[CQ-Contest] Two Reasons Why Assisted and Unassisted Should Be Merged

[Pete Smith]

The real point is that people can choose which class to enter, 
maximizing the fun potential *for them*.  To date, the majority of the 
top competitive operators have chosen the traditional Unassisted 
category, and I hazard the guess that this is because they regard 
unassisted S&P as an important skill they bring to the table.  I can't 
imagine why any contest sponsor should want to merge the two classes.

73, Pete N4ZR

The World Contest Station Database, updated daily at www.conteststations.com
The Reverse Beacon Network at http://reversebeacon.net, blog at reversebeacon.blogspot.com,
spots at telnet.reversebeacon.net, port 7000 AND now
at arcluster.reversebeacon.net port 7000



On 12/2/2011 12:40 AM, JVarney wrote:
> Good point. I was only looking at worldwide scores.
>
> I should not have brought up "Assisted never wins" to support my argument that Assisted and Unassisted could be merged without harm. A rigorous and objective evaluation would require a statistical analysis of the full population of scores, not just a few at the top. As time permits I'll work on such an analysis and report here when done.
>
> 73 Jim K6OK
>
> --- On Thu, 12/1/11, Richard DiDonna NN3W<richnn3w at verizon.net>  wrote:
>
> Ummmm....you apparently forgot to look at the SOAB HP and SOAB HP(A) in USA claimed scores for CQWW SSB.
>
> Having won both (U) and (A) in the past, I can say with absolute
> metaphysical certainty that the advantages of being assististed over
> unassisted are manifold.
>
> 73 Rich NN3W
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>