[CQ-Contest] R: Re: Is the wpx a prefix test or dx contest?

Sat May 11 13:02:45 EDT 2013

I also agree, with Rick and Fabio, after having been pushed out of the competition, by the wall of RF from the East Coast. This change would make it much more palatable to join in again. 

Have a great day, 

--...   ...--
Dale - WC7S in Wy

 > Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 17:33:48 +0200
> From: fabio.grisafi at libero.it
> To: rick at nq4i.com; ku8e at bellsouth.net
> CC: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] R: Re:  Is the wpx a prefix test or dx contest?
> 
> Hello Guys!
> 
> From my little point of view, I agree with Rick, NQ4I.
> 
> Here in Europe we will work USA stations as well if the points per QSO don't 
> go to 6 on low bands. If the way to win is to work as many multipliers as 
> possible, working North American stations always bring 1 multiplier every 3 or 
> 4 QSOs. So, we will have to concentrate on propagation over the atlantic but, 
> with 3 points only, there will be no advantage to be near the coast of the 
> atlantic ocean and you will see many more teams into all of Europe competing 
> for a winning place. More game, more fun!
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Fabio Grisafi - IT9GSF.
> =====================================================
> 
> >----Messaggio originale----
> >Da: rick at nq4i.com
> >Data: 11/05/2013 11.38
> >A: "Jeff Clarke"<ku8e at bellsouth.net>
> >Cc: "CQ Contest"<cq-contest at contesting.com>
> >Ogg: Re: [CQ-Contest] Is the wpx a prefix test or dx contest?
> >
> >To say it is an apples to orange comparison, is to say you do not
> >comprehend what the topic of conversation has been.
> >
> >When a fully staffed M-M team has to make 2400 additional qso's to make the
> >same score as a M-S team that is not any band full time, is
> >what I am talking about. The WPX contest has the geographical advantage
> >because of the low band point system that awards a huge advantage
> >to any New England station.
> >
> >Yes it is true that the NQ4I team has won a number of previous
> >WPXcontests.....but with that in mind, there was no legit competition
> >from New
> >England. Had KC1XX operated in this contest, he would, on a bad day make
> >30% more qso's than NQ4I and on a good day 80-100% more qsos. These
> >qsoscoming from two areas...the low bands and the high bands where he
> >has a
> >tremendous advantage to hear and work stations that will never be heard or
> >worked at the next propagation hop.
> >
> >My proposal for the point scoring of 3 points per qso regardless makes the
> >contest truer to its stated objective and removes the geographical
> >advantage. For any M-M there are only so many finite contacts possible.
> >KU8E would have us believe that there is a wealth of stateside stations
> >that could be worked thus creating a super inflated score for the NQ4I
> >team. Not true. The qsos  made would not improve, because
> >there are not additional qso's to be made. The well is already dry.
> >
> >So we are back to the low band point system that awards more points for
> >stations that have geographical nearness and penalizes those that do not.
> >
> >Suffice it to say, K1LZ and his team are not dumb....they know that to make
> >a winning score they need to make as many 6 point qso's as possible...the
> >NQ4I team likewise knows the point breakdown and the need for 6 point
> >qso's....K1LZ
> >spends only a few hours on 80m...NQ4I has
> >2 full time ops and maintains a strong presence on the band both cq'ing and
> >S & P'ing and cannot begin to work as many qso's as the brief foray on the
> >band of K1LZ.
> >
> >To carry the score extrapolation a little further out. in this example, it
> >takes the NQ4I team 2400 qso's to equal K1LZ's score...had KC1XX been on,
> >the score differential would be an additional 3000 qso's deficit for the
> >NQ4I team to over come. In other words for the NQ4I team to equal the
> >score differential from a KC1XX competitor, some thing around 5400
> >qsoswould make the scores comparable, nearly twice as many
> >qso's.
> >
> >If we consider KC1XX makes the exact number of qso's as NQ4I ( and we
> >assume he maintains 3.17 qso points ratio as K1LZ) we have:
> >
> >7077 qso's 1450 prefixes = 32.6 million points
> >
> >applying 3 points per qso we have
> >
> >7077 qso's 1450 prefixes = 30.7 Mil
> >
> >The scores are equal because  the same number of qso's were made, and to
> >clinch the win, one of the two teams needs to work another prefix, not
> >another low band contact where advantage exists now.
> >
> >KU8e would have us believe that NQ4I is hoarding stateside qso's and if the
> >rules change to 3 points per contact, then NQ4I will have a tremendous
> >advantage. I say make the contest true to it's stated objective....a prefix
> >contest...plain and simple. The winner is determined by who works the most
> >qso's and prefixes...not who has the best geographical advantage with an
> >outdated and biased point system.
> >
> >de NQ4I
> >
> >
> >On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Jeff Clarke <ku8e at bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Why this is a big deal??  Comparing a M/S score to a M/M score is like
> >> comparing apples to oranges.  It’s ridiculous to consider giving 3 points
> >> for domestic QSO’s in this contest. I live in GA – probably 75 miles from
> >> NQ4I and we would have a HUGE advantage vs. the East Coast on 20 and 40
> >> meters because of our skip zone to the highly populated USA call areas. Be
> >> thankful that the rules were changed to give points for W/K QSO’s to make
> >> the contest more fun or the difference in scores would be even greater. It
> >> used to be ZERO points. Plus NQ4I has won M/M several times so I don’t
> >> understand why he has a beef against the rules.
> >>
> >>
> >> Maybe give some credit to Krassy and his team for a great score. K1LZ has
> >> consistently put in some great scores in M/S that have beat some of the top
> >> contenders in M2X in several contests.
> >>
> >> Jeff KU8E
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest