[CQ-Contest] CQ WW Scoring System needs revision?

Tue Dec 3 15:28:57 EST 2013

Hello Brian.

Thanks much for your note.

LP QSOs will be assigned SP distance. It's impossible otherwise.

We will probably end up publishing a parallel set of unofficial results
based on distance calculations to assign QSO points. But this will be
totally for informational purposes, no more than that.

Best 73.

Martin, LU5DX

On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 4:15 PM, brian coyne <g4odv at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> So Martin how are you going to score all of my morning long path qso's
> with central and South America, you could throw in JA too. Short path
> distances can hardly be used when the contacts are clearly long path.
>
> Distance scoring does have merit for Stew Perry which is 160mtrs and there
> would be a case for 80mtrs too but the higher bands are too subject to the
> vagaries of propagation.
>
> It is clear that southern hemisphere stations are at a disadvantage on the
> lower bands, and on the higher bands too during low sunspot years. There
> may well be a case for allowing more points to those stations on the lower
> bands but where could the line be drawn when parts of  those zones and
> countries are north side of the equator?
>
> Few would argue that the present scoring system is fair to all entrants.
> Clearly there are favoured areas but  how many fewer travelers would there
> be to some of those rarer dx countries, causing a reduction in available
> mults if scoring advantages were removed, travelers tend to be serious guys
> who want to win rather than visit for fun.
>
> There is no easy solution, despite suggestions we have seen here some
> which, prima facie,  look as though they could be workable fail  to be
> viable when given further scrutiny. I doubt that CQWW CC can be persuaded
> to make any changes, it is as it is, and, as more than 14,000 of us have
> been content to enter and submit logs in the two events this year showing
> an ongoing increase year to year the CC will feel under no obligation to
> make any changes.
>
> With regard to southern hemisphere scoring, for what it is worth, the RSGB
> Commonwealth Contest, one of the oldest contests on the calendar, has made
> an effort to address the imbalances of contact availabilities  for Oceania,
> Southern Africa etc for their team competition   which has been successful
> in it's objective of providing a more level playing field and encouraged
> more participation from those areas. The method is described in the exert
> below taken from the rules.
>
> <i>(a) The team score is the sum of individual adjudicated scores, with
> all stations located in the southern hemisphere or on the equator having
> their final score multiplied by a “latitude factor”.
> (b) The “latitude factor” will be re-calculated each year based on
> published scores: for each hemisphere, the highest-scoring team total for
> each of the last three years will be used to give an overall total and the
> factor will be calculated as the ratio of the northern to the southern
> grand totals rounded down to the nearest two decimal places.</i>
>
> 73  Brian 5B4AIZ / C4Z.
>
>   ------------------------------
>  *From:* "Martin , LU5DX" <lu5dx at lucg.com.ar>
> *To:* Milt -- N5IA <n5ia at zia-connection.com>
> *Cc:* Fabio I4UFH <i4ufh at libero.it>; Reflector Reflector <
> cq-contest at contesting.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 3 December 2013, 2:55
> *Subject:* Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Scoring System needs revision?
>
> Hi Milt.
> We are in the process of re-scoring all the logs for CQ WW DX SSB/CW (past
> five years).
> In fact distance based scoring is by far the most leveling scoring system
> we can think of.
> You may say LUs or CX have a clear advantage on 10 m. That is totally
> compensated by the number of mults and Qs available to stations near Europe
> on the low bands.
> Hope to finish that re-scoring asap.
>
> Vy 73.
>
> Martin, LU5DX
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Milt -- N5IA <n5ia at zia-connection.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Hello Fabio,
> >
> > Yes, that is correct.  My point is:  Most of the CQ Zones are too large
> to
> > implement anything new associated with the Zones.  For example, I am a
> bit
> > more than 2,000 miles (3,250 kM) from the opposite side/corner of Zone 4.
> >
> > That is ONE THIRD (33%) of the distance from my home to ROME (9,800 kM).
> > And that is just ONE ZONE, mine.
> >
> > DISTANCE Scoring, with whatever handicaps you want to throw in to SMOOTH
> > out the few waves, IS the most fair way to score any DX contest.  DX =
> > DISTANCE. Period.  Value MUST be placed on DISTANCE with qualifiers for
> > Auroral Zones within the path.  No method will ever be perfect, but
> > DISTANCE SCORING sure is a LOT closer than anything used right now in CQ
> WW.
> >
> > Search the winners for the SPDC for it's 17 years of existence and you
> > will quickly see the wisdom of utilizing DISTANCE SCORING as the
> principle
> > point provider in any contest that is oriented towards DISTANCE as the
> > GOAL.  When a VK6 and and a CE1 can win #1 World,  and other winners are
> > scattered around two other continents, then you know for a fact that it
> is
> > the correct base scoring mechanism that is working correctly.
> >
> > Then the variables get thrown in to smooth out the smaller waves.
> >
> > REWARD DISTANCE, ,,,,,,,,,NOT geographic or political boundaries.  Then
> it
> > is a true DX CONTEST.
> >
> > Mis dos centavos.  de Milt, N5IA
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message----- From: Fabio I4UFH
> > Sent: Monday, December 02, 2013 11:54 AM
> > To: Reflector Reflector
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQ WW Scoring System needs revision?
> >
> > Hi Fellows,
> >
> > There will always someone that didn’t agree, because everyone look at
> only
> > to his own personal case, what is needed
> > is that we, everyone, have a view over our nose, and understand that
> > should , could be a different points of view, that
> > we can share and discuss.
> >
> > There is no playfiled level equation for everyone, there are different
> > solutions that can evolve to a new solution, that
> > from different point of view can be better then another, obviously
> nothing
> > is perfect , so we cannot expect the magic
> > solution, but we can discuss over there.
> >
> > My proposal, is simply, and probable better the the actual one, obviously
> > need to be tuned up, i am avalaible if some
> > one is interested to write down a draft paper … Need some US guys for
> > correcting my no mother tounge english !
> >
> > Let’s go
> >
> > 73 de Fabio I4UFH
> >
> >
> >
> > -----
> > No virus found in this message.
> > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> > Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3629/6884 - Release Date: 12/02/13
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
>