We did the same change for the Scandinavian Activity Contest this year.
Only one category including both SO and SA.
And we did change the result listings so they show an "A" for Assisted and
also show who is SO2R.
Take a look at:
Scandinavian participants
https://www.sactest.net/blog/result/region_results.php?&preliminary=1&year=2020&mode=CW®ion=73
European Participants
https://www.sactest.net/blog/result/region_results.php?&mode=CW®ion=EU&claimed=1
It clearly shows who gets the benefit of clusters.
The Scandinavian stations are the "Runners" and all others are mostly S&Ps.
-----------------------------------
Vy 73 de OZ2I Henning
-----------------------------------
Den ons. 18. nov. 2020 kl. 20.48 skrev Jeff Clarke <ku8e@ku8e.com>:
> Dick,
>
> If that's the case then why don't they just get rid of the SOA category
> instead of the SOU category?
>
> My good friend KR2Q knows that I backup my statements with numbers.
> Mine come from the CQ WPX database. https://cqwpx.com/score_db.htm
>
> 2020 CQ WPX SSB - 2695 SO total assisted entries vs 4465
> non-assisted SO entries.
>
> 2020 CQ WPX CW - 2538 SO assisted entries vs 2964 SO non-assisted
> entries.
>
> There's been an overwhelming response in this thread by well known, well
> respected and former winners in the SOU class that they are against the
> change. But the powers to be seem to totally ignore this and tell us
> that we just have to live with their decision. I don't know anything
> about how rules changes are made in CQ sponsored contests. Whether it's
> the director or some committee?
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> On 11/18/2020 12:45 PM, Dick Green WC1M wrote:
> >
> >
> > While I'm not particularly bothered by the change (seen it coming for a
> while now), I'm not so sure it won't have an impact. The fact that
> Unassisted entrants have outperformed Assisted entrants doesn't necessarily
> mean that assistance doesn't improve scores. You have to take station
> capability, location and operator skill into account, too. QSO spotting
> probably would have had little percentage impact on the huge score WA1Z put
> up at KC1XX this year -- he would have dominated the field in any case. But
> it's not clear what the result would be if you compare two more-or-less
> evenly matched ops/stations/locations, one using QSO spotting and the other
> not using it.
> >
> > I think it’s possible that higher QSO totals, and therefore higher mult
> totals, can be achieved with "point-and-shoot" versus "tune and listen".
> The most obvious advantage is that with a spot you know you haven't worked
> the station and in many cases it'll be worth waiting for the previous QSO
> to finish. With Unassisted, you might wait only to find out that you've
> worked the station already. The caveat, of course, is that packet spots are
> often wrong, so you still have to listen for the callsign to confirm it,
> and sometimes it'll turn out that you've already worked the spotted
> station. That's one reason that in the few cases I I've entered the
> Assisted category in WPX and other contests, I've used local CW Skimmer for
> spots rather than packet. Skimmer makes mistakes, too, but fewer of them.
> Another small advantage is that you don't have to type in the callsign
> (unless, of course, the packet spot is wrong.)
> >
> > I think it's also an advantage that you don't have to touch the tuning
> knob and can hop around the band from station to station.
> >
> > On the other hand, another possible explanation for Unassisted ops
> traditionally beating Assisted ops is that Assisted ops might focus too
> much attention on chasing spots and not enough time optimizing rates on the
> run radio. As Randy says, it's a run contest. That said, it seems to me
> that point-and-shoot will boost QSO totals more than tune-and-listen when
> rates are slow on the run radio.
> >
> > 2BSIQ adds yet another complication that I think may even the playing
> field. When two bands are open, 2BSIQ is going to be far more productive
> than S&P, so much so that spotting might not make any material difference.
> >
> > 73, Dick WC1M
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Randy Thompson <k5zd@outlook.com>
> > Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 8:55 PM
> > To: Mark Bailey <kd4d@comcast.net>; cq-contest@contesting.com
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Changes for the CQ WW WPX SSB and CW
> Contests in 2021
> >
> > On SSB, only 1 time in the past 5 years has the top USA single op winner
> used assistance. On CW it has been 0 times in the past 5 years.
> >
> > Single operator success in WPX is about running and making big QSO
> totals. This change will not have much of an impact on the contest except
> to make it harder for the guys who normally operate assisted to make a top
> box.
> >
> > Randy K5ZD
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: CQ-Contest <cq-contest-bounces+k5zd=outlook.com@contesting.com>
> On Behalf Of Mark Bailey
> > Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 5:07 PM
> > To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Rule Changes for the CQ WW WPX SSB and CW
> Contests in 2021
> >
> > I am very disappointed that the CQ WPX Contests eliminated single
> operator categories.
> >
> > It isn't a merger - there is nothing left of the single operator
> category rules.
> >
> > Unfortunately, now the internet and, for CW, the RBN are required to be
> competitive in WPX. :-(.
> >
> > It is sad that the game of WPX can't be played competitively just on the
> radio any more.
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Mark, KD4D
> >
> > On November 16, 2020 10:01:55 AM EST, Bud Trench <aa3b.bud@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> The 2021 CQ WW WPX RTTY, SSB and CW contests will include a new
> >> Multi-Transmitter Distributed category. Stations operating in this
> >> category may have a maximum of six transmitted signals, one per band at
> >> any one time, from stations in different locations. All equipment,
> >> including remotely-controlled equipment, must be located in same DXCC
> >> entity and CQ
> >> Zone. Six bands may be activated simultaneously. This is a new,
> >> stand-alone category. It is not intended to replace, or compete with,
> >> other multi-operator categories.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> QSO alerting systems will now be permitted in all CQ WW WPX SSB and CW
> >> Single Operator categories, except the Single Operator Classic Overlay
> >> categories. This change also results in elimination of the requirement
> >> for audio recordings. The drivers for combining the Single Op Assisted
> >> and Unassisted categories include:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> * Use of QSO alerting systems by single operator participants is
> >> allowed in 70% (33 or 47) of the international DX contests recently
> >> reviewed, including CQ WPX RTTY
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> * It is becoming increasingly more difficult to draw the line between
> >> assisted and unassisted operations as SDR technologies become more
> >> integrated with contest software / networks
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> * This step further aligns CQ WW WPX SSB / CW with CQ WW WPX RTTY.
> >> The use of QSO alerting systems in CQ WW WPX RTTY has been permitted
> >> since the mid-1990's
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The Single Operator Classic Overlay categories will continue to
> >> prohibit the use of QSO alerting systems and should be considered by
> >> participants preferring to be unassisted. Also, the maximum operating
> >> time for Single Operator Classic Overlay participants has been reduced
> > >from 36 to 24 hours.
> >> Further, the Multi-Operator Single Transmitter High and Low Power
> >> Classic Overlay categories have been removed from the rules.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The full rules for CQ WW WPX SSB and CW 2021 will be posted on the CQ
> >> website <www.cq-amateur-radio.com <http://www.cq-amateur-radio.com> >
> >> and the CQ WW WPX Contest website <www.cqwpx.com
> >> <http://www.cqwpx.com/> > in early 2021.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 73,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Bud Trench, AA3B
> >>
> >> Director, CQ WPX Contest
> >>
> >> web: <https://cqwpx.com/> https://cqwpx.com
> >>
> >> email: <mailto:director@cqwpx.com> director@cqwpx.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> CQ-Contest mailing list
> >> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> >> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> > --
> > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|