[CQ-Contest] List of WRTC stations / Results/Overspottinganditsimpact

Martin Monsalvo, LU5DX lu5dx at yahoo.com
Wed Jul 14 06:02:23 PDT 2010

Hello Don.
I believe no one is even questioning the way logs were adjudicated at all. At 
least that was not, nor is,  nor will be my intention.
Those of us who have had the chance to participate in WRTCs as competitors (in 
my case WRTC 2000 and 2006) have a very clear picture of the great deal of care 
and work the judging team performs to adjudicate the logs.
The originating email about cheerleading was aimed at confirming what Willy 
UA9BA communicated in advance of what he was going to do regarding this matter. 
Later ,during the contest it was not nice to see S53MM publicly telling 
everybody what the call of the S5 team was.
We certainly know you all took all possible precautions to adjudicate the logs. 
If I expressed my ideas in the wrong way I sure apologize in advance. 
What I mean when I say IMPACT is based on what I was able to listen during the 
competition.  Every time a spot occurred for a given station the rate increased 
significantly and those nice mini pile ups lasted for at least five minutes. 
Then,  they dried up and WRTC stations  continued to work at a good peace, not 
at the same as when the packet spot occurred though.
I’m not questioning the results, since the fourteen spots difference that the 
top team has over the second and third place runner ups, could have easily been 
produced by them going to the right band in the right moment, or because the 
changed running frequencies more often, that, I don’t know and certainly is 
speculation till logs are made available to the public.
We all know a station must be present in X number of logs to consider it valid, 
etc, but still, the IMPACT will still be there. It is not the same for the teams 
to work 150 stations evenly distributed across one hour, because  they work hard 
to achieve that number, than it is to work the same number because you received 
extra spots that made your rate climb during certain periods of that particular 
hour, giving you more time to focus on working mults for example.
Be sure I was not trying to question the amazing work every one at 2010 WRTC 
did.  It just a matter of analyzing if something can be improved for the future 
WRTCs. Furthermore, considering how close the top teams came in from each other 
in the final standings. To me, the fact that WRTC teams must remain anonymous is 
a great way to eliminate the cheerleading factor in whatever way it may take 
place. That would level the playing field even more and I bet it will make the 
work of the judging committee a bit easier.
Best 73.
Martin, LU5DX

Don Field don.field at gmail.com 
Wed Jul 14 02:22:29 PDT 2010
	* Previous message: [CQ-Contest] List of WRTC stations / 
Results	/Overspottinganditsimpact
	* Next message: [CQ-Contest] List of WRTC stations / 
Results	/Overspottinganditsimpact
	* Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
There has been a lot of (largely uninformed) speculation on here as to the 
impact of cheerleading, the way logs were adjudicated, etc. I will try to 
address some of these issues in the article I have been asked to write for NCJ 
about the whole WRTC experience.  Suffice to say that WRTC was quite amazing and 
really does seem to have come the closest yet to the mythical "level playing 
field". The Russian support was incredible, some of the helpers (installing 
tents and antennas, helping with transport, etc) had travelled overland from as 
far away as UA9/0.  For many reasons, some of us expected the results to be 
dominated by Russian teams, mainly because they have been using this particular 
format in their RRTC event for many years. The (very worthy) winning team, from 
what their referee told me, operated as one - barely exchanging a word, but 
being almost telepathic in their teamwork, largely because they have been 
operating together at RU1A and elsewhere for 30 years. But the Estonian and US 
teams in 2nd and 3rd place did an amazing job to do so well in what, for them, 
was largely a new format. (for those who don't know, the rules allowed both 
operators to run and/or S&P, albeit with an "octopus" so only one tx could be on 
at a time - technically this really meant having a triplexer to allow the beam 
to be used by both rigs simultaneously; from an operating point of view it 
required close co-ordination between the ops)  It will be interesting to see 
what innovations the next WRTC brings - Moscow will be a hard act to follow.  
Don G3XTT  (having had the privilege of being part of the judging team) 
Martin, LU5DX 


More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list