[CQ-Contest] Inverse Distance Based Scoring Proposal
kdutson at sbcglobal.net
Sat Jun 25 16:17:49 PDT 2011
I prefer to be the DX rather than winning a contest. After all, is not the
objective to have fun?
If you want to feel more competitive, compare scores by location rather than
with the whole USA. Would that not provide the level field? I don't see a
need to change the rules.
BTW, I worked the 2006 ARRL Intl DX from 9H3 Malta. We were running 400
watts. Each day the east coast stations were the first heard on 20, by
about 30 minutes. There were a few VE's also. Same deal in the evening:
they were the only stations heard for the last 30 minutes. So I agree there
is a distinct advantage there.
From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Rick Dougherty NQ4I
Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2011 6:39 AM
To: w2lc at twcny.rr.com
Cc: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Inverse Distance Based Scoring Proposal
Hi Scott.....I am surprised that you would say it is not broken (ARRL)...you
need to come down to Georgia and operate from a station there and you will
find that you cannot come close to you score from the NE US....plain and
simple.....I have had a large number of private emails from hams all around
the world about his topic...almost every one agrees with my stand...it may
be that we can never truly level the playing field, but if we don't do
something to make it somewhat fairer then we have missed a great
opportunity....thee is NOT any sense of arguing that the NE does not have an
advantage...it is there in plain sight and in black and blue ink...its been
there for too long...its now time to act on making some change...and I know
how we all rebel against change, but for the good of the hobby it is time to
change....I am sending a little more verbage to you this morning and making
my email my daily post on the subject....we are not talking about SS, and I
don't participate in SS and therefore don't have first hand knowlege of
SS....and contrary to KU8E's post we are not talking about changing the
VHF?UHF tests either...we are simply talking about the ARRL DX.....I have
seen the K1XM study and I think Paul did a really remarkable job in chosing
his parameters to show the impact of distance based scoring and its impact
on the M-M entries in 2011 ARRL CW....to me it shows one thing right off the
bat...and if anyone needs a copy email me...it shows that stations outside
the current NE-NYC-DCA-PIT-ABY-BDL-BOS corridoor do have a chance to make
the top 5...infact in some instances the top 3....so with hard work, good
antenna,good operators, it is possible for a station outside that area to do
well....it means we don't have to compare ourselves with each other i.e. W4
vs W4 or W5 vs W5...
I am enclosing part of an email I received a few days ago...the author has
allowed me to pass this along and I think he has something to say as well...
"I don't have as much of a dog in this fight as some, as I never have been
able to get too fired up about playing hard against a stacked deck.
Something about it just rubs me the wrong way... so, I typically get in
there and pass out a few Q's and have some fun. I can tell you, though, the
story probably would've been different if there'd been more of an effort at
fairness over the last 40 years. If I'd played hard against the tide for
all those years, I'd be damn jaded with it by now.
I'm particularly amazed at the contention that it would be too difficult a
technical task to level the table. My gosh, if HALF the number crunching
was put into this, as has been put into catching 'packet cheats', the
situation would be a LOT better than it is now.
I've never seen so many specious arguments against something that so
obviously needs to be addressed. A lot of it may have to do with the
natural opposition to 'change'. Most of us are probably guilty of that in
some area or other, I guess.
So WHAT if we can't make the situation perfect. MAKE IT BETTER!
Once it gets cut down to size, maybe it won't look so formidable after all!"
It is amazing in his own words that he says he has avoided the ARRL contests
because it is not fair.....if it had been his level of participation would
have been greater....this is what this is all about...greater participation
My missive for the day.
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:58 PM, <w2lc at twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> Inverse distance based scoring
> If the ARRL DX contest changes, lets also change Sweepstakes as well, but
to the opposite, inverse distance based scoring.
> Since W5, W6, W7, W4, W0, W9 all have the advantage of working W1, W2, W3
on 20, 15 and 10 meters (the same stations I am forced to work on 80
meters), inverse distance based scoring would "level the playing field" for
those of us propagationally challenged to the major population centers on
the higher bands.
> As we all know it is much more difficult to work close-in stations on 20,
15 and 10 than it is on 80m, and there are more stations to work on on 20,
15 and 10 meters than 80m. Less noise too.
> Therefore, since stations further away from the north east population
centers have the advantage, inverse distance based scoring makes sense for
> ARRL DX is not broken and does not need fixing (same for SS), but it looks
like there are those who want to break it.
> Distance based scoring and grid squares are what I don't like about the
Stew Perry, the appeal is being a 160m contest and a shorter duration.
> Bottom line for me is, change ARRL DX to distance based scoring and I will
no longer operate the contest.
> Those who think that distance based scoring will attract more participants
are only kidding themselves. Putting the contest results back into QST might
> FYI the top ten box write-ups in QST are NOT the contest results (my
opinion), the line scores are (also my opinion). I don't even look at the
QST contest write-ups anymore, well ok once in awhile.
> 73 Scott W2LC
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest at contesting.com
More information about the CQ-Contest