What a difference, does it really make?

I was asked by someone at the Flint Ridge knapin, what difference does .05 inches really make in the diameter of a piece. When I explained that it made a huge difference in W/T ratio which corresponds with the level of skill of the knapper. The person replied "so what, if someone is over a 10/1 ratio, it is all good, why does it matter?".

While I agree, 10/1 is a threshold and thus why the points awarded in my scoring system start to increase greatly at that point. But 13/1 takes tremendously more skill than 10/1, and once you get above 13/1, every slight increase takes more skill at an ever more multiplying rate. In other words, 15/1 compared to 13/1 take much more skill than the difference in 10/1 to 12/1, although they are is only two ratios difference in both cases.

If you go from .22 inches to .17 inches in diameter on a blade that is 3 inches in width, your W/T ratio goes from 13.6 to 17.6, that is a tremendous difference!

If .05 inches doesn't matter, then why do we keep score or run a time clock on any thing in life? The current record for the 100 meter sprint is 9.58 seconds, the tenth fastest time is only .28 slower, such a small difference, why not give them all a gold medal? What about when Michael Phelps in the Olympics beat his competitor by 1/100 of a second. 1/100 of a second! Did they both get gold medals?

I agree, give credit where credit is due, if someone makes a good blade, give them credit. But I think you get my point, slight differences in diameters on blades truly can make a big difference in the skill level being represented.

UPDATE---I just realized that a little over 1 week of making this original post, that someone set a better second place time in the 100 meter sprint. The difference between first and second is now .11 seconds.