[CQ-Contest] Convergence and Change
Jeff AC0C
keepwalking188 at ac0c.com
Mon May 23 22:16:46 EDT 2016
SO outperforms SOA? There is no way these scores are comparing apples to
apples.
Why? All things being equal, spotting assistance must result in higher
scores simply because the risk of missing a mult is higher if you are S&P
searching for them. Especially if the mult is not there for long.
73/jeff/ac0c
www.ac0c.com
alpha-charlie-zero-charlie
-----Original Message-----
From: kd4d at comcast.net
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 10:11 AM
To: cq-contest
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Convergence and Change
Good day, Martin:
It makes sense to keep the separation between single operator and single
operator Assisted/Unlimited because many of us believe the skill involved in
finding stations to work without having a computer or other operator do it
for us is worth measuring (and a lot of fun). The organizers of WRTC, for
one, agree - look at their rules sometime.
It is not obvious that operators who don't use the DX alerting assistance
(particularly on CW) will do better than those who do not - THAT is what the
SOs are complaining about. We don't want to be forced to use DX alerting
assistance to compete. The same operators, using DX alerting assistance,
will make higher scores than they do without...The CW skimmers/RBN have made
this particularly obvious for CW operations.
Clearly, combining the categories is all about comparing the highest scores
for everyone and everyone wishing to be competitive will use DX alerting
assistance if the categories are combined. I certainly use it in WAE (where
there is one category) when I operate that contest.
Why do the advocates of combining the categories - surely they only operate
Assisted - want to combine the categories anyway? I understand the concerns
of the contest organizers, but why do any of the Assisted operators care?
73,
Mark, KD4D
At this point it makes no sense to keep this separation anymore.
In the end, SO will keep doing better than those who use DX alerting
assistance, so what SOs are complaining about?
----- Original Message -----
From: "LU5DX Martin" <lu5dx at lucg.com.ar>
To: "Davor Kucelin" <davor.kucelin at plavalaguna.hr>, "cq-contest"
<cq-contest at contesting.com>
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 11:08:25 PM
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Convergence and Change
What's your point?
Combining SOAB and SOAB(A) has nothing to do with comparing the highest
scores in each category.
It's about eliminating the possibility of taking even a very small unfair
advantage throughout the 48-hour period that can place a cheater above
his/her competitors (even if it is very little above in the rankings)
It also has to do with eliminating the burden and work overload that
implies trying to find those who cheat.
Reality is that ops who cheat have perfected their techniques beyond what
can be detected by log checkers. Those who get caught year after year are
those who abuse of DX clusters in a very obvious way.
At this point it makes no sense to keep this separation anymore.
In the end, SO will keep doing better than those who use DX alerting
assistance, so what SOs are complaining about?
They can even still use a pen and paper logs and send CW with a straight
key if they want.
Are there still contesters out there entering contests because they think
they are winning anything at all, or winning over anybody at all??
What in the world would make someone think he/she is winning over someone
who is thousand of miles away, with totally different equipment,
propagation and participating according to a bunch of rules that are hardly
enforceable?t
C'mon guys. It seems like intelligence is inversely proportional to egos
among certain high profile contesters :-)
Our "competitions" have nothing of real competitions. It is just a game of
enjoyment, but if we are still going to pretend these are competitions, at
least we can establish the foundations to make them something a bit more
trustworthy in those terms.
73,
Martin LU5DX
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 4:03 AM, Davor Kucelin <davor.kucelin at plavalaguna.hr
> wrote:
> CQWW SSB Top 10 scores all years
>
>
>
> SOABHP
>
>
>
> 1 EA8BH 1999 SO HP ALL 25,646,796
> 10,253 176 692 - N5TJ
>
> 2 CN2R 2004 SO HP ALL 20,938,680
> 8,655 172 668 - W7EJ
>
> 3 D4B 2004 SO HP ALL 20,433,438
> 8,799 172 674 - 4L5A
>
> 4 D4B 2003 SO HP ALL 20,119,968
> 8,956 169 634 - 4L5A
>
> 5 CN2R 2003 SO HP ALL 18,743,250
> 8,682 152 594 - W7EJ
>
> 6 HC8A 1999 SO HP ALL 18,607,050
> 8,638 175 595 - N6KT
>
> 7 CN2R 2011 SO HP ALL 18,518,160
> 8,409 167 593 44.7 W7EJ
>
> 8 CN2R 2013 SO HP ALL 18,277,746
> 8,370 167 579 46.9 W7EJ [Cert]
>
> 9 HC8A 2000 SO HP ALL 18,122,040
> 9,160 163 547 - N6KT
>
> 10 8P5A 2013 SO HP ALL 17,059,840
> 10,126 162 518 48.0 W2SC
>
>
>
> SOAB ASSISTED HP
>
>
>
> 1 9Y4ZC 2003 SA HP ALL 14,979,055
> 8,114 137 500 - DL6FBL
>
> 2 P40A 2011 SA HP ALL 14,332,656
> 7,478 156 513 43.5 KK9A
>
> 3 TM6M 2015 SA HP ALL 14,263,470
> 7,057 168 667 47.9 F8DBF [Cert]
>
> 4 P40P 2002 SA HP ALL 12,975,732
> 6,639 154 528 - W5AJ
>
> 5 EF8U 2013 SA HP ALL 12,743,163
> 6,656 154 533 45.0 EA8RM [Cert]
>
> 6 NN3W 2011 SA HP ALL 11,828,236
> 4,921 185 683 44.7 @N3HBX
>
> 7 OH0X 2015 SA HP ALL 11,790,240
> 6,294 174 706 48.0 OH6KZP [Cert]
>
> 8 P40W 2003 SA HP ALL 11,755,443
> 6,730 137 496 - W2GD
>
> 9 D4B 2002 SA HP ALL 11,567,412
> 5,845 152 586 - 4L5A
>
>
>
> CQWW CW Top 10 scores all years
>
>
>
> SOABHP
>
>
>
> 1 EA8BH 2000 SO HP ALL 18,010,765
> 7,555 183 634 - N5TJ
>
> 2 ZF2MJ 2015 SO HP ALL 16,730,788
> 10,014 170 527 48.0 N6MJ [Cert]
>
> 3 CR3OO 2015 SO HP ALL 16,090,078
> 8,812 152 474 48.0 CT1BOH [Cert]
>
> 4 P40E 2003 SO HP ALL 15,943,070
> 7,828 169 546 - CT1BOH
>
> 5 EF8M 2011 SO HP ALL 15,846,012
> 7,873 160 531 48.0 RD3A
>
> 6 PZ5T 2011 SO HP ALL 15,673,940
> 7,592 173 545 47.4 VE3DZ
>
> 7 CR3E 2012 SO HP ALL 15,221,316
> 7,275 170 556 48.0 CT1BOH [Cert]
>
> 8 CR3E 2011 SO HP ALL 15,151,668
> 7,212 168 564 48.0 CT1BOH
>
> 9 EF8M 2010 SO HP ALL 15,117,795
> 7,598 158 535 47.8 RD3A
>
> 10 HC8N 1999 SO HP ALL 14,626,579
> 7,001 185 546 - N5KO
>
>
>
> SOAB ASSISTED HP
>
>
>
> 1 9Y4ZC 2004 SA HP ALL 14,581,665
> 6,576 169 596 - DL6FBL
>
> 2 5B/AA1TN 2004 SA HP ALL 13,715,573
> 6,381 170 627 - RW3QC
>
> 3 EF9O 2013 SA HP ALL 13,530,554
> 5,826 171 623 46.6 EA5BM [Cert]
>
> 4 K5ZD/1 2014 SA HP ALL 12,768,365
> 4,993 190 697 44.3 [Cert]
>
> 5 EF8U 2013 SA HP ALL 11,955,126
> 5,700 169 602 44.2 EA8RM [Cert]
>
> 6 CN3A 2010 SA HP ALL 11,818,159
> 5,729 156 577 46.4
>
> 7 NP4Z 2013 SA HP ALL 11,341,512
> 6,059 165 591 46.9
>
> 8 K5ZD/1 2015 SA HP ALL 11,275,488
> 4,742 179 654 44.9 [Cert]
>
> 9 CT9M 2002 SA HP ALL 11,225,452
> 5,181 159 605 - DL2CC
>
> 10 P40C 2014 SA HP ALL 11,085,536
> 6,242 154 462 44.8 KU1CW
>
>
>
> So what are we talking about?
>
> Best Assisted score is way below 10th unassisted score.
>
> What are you than scared about to combine the 2 categorys.
>
>
>
>
>
> 73 Dave 9A1UN
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
More information about the CQ-Contest
mailing list