A firm and fast course with uneven fairways, approaches and greens and steady gusty wind is more unplayable than any forced carry monster. Yes, you won't lose balls, but you won't make too many pars, birdies and even bogies. You can't control the ball consistently so that you can play under par in these type of conditions, that's why pros hate it. Too much depend on luck on these courses. It's fun and it is quirky, but it is no sport.
Imagine playing tennis or soccer over humps and bumps, how fun would that be?
Now this is getting interesting.
The conditions you describe above are certainly challenging, but they're far from dependent on luck. In fact, I would argue that the Open has proven that such conditions greatly and almost unfailingly reward the most gifted ballstrikers - the men most capable of controlling their ball when faced with multiple variables like uneven lies, firm conditions, high winds, and unforgiving bounces. While it takes undeniable talent to hit the ball high and straight every time, it takes far more talent to control the ball like Hogan or Woods or any other number of Open champions who can hit the right shot for a situation even if it isn't a stock high straight ball. To comprehensively test a player's game, courses need MORE variables, not fewer.
That's what links golf provides in spades: variables. I'll defend your love of the aerial game to an extent. I enjoy hitting shots that hang in the air for a long time, and I enjoy the occasional forced carry. But if your argument is that drop-and-stop golf in soft conditions is a better test, and that courses whose presentation accommodates or even encourages ground game options are too reliant on luck, then I think you're confused. The more variables in play that affect the ball's journey (wind, humps, hollows, firmness, uneven lies), the more skill required to navigate them. It's just icing on the cake that some of those variables also serve to make the game more fun for players who lack the skill required to really score well but who still enjoy watching their ball move with the wind, bounce along the ground, and roll out farther than usual.
Your tennis and soccer comparison makes no sense, as the very thing that makes golf special is that its playing fields aren't static. As the venue changes, so do the shots required and the possible outcomes change along with them. Here's a more apt comparison: If we were going to have a contest to find out who's the best driver, would we do it on a long, straight road where the person with the fastest car will win with little emphasis placed on handling or controlling the vehicle in adverse conditions? Or would we do it on a narrow, winding road with loose pavement and hazards that fully test our abilities to control the car in every situation? I know I think the latter would be the better test, and perhaps more importantly, it also sounds a lot more fun and interesting. The long, straight road is a lot like an aerial golf course where the longest and straightest hitter will win almost every time. The narrow, winding road is more like a links course, as it requires creativity and a more comprehensive set of skills to navigate. It takes skill to hit the high straight ball, but that's just one of the 9 flights that good players try to hone and a course that never calls for deviation from that one flight isn't a very good test at all.