Bob Jones On What Constitutes A Grand Slam

[HDPM]

Since Bob Jones was the only guy who did it until the arguabe Tiger Slam we recently discussed, I thought the quotation from this month's Golf Digest might provoke some thought. All of Jones's golf writing does, and you all should pick up the whole article and maybe a book he wrote or something too. So here's the quote followed by my comment:

"The professionals and the television people have now come up with a new "Grand Slam," accomplished by winning the Masters, the U.S. Open, the British Open and the PGA; and by winning these, not in one year, but in a lifetime. Obviously, no professional can ever win the four championships comprising my Grand Slam; but neither can any amateur ever win the phony Grand Slam created by the pros and television people. I think if you can win both the British and U.S. Opens in one year, this should be enough."

There is quite a bit packed in this observation. The article gives no date for the quotation, but I think it must have been uttered in the early '60's. Talk of the "Grand Slam" picked up in these years due to Bob Drum, maybe aided and abetted by Dan Jenkins, discussing the feat. I believe Drum started the talk though. And Jones spoke of the Masters as an entrenched major, which he would not have done in the '30's I think. I suppose it could have been anytime post-war, but I think with the discussion of TV it would have been in the '60's after Palmer's emergence and Drum's writing about Palmer. OTOH, I always understood Drum to be speaking of all four in a calendar year. (No Tiger Slam, no "career slam.") Anyway, Jones displays some subtle contempt for the professional golfer which is refreshing. I have no doubt Jones was friends with many pros, helped many pros, and respected them. But some of his language does bring us back to the true amateur days where college scholarships would strip amateur status, as would merely asking how one went about turning pro. (Old story, back in the day a kid writes to USGA asking how you go about turning pro. Blue blood, blue blazer, white shoe writes back "You just did. Good luck in your career.") I like the dismissive "pros and TV people" bit.

But Jones also seems to have discounted his amateur titles. Perhaps because of the closed, limited fields. So I don't think he is genuinely anti-pro either. And he doesn't discuss his own Masters. Perhaps because he didn't view it as a championship, and properly so. The Masters winner is not the champion of anything, just the winner of what some consider the best golf tournament. Jones also doesn't mention the PGA. Perhaps because of the closed field, I don't know. In analyzing the different majors, you can guess what Jones was thinking though. The U.S. Open and British Open are open to anybody who can pay the nominal entry, pro or amateur. Show up on the first tee and you can be a champion if you can just beat the best in the world in tough conditions. A nobody like Lee Trevino can show up and win as long as he can beat everybody. The two biggest golf associations put these tournaments on and they are truly championships. And winning both in a year is quite a feat. Bob Jones should know, eh?

As for my ranking of the majors, I posted some time ago what I thought. I put the US Open and the Open Championship in a tie for first. If I had golf talent I would want to win the US Open slightly more if I could only have one major because I am an American. But for any non-American, the Open Championship really is the world championship. The Masters is too much of an invitational with too small a field. And the PGA has killed itself by going to stroke play. Maybe a 128 man match play with all 36 hole matches would bring it back. I think the Masters has a 10% chance of dying because of the latest crap going on. In that event, the Players Championship is clearly the next best. It may be better than the Masters now because of the strong field and the fact it is well run. No amateurs, but amateurs can't seriously contend anymore. Still, an amateur might come along someday. Open championships as opposed to pro-only events or invitationals clearly are the truest tests. So maybe Jones knew something. And I think he would think Tiger's a pretty good stick. And Tiger did better than just winning the Opens in one year, so what he did is more than enough.

[Clarkmeister]

If I was a golfer and could only pick one, it would be the Masters. Why? Because its the Masters, that's why.

[Jimbo]

What if you were a female golfer? Better pick another tournament! /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[Clarkmeister]

If I was a female golfer I wouldn't be good enough to even qualify for any of those events, so I wouldn't worry about it.

[olemissgolf]

My order of preference is:
1. Masters
2. British Open
3. U.S. Open
4. PGA

[TobDog]

Part of the Jones/PGA thing was that Jones was never going to be a professional and never qualify for a tournament that was originally for the "Club Pros" but also the PGA Championship did not start until after Jones retired from competetive golf. personally, I believe that originally the "Grand Slam" concept came about from a doninant player like Jones he had the measuring stick we see whats possible, but later with more tougher competetion players were perceived as ok if they had won all of them, we kind of let them in if they won all of them in their career, and including Tiger, there are 5 who have won all of the the modern majors, a very low number. Along comes Tiger, he I think picked up where guys like Bob Jones, Walter Hagen, Wille Anderson, the Morris boys were, they dominated, and he dominates just against tougher players and more of them. It has taken a long time and has come back to the (what I feel is) original standard of "Grand Slam" which is mearly impossible.

[John Cole]

HDPM,

Jones, of course, wanted to do much more than play golf for a career, and remember that pros, then, didn't earn the kind of money they do today (adjusted for inflation, of course). Jones held degrees in engineering, English literature, and then pursued a law degree (I believe he passed the bar after one year of law school--no need to finish law school then). He wanted to become rich, and he had a golf course he wanted to build. Certainly, playing golf for half his life would have made that nearly impossible.

[Bill Murphy]

1. US Open at Pebble Beach (or maybe the new Torrey Pines)
2. US Open at Bethpage
3. Masters (woulda been number two a year ago)
4. British at Carnoustie (old setup)
5. PGA under 36 hole matchplay format
6. Canadian Open (3rd oldest Open; prolly should be a major but no dough; Jack, Trevino, & Sutton among others consider it a huge tourney)
7. Players
8. Accenture Match Play (on this year's toughened up La Costa)

[HDPM]

Mine with particular courses like you did.:

1) US Open at Pebble. Or Shinnecock for my second one.
2) Open Championship at St. Andrews. Muirfield for #2
3) Masters
4) PGA at match play at an old northeast course.

Canadian Open, Western Open used to be near majors. Now they're just Tour stops basically. Winning the Western would be cool to me though. LA Open at Riviera would be nice. Colonial would be nice. Other big tournaments would be nice of course, as would any tour event. But for me there's a big fall off after the majors in terms of mystique and history.

[olemissgolf]

If the US Open would pick more courses like Pebble and Pinehurst, and set up the courses where recovery shots and chip shots are part of the test, I would rate it higher. But the setup they are so fond of using is a travesty to the game in my opinion.
If the Masters doesn't let Arnie and Jack play whenever the hell they want to, it may go down in my ranking. (However, they are reconsidering that screw up.)

[HDPM]

I know what you are saying and what the USGA did at Pinehurst was terrific. They set the course up very hard, but it had the character of the layout intact, the course spoke for itself really.

[Bill Murphy]

I think Johnny Miller once said the USGA could do worse than bounce the Open back & forth btwn Pebble & Shinnecock; maybe mixing in Pinehurst. This was before Bethpage & the new Torrey Pines. Helluva a rotation there.

I like Blackwolf & Pumpkin Ridge[?], and am very interested in the 2004 PGA at Whistling Straits. The top five above, tho, are certainly the class of the field.

[andyfox]

Andy North, comparing Nicklaus with Tiger, said Nicklaus competed against Palmer, Player, Trevino and Watson, and those guys won 30 majors (I don't think it's quite 30, but maybe he included Floyd or someone else), but Tiger's "competition" has only won 8 majors (don't remember who he included in that group).

Tough to compare players or a grand slam in different eras because the times have changed so much. Sam Snead won more tournaments than anyone else, but David Love won more today than Snead won in his entire career. What incentive would there be for a Snead to go play the British Open? (I think he won it the first time he played in it, at St. Andrews in 1946.)

[HDPM]

"I think we can agree that all a man can do is beat the people who are around at the same time he is. He cannot win from those who came before any more than he can from those who may come afterward. It is human, I suppose, for every man to think that his days were the best."

Pretty accurate I think.

[olemissgolf]

Andy North was taking a stretch of time and great golfers that was about twenty-five years or better. Also, Arnie won most of his before Jack won. Give Tiger twenty-five years, then the comparison would be more meaningful. All of the players mentioned were great golfers. But I think everyone agrees there are more players capable of winning a major now than twenty-five years ago.
And speaking of Andy North- three wins, two Opens and the Milwaukee Open (I think). Sure U.S.G.A., you're identifying the best player. (As opposed to embarrassing them)

[HDPM]

North is an argument against the set-up. But then again, all majors have their unusual winners.

[Bill Murphy]

I've never seen a stronger past champions list than Colonial. Even with Sergio & Frost, and no Tiger.