[CQ-Contest] CQWW Survey

Joe nss at mwt.net
Wed Mar 20 09:11:26 EDT 2013

On 3/19/2013 12:27 PM, Tim Shoppa wrote:
>> Many of us, me included, do not want the two combined. In my opinion, once
>> that were to happen, the traditional single ops would be forced to use
>> spotting if they wanted to be competitive.
> Is that "forced" really true? Let's arbitrarily say that "competitive"
> is "in the top 5 of a category".
> Let's arbitrarily take the CQ WW CW 2011 final scores and zoom in on US LP, and
> compare top five assisted scores vs top five unassisted scores.
> Top 5 unassisted scores were 4.5M, 4.4M, 4.3M, 3.9M, and 3.5M.
> Top 5 assisted scores were 3.2M, 2.5M, 2.0M, 2.0M, and 2.0M.
> e.g. none of the "top assisted" would have a competitive unassisted score.
Thing is, this is not the whole picture also. As #5 would have said 
"Need Input"

We need to know of these ten stations, the history of the operators,  
The top 5 un assisted could be seasoned veterans that have been doing it 
for a decade! Where the 5 Assisted this could be maybe only their 3rd year.

How about Stations?

The top 5 could be super mega stations, with Legal limits power, stacked 
yagis on most bands like the ones that have spent 1/2 a million dollars 
on their super stations.

and the top 5 assisted could be just tribanders and wires,,,

Just looking at scores doesn't cut it.


More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list