Well, I'm not gonna bother reading every post, but I will comment on the original.
I am a tour master. Some days, I seem to have everything figured out, and I play pretty well. Some days, not so much. I have many friends that are legends or other TMs, and I can tell you that they all seem like just really consistent players. They all put in the time. They all know the courses. They really are that good. I play just for myself. I don't play for credits, I don't ask for anything from anyone (well, a little advice here and there), and I don't take or make any notes on the game. I think I play fairly well, but I know I don't take it seriously like others do, so I expect them to be that much better. I also don't really think that "average" or scores are very indicative. I'm not exactly sure how the average thing works, but it seems like only scores that better your average count toward that average. Further, since people are free to quit a round without posting, the average is kind of doubly pointless in my opinion. It is what we have as a yardstick, however, so I will use it to illustrate.
I am going to make a small example, and I hope he does not mind me mentioning him, but I do it only to illustrate. When I think of the upper tier of all of WGT, obviously certain names come to everyone's mind, because they are consistent in their play and have won big when it counted (like the Opens). So, I will use Bollox as an example. I have never played with him in a game, however, I have read a number of the accounts he has posted of rounds with others. His recall of the game is stellar, his shot selections and why he does them seem sound. I'm sure he has a pile of notes on every hole that WGT has, and uses those to his advantage. And, he has played a ton of games.
Currently, my average is about 64, and realistically, I think I shoot an average of about 66/67. I'm not sure what Bollox's average is, but let's say it is 58, and for argument sake, suppose he realistically shoots an average of about 60/61. That makes him about a 6 stroke "better" player than me. Considering I don't take notes or even play very seriously, if he and I were to play, I would expect him to shoot about a half stroke better than me per hole. Over 18 holes, that is 9 strokes. That really doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility to me at all.
I mean, when you open anything up to "gambling", I'm sure there are those working ways to have some advantage. I'm not naive enough to think otherwise. However, it just seems to me that for the amount of time and effort one would have to put in just to make credits, and then turn those into something tangible, wouldn't a second job make up that tangible stuff a lot more quickly and efficiently?
In closing, and trying to get back on point, I really doubt it is a big problem in the legend ranks. I have played with many, and they always seem to play well, play in a timely fashion, are courteous and helpful, and just really have a knack for this game. Sorry if I rambled or am not responding in the spirit of the original post, it has been a long day.
Merry Christmas!
Seacrest out! LMAO