Welcome to contesting, Jim! You've chosen to get involved in the best ham
radio has to offer :-)
There are a number of problems with your argument:
First, as someone else pointed out, it's not necessarily true that Assisteds
don't win. What's true is that generally the ops who have chosen to compete
Assisted haven't put up the highest scores. It's quite likely that this has
more to do with their stations and relative operating skills than the use of
packet/skimmer. This year, K1DG and K5ZD, two of the best contest ops in the
world, are neck-in-neck for first place in the CQ WW CW USA SOAB HP
category. I'm sure had either one used packet/skimmer, he would have won
easily.
There's a nugget of truth in your argument because, generally speaking, he
who has more QSOs often beats he who has more mults (though obviously the
difference in QSOs has to be substantial.) And if every single-op used one
radio, it could be true that time spent working packet spots doesn't pay off
as well as time spent running (after all, a lot of mults "come to you".) But
these days all of the top single-ops use two radios in SO2R configuration
(listen on both, transmit on only one at a time.) Unless the run rate is
very high, a skilled SO2R operator can work packet/skimmer spots on the
second radio without substantially affecting the rate on the run radio. The
best ops can do this with run rates well over 100/hour. And even when rates
are very high, taking the time to grab a rare zone and/or country on the
second radio can be well worth sacrificing one or two contacts on the run
radio. With packet/skimmer, an SO2R op can run at high rates *and*
accumulate mults much faster than if he had to tune and listen for them.
The other problem with your argument is that it's not just a matter of
choosing (or not) to use a particular technology. Historically, the reason
single-ops were put in a separate category was because packet spots are
originated by other operators. The feeling was that the help provided was
too similar to the help provided by another operator in your shack (say,
listening on another radio and calling out spots to you) and it was no
longer legitimate to claim you did all the work yourself without any help.
Rather than put single-op packet users into a multi-op category, it was
decided to put them into an Assisted category. The term Assisted made sense
until Skimmer came along. There were lots of debates about whether Skimmer
was "Assistance" because it's not another human and doesn't resemble
multi-op like packet spots do. As you say, it's just technology. In the end,
however, CQ and ARRL decided that the help provided by Skimmer was so
similar to the help provided by packet that it belongs in the same category
("looks like a duck, walks like a duck...", etc.)
As I said in my earlier post, the difference between the Unassisted and
Assisted categories really boils down to how you find stations. Tuning and
listening is a whole different animal than clicking on packet spots. Putting
all single-ops in the same category would be like putting 100-dash runners
in the same race with 5K runners. They both move their legs fast, but
they're entirely different contests.
73, Dick WC1M
-----Original Message-----
From: JVarney [mailto:jvarn359@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 11:55 PM
To: CQ-Contest@contesting.com
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
|