CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Two Reasons Why Assisted and Unassisted Should Be Merge

To: cq-contest@contesting.com, Richard DiDonna NN3W <richnn3w@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Two Reasons Why Assisted and Unassisted Should Be Merged
From: JVarney <jvarn359@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 21:40:02 -0800 (PST)
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Good point. I was only looking at worldwide scores. 

I should not have brought up "Assisted never wins" to support my argument that 
Assisted and Unassisted could be merged without harm. A rigorous and objective 
evaluation would require a statistical analysis of the full population of 
scores, not just a few at the top. As time permits I'll work on such an 
analysis and report here when done.

73 Jim K6OK

--- On Thu, 12/1/11, Richard DiDonna NN3W <richnn3w@verizon.net> wrote:

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



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

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