[CQ-Contest] CQWW Assisted - Is it just another Urban Myth ?

Fri Aug 11 20:50:26 EDT 2017

I think it depends on which category is more fun for the individual op.
Merging them into one category would just bump a lot of ops down in the
standings and offer less of an apples-to-apples comparison of how
effectively the op and station performed relative to the scores above and
below in the standings.

I would suggest also adding an "S&P only" category which might appeal to
stations who can't reliably run but want to put in a serious effort.

73,
Matt NQ6N

On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Ron Notarius W3WN <wn3vaw at verizon.net>
wrote:

> So what is YOUR goal in SOAB, Trent?
>
> Is it to do better than you did last year?
>
> Is it to do better than some of your peers?
>
> Is it to win you region, or have a world-class score?
>
> Is it to have fun?
>
> These are rhetorical questions.  The answers to those questions are only
> important to one person:  You.
>
> Pick a category and power level that suits those answers, and have fun.
>
> Don't worry about what categories someone else is in.  Just work them when
> you call them or they call you.
>
> No muss, no fuss.
>
> 73, ron w3wn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of
> Trent Sampson
> Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2017 10:17 AM
> To: wa5rtg at gmail.com; Trent Sampson
> Cc: sawyered at earthlink.net; cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Assisted - Is it just another Urban Myth ?
>
> Hi Stan
>
> It is a quagmire
>
> We have assumed that SOAB A is an advantage - but with even top operators
> like D4B, N5TJ and W2GD, never in the 25 years of CQWW and CQWPX has the
> SOAB A category exceeded the score of the SOAB Winner.
>
> It appears to be simply an urban myth that has perpetuated.
>
> Let's answer all of your hypothesis
>
>
> Do you believe there is an advantage in having a list of everyone on the
> band and identification as to whether each callsign is a new multiplier or
> a
> new contact?  NO that data shows the myth is wrong
>
> Do you believe that in general the top operators in the assisted category
> could do as well or better if they did not have the assistance?  NO that
> data shows the myth is wrong
>
> Do you believe that in general the top operators in the unassisted category
> would widen the margin of victory if the two categories were combined?  NO
> that data shows the myth is wrong
>
> What possible relevance do the scores between the two cateogries have to do
> with whether they should be combined? None
>
> Why would you propose combining categories when overwhelmingly those who
> operate unassisted want to continue operating unassisted?  That is why they
> choose that category.  They have a choice and choose the one they prefer.
> Even you choose the unassisted category.    Agreed however that data shows
> the myth is wrong
>
> Looking at your scores in the CQWW do you really have a dog in this fight ?
>
> My basis for the questions is I am looking at doing SOAB during the low
> sunspot years and I am wondering what all the fuss is about
>
> Regards
>
>
> Trent Sampson
> VK4TS
> Po Box 275 Mooloolaba QLD 4557
> Mobile 0408497550
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Stan Stockton [mailto:wa5rtg at gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 1 August 2017 11:50 PM
> To: Trent Sampson
> Cc: sawyered at earthlink.net; cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Assisted - Is it just another Urban Myth ?
>
> Trent,
>
> Please clarify so everyone will understand your thinking.
>
> Do you believe there is an advantage in having a list of everyone on the
> band and identification as to whether each callsign is a new multiplier or
> a
> new contact?  I think the answer is yes.
>
> Do you believe that in general the top operators in the assisted category
> could do as well or better if they did not have the assistance?  I think
> the
> answer is no.
>
> Do you believe that in general the top operators in the unassisted category
> would widen the margin of victory if the two categories were combined?  I
> think the answer is yes.
>
> What possible relevance do the scores between the two cateogries have to do
> with whether they should be combined?
>
> Why would you propose combining categories when overwhelmingly those who
> operate unassisted want to continue operating unassisted?  That is why they
> choose that category.  They have a choice and choose the one they prefer.
> Even you choose the unassisted category.
>
> The fact is that if you asked someone who won the CQ WW Contest in any
> given
> year the respondent will go to the SOAB results to give you the answer.
> Most will not ask you whether you mean the assisted category or the
> category
> where someone used a tribander and wires or whether you are talking about
> low power on 40m with a dipole and internet assistance.  There are several
> who push to combine these categories every year and not yet have I seen a
> logical explanation as to why they want to do it.  Certainly whether the
> scores are higher or lower in one category has absolutely nothing to do
> with
> whether categories should be combined.  Would you feel differently if a top
> operator who could perhaps win the unassisted category ventured over to the
> assisted category and blew away the competition.  It has already been done.
>
> Everything else being equal, a single operator using the internet to
> identify every double multiplier that comes on the band will beat the guy
> who doesn't have that information every single time.  The plain and simple
> fact is that unassisted operators usually (not always) beat the ones using
> assistance because they are better operators operating from better
> stations.
>
> 73...Stan, K5GO
>
> On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 7:59 AM, Trent Sampson
> <vk4ts at outlook.com<mailto:vk4ts at outlook.com>> wrote:
> Hi Ed,
>
> You said,
>
> "Others are simply looking at the efficiency gain of being fed spots and
> the
> fact that their eyes add another receptor beyond their 2 ears and that adds
> to their efficiency as well."
>
> Please find one example in the High Scores of the CQWW or the CQWPX that
> supports your hypothesis ...
>
> By the way I prefer SOAB unassisted - if on the rare occasion I am not in a
> multi op
>
> Regards
>
>
> Trent Sampson
> VK4TS
> Po Box 275 Mooloolaba QLD 4557
> Mobile 0408497550
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: CQ-Contest
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com<mailto:cq-
> contest-bounces at contesti
> ng.com>] On Behalf Of Ed Sawyer
> Sent: Tuesday, 1 August 2017 9:23 PM
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com<mailto:cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CQWW Assisted - Is it just another Urban Myth ?
> What is the motivation for Assisted Operators to even care if there is an
> unassisted class?  How is it harming you in any way that other - equally as
> important as you - people choose to contest the way we grew up and enjoyed
> it?  It doesn't bother me that its "possible" for someone in the class to
> cheat.  It didn't bother me that it was "possible" for someone to cheat in
> Low Power class when I choose to compete in that class.  I know what I am
> doing and I know when something smells bad out there as well.
>
>
>
> I choose to compete in unassisted because I love the balance.  Others are
> simply looking at the efficiency gain of being fed spots and the fact that
> their eyes add another receptor beyond their 2 ears and that adds to their
> efficiency as well.  I have no strike against those and realize, it helps.
> Good for them.
>
>
>
> Until someone can tell me how what I choose to do for my better enjoyment
> harms them, I respectfully ask for the ability to choose the class I better
> enjoy.
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> Ed  N1UR
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com<mailto:CQ-Contest at contesting.com>
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com<mailto: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
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>