[CQ-Contest] Comments / FAQs on WRTC2018 qualification rules

[Milt -- N5IA]

Good morning, Rich,

If you were assisted, and Doug was non, then that is a proper comparison.

Although it appears I failed, I was simply trying to state that the actual 
comparison of N2IC to K4XS did not carry much weight because of the extreme 
difference between the two different operating locations.

Thank you for listing a more proper comparison.  Congrats.  As I stated, 
YMMV.

73 de Milt, N5IA


-----Original Message----- 
From: Richard F DiDonna NN3W
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2014 5:22 AM
To: cq-contest at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Comments / FAQs on WRTC2018 qualification rules

OK,fine.

2011 (ssb):

NN3W - 11,828,236
K1DG - 9,459,060

Note that K1DG is closer to Europe than I was...

73 Rich NN3W

On 12/11/2014 11:57 PM, Milt -- N5IA wrote:
> HMMMMMMM.  I wonder where K4XS is located?
>
> N2IC is located just 60.66 miles from AZ and Zone 3; the FAR, FAR west of 
> Zone 4, and only 320.46 miles from the nearest waters of the Pacific Ocean 
> (Gulf of California).
>
> If K4XS is in Florida, as his QRZ address says he is, then his station is 
> ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED and FORTY miles to the east of N2IC, in the 
> eastern/southeastern portion of Zone 3.
>
> I find this 'comparison' to NOT be a good comparison.  YMMV.
>
> 73 de Milt, N5IA
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: K4XS via CQ-Contest
> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 5:30 PM
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Comments / FAQs on WRTC2018 qualification rules
>
> Here's one for you:
>
> 2013 CQWW SSB
>
> K4XS SOAB Assisted:  10218476
> N2IC  SOAB:  7528827
>
> K4XS
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 12/8/2014 9:33:00 P.M. Coordinated Universal Time,
> vk4ts at outlook.com writes:
>
> "I still  find it odd in many years I cannot recall an assisted score
> beating
> unassisted in a major contest. (CQWW CQWPX) "
>
> Should say TOP  score assisted beating TOP score unassisted
>
>
> -----Original  Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> VK4TS Trent Sampson
> Sent: Tuesday, 9 December 2014 6:56  AM
> To: 'Paul O'Kane'; cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re:  [CQ-Contest] Comments / FAQs on WRTC2018 qualification rules
>
> Do you run  the risk of having participation certificates when there are 
> too
> many  categories ?
>
> Does that really find the best contesters ?   Personally I don't like
> cluster
> use (old school) but if the rules to  qualify are such then maybe I need 
> to
> re-address my stance if I want to  qualify.
>
> I still find it odd in many years I cannot recall an assisted score 
> beating
> unassisted in a major contest. (CQWW  CQWPX)
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest  [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Paul  O'Kane
> Sent: Tuesday, 9 December 2014 5:21 AM
> To:  cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Comments / FAQs on  WRTC2018 qualification rules
>
> On 08/12/2014 16:40, Yuri  wrote:
>
>> Putting this usually endless and useless assisted/unassisted and
>> single-op/multi-op discussion behind for  now,
>
> If they're so useless, why then does CQ recognise the value of having
> separate categories.  It's worth taking a look  at
> http://www.cqww.com/raw.htm?mode=cw - showing the calculated raw scores 
> for
> CQWW CW 2014.
>
> There are 46 categories listed, and that's without  including the Classic
> and
> Rookie sub-categories. Is anyone  complaining?
>
> There are many reasons why CQWW is the world's most  popular contest, and
> the
> number of categories is one of them.
>
> This  "useless discussion" is unlikely to go away, and it would be helpful
> if
> the  WRTC2018 Committee members reconsidered their unanimous decision  to
> eliminate unassisted categories.
> They might all be  mistaken.
>
> 73,
> Paul  EI5DI



-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4235/8721 - Release Date: 12/12/14