[CQ-Contest] The two/four-point rule in WPX

[Martin , LU5DX]

Yes Kim.
I certainly agree with you on the unfair advantage of NA stations.
That, certainly creates additional traffic on the bands making things for
us deep down South even more difficult.
Perhaps the day will come, when everybody will realize that these should be
DX (distance) contests and not just happy running fests, based on mega
Watts and proximity to big population areas.

JMO.

Vy 73.

Martin, LU5DX


On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Kim Östman <kim.ostman at tut.fi> wrote:

> Hi Martin,
>
>
>
> Unfortunately I didn't write that down in my Excel sheet, but I believe
> they were mostly (probably all) zone 9.
>
>
>
> I agree about the zones, it's the same with EU: zone 14 is not the same as
> 15 & 16, and for NA, zone 8 is not the same as z3-5, etc.
>
>
>
> But for now, I'd like to focus on the narrow topic of the artificial NA
> exception to the rules. Apart from that exception the rules are the same
> for everybody, and some locations are better than others.
>
>
>
> 73
>
> Kim
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* monsalvo at gmail.com [mailto:monsalvo at gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Martin
> , LU5DX
> *Sent:* 7. huhtikuuta 2014 21:59
> *To:* Kim Östman
> *Cc:* CQ-Contest
> *Subject:* Re: [CQ-Contest] The two/four-point rule in WPX
>
>
>
> Hi Kim.
>
> What zone in SA are you referring as to being in the top spots?
>
> Zone 9 is certainly not the same as zone 12, 13.
>
>
>
> 73
>
> Martin, LU5DX
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Kim Östman <kim.ostman at tut.fi> wrote:
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> Thanks for your thoughts. To move beyond impressions, let's take a look at
> what the data say.
>
> I combed through the WPX results articles for 2005-2013, i.e., all that are
> currently available at cqwpx.com. To make sure we only look at serious
> entries, I included only the categories that can with certainty be said to
> be very competitive throughout most of the world: SOAB HP, SOAB LP, and
> SOSB10-160 HP, all unassisted.
>
> During 2005-2013, the number of top spots (total: 9 x 8 = 72) has been
> divided by continent as follows:
>
> AF: 18
> AS: 2
> EU: 18
> NA: 6
> OC: 4
> SA: 24
>
> Of the EU top spots, 15/18 are in SOSB80 and SOSB160, which clearly do
> favor
> the high station concentration in EU. However, that means that ONLY 3 are
> actually left for EU in the other, more competitive categories.
>
> In the SOAB HP category, which is arguably the toughest and most respected,
> we have the following number of top-5 finishes per continent:
>
> AF: 12
> AS: 3
> EU: 1
> NA: 15
> OC: 4
> SA: 10
>
> North America with its 2/4-point exception has 15 top-5 finishes, i.e., the
> most, and 4 of them are victories. Europe has *only one* top-5 finish, and
> let's just say that it's not because of a lack of trying. Asia and Oceania
> don't fare much better.
>
> => EU is not the place to be for the most serious WPX efforts.
>
> The QSO-point rule based on the continental divide is flawed and needs a
> fix, as we all know. But when the North American contest sponsor tries to
> tweak that big "wrong" by maintaining a second "wrong" that rigs the whole
> game in favor of a select few? In political science there's a name for that
> type of system.... :)
>
> 73
> Kim OH6KZP
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Kim,
>
> After reading your email I thought that surely if EU stations labored under
> such a disadvantage that they must rarely achieve first place world scores
> in their chosen category.  So I looked at the 2013 results and --
> lo-and-behold -- European stations predominate in first place world
> finishes! Are we talking a bout the same contest?  See:
> www.cqwpx.com/results_2013_wpx_ssb_article.pdf
>
>
>  Tell me again what your complaint is, because the results indicate the EU
> is the place to be for this contest if one's goal is world-high.  South
> America works for some categories, Caribbean and Africa third,  USA dead
> last.
>
> Dave K3ZJ
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kim Östman [mailto:kim.ostman at tut.fi]
> Sent: 6. huhtikuuta 2014 21:04
> To: 'cq-contest at contesting.com'; 'director at cqwpx.com'
> Subject: RE: The two/four-point rule in WPX
>
> To clarify, my two questions are related specifically to WPX. No need to
> rehash the CQWW discussion. Sorry!
>
> 73
> Kim
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kim Östman [mailto:kim.ostman at tut.fi]
> Sent: 6. huhtikuuta 2014 15:10
> To: 'cq-contest at contesting.com'; 'director at cqwpx.com'
> Subject: The two/four-point rule in WPX
>
> Hi,
>
> The so-called "2-point rule" exception for intra-NA QSOs in CQWW was
> discussed at length on the reflector in November 2013. Please see for
> example
> http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/cq-contest/2013-November/104819.html
> and the related discussion.
>
> Many serious non-American operators see this exception as the contest
> sponsor giving an unfair advantage to NA Caribbean stations, particularly
> as
> compared to EU stations. The basic continental divide point system is
> flawed
> too, but exceptions that favor a select group are certainly not an
> appropriate solution.
>
> It was recently brought to my attention that WPX also has a similar
> exception, with 2 points for intra-NA QSOs on the high bands, 4 on the low
> bands.
>
> Thus I would like to ask: What is the rationale for maintaining this
> exception in modern times? Why does the contest sponsor disadvantage
> European stations as compared to Caribbean stations in this manner?
>
> 73
> Kim OH6KZP
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
>