"If this is the case then how is it that the SRS (Single Round Score ) came about in matchplay. Through the pressure of the masses? Hardly, if so few actually have a handicap."
Jon:
No, the SRS came about in match play and stroke play and any form of play FOR HANDICAPPING PURPOSES simply because it is the easiest way to input for handicap calculation in either form of play. The fact is SRS is fine for stroke play handicap calculation because a SRS IS the stroke play format but for Match play the format is hole by hole and that is why hole by hole posting is the best for match play. The additional fact is hole by hole posting for handicap calculation works fine in stroke play too because all the computer needs to do is total up the hole by hole scores. That's not necessary in match play.
JVB's point is the handicap posting procedure of SRS may not have much to do with the American fixation on wanting to know their SRS no matter what kind of golf they are playing. I think he's right about that, so what is the USGA supposed to do about it----eg send a circular out to all American golfers telling them to give up their inherent fixation on a SRS? 
TEP,
if I understand your reply properly then you are taking my statement out of context. I can see an argument for SRS in strokeplay though strokeplay rules should abide. In matchplay I don't see how it can be applied. The two forms of golf require such different approaches and tatics that a player may decide he has to go for the green if his opponent is tight to the pin on one occasion in matchplay but not if his opponet has hit OOB on another occasion. This is something that doesn't happen as much in strokeplay (I would throw in some quip about Brits maybe appreciating the difference between stroke and matchplay better than Americans but after the other week maybe not
). So the result in matchplay cannot possible reflect the players result in strokeplay.
I disagree with your statement that hole by hole posting for handicap is fine as the handicap is based on the entire round and not 18 individual holes. If JVB post says the handicap posting procedure of SRS may not have much to do with the American fixation on wanting to know their SRS no matter what kind of golf they are playing then why do you come to the conclusion, albeit in jest, to send a circular out to all American golfers telling them to give up their inherent fixation on a SRS?
Adam,
wether you call it cheating or MANIPULATING (are you a defence lawyer?
) it is all the same. I agree with most of the rest of what you wrote and find it a shame that more people are not willing to stand up and say what they think instead of gossiping in corners.
As to my comments on point 2 I was only taking what was written and MANIPULATING it
to its logical, extreme conclusion.
But looking on it in a positive light this crazy handicapping rule might solve some of golfs biggest problems. You would only need enough land to acommodate 18 tee shots, there after the player may pick up his ball and record what ever score he thinks he would have likely taken. Secondly, even the slowest players would be playing 18 in under 3 hour.
To the second question in my original post it would have a negitive effect on GCA as there would be no need for any green complexes
but also less cart paths
