Initial thoughts on tournament:
It definitely appears to work better to have judges call all hits, not because they are good at it but because at least it's a level playing field of incompetence that affects all participants equally. Therefore we had a lot of grumbling about the judges but it didn't progress into outright whining because, well people whos hits weren't called also had hits against them not called. This also, as we thought, tended to favour fighters who gave clean, decisive blows over scrappers and snipers. Having said that, all the training had paid off and the standard of judging was much higher than in previous years.
As per usual, a lot of the outcome was determined by the luck of the draw. Many of the better fighters were paired up and went out early, whereas many of the newer fighters were paired up and went into the later rounds. I think that is part of the charm of a tournament but I think that some kind of experimentation with a seeding process would probably be a good idea.
I noted again that people with simple strategies tend to win tournaments. A lot like Dal'aggochie's "how to train someone to win a duel in a week" or all of Di Grassi. Pick a max of two high percentage combinations that you can do really well and fast and then do them really well and fast. Conversely people who go in for "good fights" tend to go out early. I think this perfectly exemplifies the historical dichotomy between the True and False Arts, people who are all business and people who want to play.
We had all our scoring and matching run through an excel spreadsheet, all programmed up to calculate everything from randomly selecting matches to calculating who was winning etc. We projected this onto a wall. While there were occasional technical hiccups with this, mostly centred around people dropping in or out of competitions, this worked really well. Fighters could see on the display how they were doing, who was winning and what their upcoming fights were in real time. This made the organisation super smooth.