I believe I don't see your point. The player with the weakest opponent wins? Look - I don't know what system they use at your place, but normally placed in a Double Elimination tournament are made random-wise. Everything here is random, except for the top 4 players of last year.
I don't think there's a good solution for this problem you state. There are some alternative ways:
1) Seperate all good players from the bad players. In this scenario, duels are fairest (good guys vs. good guys & bad guys vs. bad guys) but in this way, half of the good players drop out during the first round, while players with much less skill proceed. Is this fair? Not at all. People will complain like hell. It might be a tournament which is worth watching, but the skilled players will hate it.
2) Every duel has a good player and a bad player. This is pretty unfair, since the bad players don't stand a chance against the good and so all good players will move on to the next round. In that case, all good player stay in the game (which is good for the later rounds) but new player don't stand a chance. Unfair.

So, the best solution to the problem would be a mixed selection, featuring some duels which are good vs. good, some are bad vs. bad, and others are good vs. bad. I could put all in the players on fixed spots (not randomly decided) but then participants will call me biased and lots of flaming will be my part. So, the only solution which is left is the randomly decided matchups, which I used for this tournament.
I don't see your point at all and telling me "I ruined the JJ2WC Duellist concept" without even giving any arguments is just stupid. If you have a better solution, feel free to tell it, but I've had several positive reactions about the matchups already, so I'm not in the mood for a redraw.