>>28617415
>>28617365
Which is the problem really. Group B was cool because it was the best men doing the best things to push the boundaries of technology at the time. That's what everyone loved to see and also what attracted more manufacturers to have a go. And if it or some otherwise like in kind had continued you'd see greater development in the same spirit.
So the problem with the 'fairness' arguments put forth by men with the souls of bureaucrats is that it is fundamentally contrary to the spirit of competition. More prosaically, when such kinds say 'if there was more open space for design one manufacturer would dominate and that is bad' it is simply a lie on multiple levels.
For starters, it has literally never happened in reality; every time there is a format with more open space for design it becomes more popular, and when designs become more predefined, both spectators and manufacturers stop caring about it.
For another, what do they even think the competition is for to begin with? They have no idea. Because it doesn't matter if nobody is dominant or if one team is perpetually dominant, because the point is showing what the best men doing the best things look like. It is the driving of techne that everyone, the broader industry, the patrons, the clients, the nation, the world in general, benefits from. The value of the competition is that which goes beyond the competition itself. And the turning of open competitions with space for distinction, into predefined theatrical rituals for the sake of equality, destroys all that value, and renders the whole effort pointless.
