I'd like to join in this debate because I find it fascinating. I also see it affecting the club going forward, so I'd like to offer a clarification and perhaps some insight.
I believe we must first agree to some points, namely:
- Handicaps are designed to reflect a typical score across a wide range of course difficulties for a specific player
- TGC Handicaps aren't perfect, but they are quite useful to this effect
- Non-handicapped tours show true game "skill" in that your score is reflected one-to-one with your performance on those courses in those conditions
- Handicapped tours show a snapshot of how well you played on those courses COMPARED TO how well you normally play
If you score better in a handicapped tour than I, for instance, it means for the duration of that tour, you played better than you normally do to a higher degree than I played over my normal performances. It is a great way to show short term improvement. If we agree that handicapped tours don't show absolute skill, and there is nothing wrong with playing a tour which shows skill as compared to ones previous performances alone, we've got a market for both types of tours.
Next, one could argue that if you wanted to designate a "Club Pro", you'd want to use absolute skill, and therefor, a non-handicapped tour. However, consider the following. If a club requested you play your absolute best at a specific time (three or four days consecutively as per the tour arrangement), and you failed to do so, faulting yourself several strokes a round more than normal, then as per the request, you did NOT perform well, even if your absolute score was low compared to others. Keep in mind that this second type of request is just as legitimate, however different from, the first. Both are valid.
Although I don't look at our scores and say, "Top player is best," I do look at that list and say, "Top player was on his game this tour. Well done."
Thoughts?