Somewhere between total dominance-seeking competition and the "sheer joy" unserious flier may lie the best answer... or appproach to an answer.
First: ask why we fly control line? Once competent with simple takeoffs and landings, what do we want, beyond boring holes in near-ground flight? (Sometimes VERY boring holes in the sky...)
Speed?
Measured speed? OK, clear enough. What do we compare our flight speeds with, and why that aspect? Comparisons are possible with speeds listed in records or recent competitions. But those require accepting some conditions, e.g., engine type and size, line length, mono- or two- line, likely more factor details...
Scale?
How "faithful" to the original 1-to-1 aircraft? What 'compromises' from that inspiration are tolerable to us (and others??) Whose responses matter?
Innovation?
Unless you really like to invest the ime, money, materials and effort in something never before done (or tried?) what will you get out of the effort. And if you DO all that takes, and it works, will you enjoy in doing it again and again (see 'boring holes', above...)
If you merely(?) enjoy construction, fine, but why construct an object which has a purpose, by definition, flight? Non-flying scale projects can be challenging and fulfilling, too. Their purpose is display, and the challenge is doing a good job.
The CLPA patteern is a challenge that cannot be met perfectly - a mountain that cannot be 'mastered'. Improvements earned are personally rewarding -whether or not in contests. Don't even think about judges...
The cost and use of the field equipment is significant. So are the costs of 'good' items involved, and their maintenance...
If you find your level of intensity gratifying, go for it. Some challenge MUST remain, or it's not worth doing. CL ultimately urges good bonding among fliers - launches, for example, and so much else. We share, to some degree, the fascination and rewards of this, and the good folks we do it with!