CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] No advantage to assisted?

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: [CQ-Contest] No advantage to assisted?
From: K4XS via CQ-Contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Reply-to: Cqtestk4xs@aol.com
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 08:32:41 -0500
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Some further clarifications for ARRLDX  Phone  2014.
 
VY2ZM SO vs.  K4XS assisted
 
On bands where VY2ZM had a big advantage, assisted was of little  help to 
K4XS.  You can't hear them if you can't work them.  On 40 and  up assisted 
got the job done with the mults.  VY2ZM out-Qed K4XS by 150  contacts, but 
K4XS had 30 more mults(courtesy of packet).
 
K1TO SO vs K4XS assisted
 
The two stations are within 100 miles of each other.  K4XS  with bigger 
stacks, K1TO operator 3 time winner of WRTC.  K4XS multiplier  totals, as you 
expect, larger....by 85.  Q total larger for K4XS by almost  600.  While 
unassisted K1TO is using time searching for mults, K4XS is  either running, or 
point and clicking.
 
Bottom line:  assisted is an advantage if you know how to use  it....when 
to run and when to click.  If it wasn't an advantage, why would  so many guys 
use it and then claim single op unassisted?
 
K4XS
 
In a message dated 12/12/2014 11:51:59 A.M. Coordinated Universal Ti,  
wa5rtg@gmail.com writes:

Milt,  


If you can imagine, there are some who want to make a case for assisted  to 
be a detriment to a contester's score and those who believe that make their 
 case by saying that there are few if any instances where the top asssited  
score is as good as the unassisted score.  In this case K4XS was  
responding to someone who said he still could not find an instance where the  
top 
assisted score was better than the unassisted score.  The fact that  N2IC is 
located in New Mexico and won the contest in the unassisted category  speaks 
of N2IC's operating ability but recognize that the big dogs on the East  
Coast also wanted and competed for first place.  IF one of them on the  East 
Coast had made a few hundred thousand points more and had won the contest  
instead of N2IC, the situation would remain the same.  The winner's score  in 
the assisted category was about 35% higher than the winning score for  
unassisted.  It is nonsensical to believe that, properly used, the  assisted 
category will not enahnce scores in a dramatic fashion.  The  only expanation 
is 
that the majority of the best operators want to compete in  the unassisted 
category.


Stan, K5GO


On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 10:57 PM, Milt -- N5IA <_n5ia@zia-connection.com_ 
(mailto:n5ia@zia-connection.com) > 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@contesting.com_ (mailto:cq-contest@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@outlook.com_ (mailto:vk4ts@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@contesting.com_ 
(mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com) ] On  Behalf  Of
VK4TS Trent Sampson
Sent: Tuesday, 9 December 2014 6:56   AM
To: 'Paul O'Kane'; _cq-contest@contesting.com_ 
(mailto:cq-contest@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@contesting.com_ 
(mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com) ] On Behalf  Of
Paul  O'Kane
Sent: Tuesday, 9 December 2014 5:21  AM
To:  _cq-contest@contesting.com_ (mailto:cq-contest@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






_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest   mailing  list
_CQ-Contest@contesting.com_ (mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com) 
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest   mailing  list
_CQ-Contest@contesting.com_ (mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com) 
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest   mailing  list
_CQ-Contest@contesting.com_ (mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com) 
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest  mailing list
_CQ-Contest@contesting.com_ (mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com) 
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest




-----
No  virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - _www.avg.com_ (http://www.avg.com/) 
Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database:  4235/8718 - Release Date: 12/11/14 


-----
No virus found in  this message.
Checked by AVG - _www.avg.com_ (http://www.avg.com/) 
Version:  2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4235/8718 - Release Date: 12/11/14  
 


_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest  mailing list
_CQ-Contest@contesting.com_ (mailto:CQ-Contest@contesting.com) 
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest







_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>