Thanks for essentially make my point for me, Murdr. Let me elaborate.
First, at no point did I state that we should replace the current scoring/ranking system with some new system that measures only what I want it to measure. This is where you and HiTech both wrongly believe that I wish to impose some new standard upon the current scoring system in order to boost myself or people who fly in a manner I prefer. I did argue that context matters since rank alone doesn't tell us much about how someone flies; we know the ends but not the means.
Second, I enjoy the subtle shift this discussion has now taken from measuring skill to measuring success. These two things differ (not unexpectedly since the current ranking system measures success with total accuracy and skill with only some accuracy). The example you provided perfectly fits this distinction. Would you reasonably argue that Tiger Woods possesses less absolute skill than the no-name player in your example? All other things being equal, Tiger Woods would beat that player any day of the week in all situations. And yet the no-name player succeeds in the tournament because Woods, despite his skill, does not engage in the sorts of activities conducive to winning.
My point in this thread has been that rank does not necessarily provide an accurate measure for skill, though I recognize that in a game sense it provides an accurate measure of how successfully people engage in activities that, on the whole, increase fighter rank. Think of it this way... if Tiger Woods brings all of his clubs and a GPS device, he's going to defeat a lesser-skilled player who does the same. He will succeed. If the no-name player brings all of the clubs and the GPS device but Woods does not, then the no-name player succeeds. If Woods and the no-name player both bring all of their clubs and a GPS device with them, Woods wins. If Woods plays against someone of exactly the same skill level and uses all of his clubs and a GPS device while the other player does not, he will succeed in winning the tournament.
So now we have multiple outcomes but the relative skill levels haven't changed. This was exactly the point I was making to HiTech earlier, that golf scores do not accurately measure skill if skilled players do not play in ways conducive to "winning." Success? Yes. Skill? No.
Let's face it, many players who look at rank don't think, "Now that guy's a really successful player." They think, "Wow, that guy must be really, really good." And of course, the player may in fact be quite skilled in every aspect of Aces High. Or he might be someone who brought all the clubs and a GPS device while others were downing a beer a hole and putting with drivers for the heck of it.
-- Todd/Leviathn
