[CQ-Contest] Distance Based Scoring

[Richard F DiDonna NN3W]

i think you're going to have to assess whether you have some serious 
unintended consequences of changing certain major contests to 
distance-only.  Part of the allure of the CQWW and part of the success 
of CQWW as a DX contest is that there is ample "sexy" DX to be worked.  
Hams go off to 3D2, 5R8, ZD8, 8R, FJ, 3X, and other localities to be 
rare and to give out points to the deserving.  If a QSO from 5R8 to 
Frankfurt will, in the future, have no greater point value and allure 
than a QSO from Washington DC to Frankfurt, you've suddenly provided a 
lot of disincentive for hams to go to these places.  This affects not 
only their activity levels, but also reduces the appeal to casual 
contesters and DXers who no longer see the appeal in CQWW as a major DX 
contest.

Indeed, that why many people complain about ARRL DX - that there are 
very few "sexy" activations in that contest (leading some to call it the 
world's largest QSO party).

For those who argue continuously about distance based scoring, seeing it 
as a major game changer and being an all-out equalizer, I would 
recommend that people review the analysis that DJ1YFK did for the 2008 
CQWW (one of the prior times when this topic came up).

http://lists.contesting.com/pipermail/cq-contest/2009-December/088293.html

The winning SOAB-HP score was still in the Caribbean.   In fact, four 
out of the top five scores for SOAB-HP were in the Caribbean.

Granted this was 2008 (at the nadir of the sunspot cycle), and behaviors 
were geared towards rules in effect during that time period....

If someone wants to do the same analysis for 2014, knock yourself out.

73 Rich NN3W

On 5/27/2015 10:44 PM, W7VJ wrote:
> Perhaps the focus on geographic disparity has been aggravated by the growing
> disparity in scores between geographically challenged areas of the world and
> the others.  Regardless, the topic seems to remain of interest to us in the
> more geographically challenged sections possibly in part due to a feeling by
> some that our scores are marginalized in comparison to the high scoring
> world contending areas of the world/U.S.  It is also challenging year after
> year to put in time, effort, and resources into building a station and
> improving skills and watching only incremental improvements in comparison.
> Yes, we could move to a high scoring area of the country/world, but since
> amateur radio is not a lifestyle for some us, that is less likely to happen.
>
>
>   
>
> Ward's point on the subject are well taken.   Yet it would be nice to have
> some handicap as an alternative to distance based scoring, based on some
> rolling ratio of top score in a zone or region to the top scoring country
> and/or world location over a period of time.  The ratio might apply over a
> one, three, or five year period, and subject to  an established, standard
> sponsor's formula that could be calculated on line.  To get of sense of how
> one's score compared to the top country/world to scorers in a category one
> would apply the ratio to one's actual score in a contest to get a
> comparative score as if one had been located in the top scoring region.  No
> change in rules, administration, or anything else, save perhaps more of a
> focus on regional/zone scores than on overall country world score.
>
>   
>
> 73
>
>   
>
> Andrew
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>