It is not one-size-fits-all.
Let me give an example of another situation that maybe helps make a point.
My extended family has taken many beach vacations, and we are competitive by nature; we can make a contest out of anything. One of the things we do is play touch football on the beach--and there is no out-of-bounds on the ocean side of the field. We may have a few college-level athletes, a few women, a few fat guys, and few old people, and maybe a few kids. We'll make sure the athletes are on separate teams, split up the fat people, and so forth. Then once we have teams, the event will go on for many hours. We will be hot, fatigued, scratched up from diving attempts in the crumbled sea shells. We'll develop team camaraderie. We'll go on when it seems we are too exhausted to continue because we are only behind by one score... And afterward, we'll drink beer well into the night talking about key plays, about the incredible play where we hiked the ball to grandma who lateral'd back to the kid who threw to the open college athlete.
The POINT here is not to figure out who are the better players. We already know that. The POINT is to share the struggle, to experience the excitement of a small success, the disappointment of a small failure, to engage, to put a little spring in our steps, and to make our lives just a little better. It is not really about the result; it is about the process.
A good handicapped tournament can give everybody the chance--no matter how good they really are--to occasionally have that day where everything seems to click, and you make it farther than you'd ever imagined, and people are watching you, and you're nervous, and it feels like your arm is just barely connected to your body...
So yes, there also should be unhandicapped events, events where the player who performs the best finishes the highest. There is room for both.
This response doesn't address the original poster's question. I fear the wording of that question is not so conducive to a serious discussion.
