Ummmm....you apparently forgot to look at the SOAB HP and SOAB HP(A) in USA
claimed scores for CQWW SSB.
Having won both (U) and (A) in the past, I can say with absolute
metaphysical certainty that the advantages of being assististed over
unassisted are manifold.
73 Rich NN3W
----- Original Message -----
From: "JVarney" <jvarn359@yahoo.com>
To: <CQ-Contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 11:55 PM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Two Reasons Why Assisted and Unassisted Should Be
Merged
> I'm a relative newcomer, licensed in '09, small pistol. I admit I have
> little or no clue about a lot of contesting history or some of the
> traditions; I respect them, but I admit I don't know all of them. I can
> only comment on how I see things as they are today.
>
> In my view this whole Assisted vs. Unassisted debate is somewhat overblown
> and out of step with reality. I think the two classes should be merged for
> two reasons:
>
> -- Assisteds Don't Win. In all three classes of the just concluded CQ WW
> DX, the top scoring SOAB HP outscored the top SOAB HP(A). SOAB LP beat
> SOAB LP(A). SOAB QRP defeated SOAB QRP(A). Same result in CQ WPX. I
> haven't done a statistical analysis but looking at the scores it appears
> there's not a big difference between the two categories as a whole. The
> supposed advantage that Skimmer and spots provide to the operator is not
> visible in the results. This doesn't surprise me; I find a lot of the
> spots to be dead ends, either because I can't hear them or they have
> QSY'd. Half the time I end up turning the VFO anyway.
>
> Separate categories only make sense if the results show a measurable
> difference between them. The power categories HP, LP and QRP show this;
> there is a large and clear difference in scores between the three power
> levels. When the distinction between the categories show up in the
> results, it verifies that the categories are providing a useful and clear
> division.
>
> -- Clusters Assist Running Unassisteds. The popular QRO running stations,
> who are mostly Unassisted, get spotted early and often. This draws the
> Assisteds to running stations like moths to a light bulb. And so while
> running stations aren't using the cluster directly, they benefit greatly
> from it. You can't beat free worldwide advertising! Click here and work
> us...
>
> I see this as a major logical fallacy of the Assisted class: it assumes
> that the effect of using the cluster are confined to the operator using
> it. In reality the cluster impacts both sides of the QSO. The large
> swarming pileups around fresh spots prove that point.
>
> In conclusion I see no downsides to merging Assisted with Unassisted. If
> you want to embrace the latest technology, use the internet and
> computer-based tools. If you want to tune around and find your own
> contacts, then enjoy doing that. The evidence suggests that merging the
> two styles together in one class will cause no harm in their resulting
> scores and will not change the results. If the telnet/cluster/Skimmer
> experiment has demonstrated anything, it's that running stations will
> always win. And there's one other benefit of merging Assisted and
> Unassisted: it will end the long debates on CQ-Contest!
>
> 73 Jim K6OK
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> 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
|