> can
>>>>
>>>>> tell you just getting the equipment there and clearing customs was
> a
>>>>> major undertaking! Think about clearing a jungle on the side of a
> hill
>>>>
>>>>> and then jack hammering through volcanic rock to put up 6 towers
> and
>>>> guy
>>>>> anchors. This is no small task.
>>>>>
>>>>> I could move the 6Y1V station to PJ2 P40 CT3 EA8 HC8, but how much
> fun
>>>>
>>>>> would that be for those people already there or for everyone else
>>>>> working those more rare multipliers? I am quite certain that
> everyone
>>>> in
>>>>> Europe pointing their yagis to NA enjoys working a handful of
>>>> Caribbean
>>>>> stations over the thousands of US stations on the band. Think how
> much
>>>>
>>>>> fun it would be next year if instead of logging PJ2T 6Y1V and
> V47NT,
>>>> you
>>>>> instead log PJ2T, PJ2V and PJ2NT.
>>>>>
>>>>> Think about it, how many stations do you think could operate from
> HC8
>>>>> before the multiplier is diluted? I suggest if I moved 6Y1V there,
>>>>> neither HC8N nor my station HC8V would win a contest simply because
>>>>> people wouldn't make an effort to work both of us. Once they worked
> on
>>>>
>>>>> station for the multiplier the other station would be ignored.
>>>>>
>>>>> Telling people to choose a 3 point location is NOT the answer.
> Making
>>>>> small adjustments to the scoring in order to level the playing
> field
>>>> so
>>>>> the same stations aren't always winning year after year when they
> are
>>>>> clearly not making the most QSO's and multipliers is more
> appropriate.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> 