A few things from vocal people (and who are very long time competitors). Mainly stems from massaging of raw scores and comparison between weeks of what seems to be similar scores but vastly different "results" emerge. What I am interested in is that now there isn't a "clear" winner and the top of the field is very bunched whether this has any effect on scores produced.
And hadn't looked at results just prior to talking to you - well done!
Thanks, I knew I had a good run, but didn't expect it to be that good.
Are the complaints about the whole field having similar scores? Or just a few individuals? As a mathematician, this scoring system is a much better one than the previous one. The main difference is that your score for each week is a comparison against everyone who shows up--where the old scoring system is a comparison against the winner. So in the old system there would be some huge discrepancies between the first half of the season and the second half (since Alex turned up the first half and has been away for the second half).
I would also argue that this makes the winner more clear, and other than Alex the top of the field is usually very bunched (I think there have been 3 of the last 5 years, where my position in the top 5 came down to the final event--sometimes by a single control point).
Anyway, I'm happy to chat to anyone about the scoring system. And I'll admit that it was nice that under the old system you could walk away from the event at 7:30 and know what your score would be, and also things could be massaged a little to make the range of scores anything really.