Australian Open and Nicklaus

[Jim Nugent]

Guys, the question is whether a golf tournament should be considered a major, if most of the world's top players do not play in it.  

I think that from 1934 through 1959, many of the world's best players rarely played the British Open.  The players usually counted as the best of all either never played it then, or only played it once.  

Would the British Open the past ten years be easier for the rest of the world if Tiger never showed up?  Or the other Americans who have dominated since 1995?  Sergio, Luke Donald et. al might have a few majors under their belt.  But the tournament would be missing nearly half the world's top 100 players, including the top 3.    

I put the same mental footnote to the results of the 1980 and 1984 Olympics, due to the boycotts.  Many of the world's best athletes couldn't compete.  

I also discount real heavily major league baseball records from before 1950 or so.  Black players were forbidden from playing then.  And we know that once they were allowed, they were as good as or better than the best before them.  

Maybe I should look at the other majors from that era as well.  I've said before I wonder if the U.S. and British Am's from Bobby Jones' time should count as majors, for the same reason: most of the world's best players did not (could not) take part, since they were pro's.  The saving grace there is that Bobby beat the pro's butts too.  From 1930 to 1960, with some exceptions, American golfers usually did the butt-kicking, though.  

Jon, I think your analysis is off, for reasons I already explained.  Americans won the vast majority of British Opens between 1920 and 1933, including ten in a row, and 12 of 14.  They mostly stopped playing there for the next 26 years, though on the rare occasions the best ones crossed the pond, they won.  In 1960, the American invasion started up again.  Since then, American golfers again have won the majority of tournaments.  

i.e. they won before the 1933-1959 era, they won after, and they won the rare occasions they played in between.  

[Kalen Braley]

Jim,

In an ideal world this would be true and I agree that the events with the strongest fields should be the "majors".  However we know that the strongest fielded event happens year in and year out without such status in the form of The Players Championship....

Going along with you British Open theory though, if memory serves correctly, very view Europeans have won the players over the years...

[Jon Wiggett]

Jim,


Even if the question were that that you propose you view point is not a balanced one. You should read my earlier post and learn more about the non american players of the 40's & 50's to find equilibrium!!! It would be easier to see your view point if you also answered the questions that don't fit into your version of the world. If the non americans were to pull out of the majors then they would be missing 7 of the top 10, 14 of the top 20, 22 of the top 30.... so I don't think that the worth of a tournament is as dependent on the number of US entrants as you seem to believe.

Whilst you were on about other sports you forgot baseball. How are you with the idea of a world series with practically no non american teams allowed to play, is it still a world series?

[Bob_Huntley]

Jim,

You have a flawed argument. During the time frame you mentioned, how many non-American players competed in the US Open? The only time they may have done so was during Ryder Cup years.

The one non- American who did come to these shores was Bobby Locke. Look up his record for the years 1947 and 1948 on the PGA Tour and see who was any better. I think that he won a tournament that included Hogan, Snead, Mangrum et. al. by a then record of fourteen shots. This held up until Tiger broke it in the 2000 US Open.


Bob

[Jim Nugent]

Jim,


Even if the question were that that you propose you view point is not a balanced one. You should read my earlier post and learn more about the non american players of the 40's & 50's to find equilibrium!!! It would be easier to see your view point if you also answered the questions that don't fit into your version of the world. If the non americans were to pull out of the majors then they would be missing 7 of the top 10, 14 of the top 20, 22 of the top 30.... so I don't think that the worth of a tournament is as dependent on the number of US entrants as you seem to believe.

Whilst you were on about other sports you forgot baseball. How are you with the idea of a world series with practically no non american teams allowed to play, is it still a world series?

Calling it the World Series is absurd.  I'm guessing that's some marketing hype, that stuck.  (The story that it was named after a newspaper of that name is an urban legend.)  I don't follow baseball any more.  Curious, do most of the world's top players play MLB?  

Back to golf.  If the top non-Americans pulled out of the other majors now, that would cast a cloud over the value of those tournaments.  As it is, I think they get nearly all the world's top 100 golfers.  They have great fields.  

But from 1934 to 1959, the British Open did NOT get nearly all the world's top players.  Just the opposite.  They got very few of the top players.  To carry your analogy further, it would be like holding the U.S. Open without the top non-U.S. players, plus without Tiger, Phil, VJ and Els.  

You have a flawed argument. During the time frame you mentioned, how many non-American players competed in the US Open? The only time they may have done so was during Ryder Cup years.

The one non- American who did come to these shores was Bobby Locke. Look up his record for the years 1947 and 1948 on the PGA Tour and see who was any better. I think that he won a tournament that included Hogan, Snead, Mangrum et. al. by a then record of fourteen shots. This held up until Tiger broke it in the 2000 US Open.

Bob, Locke actually won by 16 strokes.  Record still stands.  

I did not say that all world-class players then were American.  I said most of the best players then were American, and they hardly ever played the British Open.  Locke did great in the U.S. for several years.  Though he played in all the majors, and came close in several, he only won the British.  Whereas Snead and Hogan won the British the only time they tried, plus all those other majors as well.

I think Locke is more like the exception that proves the rule.  Who else was as good as Locke back then?  Peter Thompson?  He played the U.S. tour, and only had limited success.  Put him in the British Open, though, with its weaker field, and he did great.  (His victory in 1965 is real major, to my maybe twisted mind!)

I guess my question is, how do you think the British Open would have gone from 1934 through 1959, if Snead, Hogan, Nelson, Wood, and all the other top American golfers had played it each year?  I think we'd have seen a very different set of winners.  

[Mike_Clayton]

Jim,

I imagine most here would admire Thomson for his attitude toward tour golf courses in America in the fifties.
He thought they were largely awful and much preferred the style of golf he found in Britain and he developed a brilliant game based around winning on the British links.
His ability to land a ball way short of a green and bounce it on was second to none and he played fantastic golf in the wind.
He was a great admirer of Hogan and Snead and would willingly concede they were better players but on the links I reckon he would have fancied himself to beat them more than occasionally.
I don't care who was playing he would have won a bunch of Opens because he developed a perfect game for the conditions he knew he would find - just as the best Americans developed a different set of skills for their own much different conditions.

[Jon Wiggett]

Calling it the World Series is absurd.  I'm guessing that's some marketing hype, that stuck.  (The story that it was named after a newspaper of that name is an urban legend.)  I don't follow baseball any more.  Curious, do most of the world's top players play MLB?  

Back to golf.  If the top non-Americans pulled out of the other majors now, that would cast a cloud over the value of those tournaments.  As it is, I think they get nearly all the world's top 100 golfers.  They have great fields.  

But from 1934 to 1959, the British Open did NOT get nearly all the world's top players.  Just the opposite.  They got very few of the top players.  To carry your analogy further, it would be like holding the U.S. Open without the top non-U.S. players, plus without Tiger, Phil, VJ and Els.  

Jim,

glad we agree on the world series and no I don't think cricket is any worse for not having many good US players. However, back to golf. VJ and Els american??? Now I understand your warped view of golf a little better.

Oh and yes Peter Thompson was the equal of most if not all of his counterparts.

[Andrew Summerell]

Peter Thompson?  He played the U.S. tour, and only had limited success.  

Peter Thomson actually played very little golf in America until he played the seniors tour for a couple of years.

Jim, what's you view on some of the early Masters fields ?

[Jim Nugent]

Peter Thompson?  He played the U.S. tour, and only had limited success.  

Peter Thomson actually played very little golf in America until he played the seniors tour for a couple of years.

Jim, what's you view on some of the early Masters fields ?

Thomson played full-time for two years in the 1950's, and did not do well.  No wins, not a leading money winner.  He played again part time a few years later and did better, winning one event, and coming in 9th on the money list.  

Interesting to compare his results in the other majors, when he was winning so many Open Championships...

               1954    1955    1956    1957    1958    1959
Masters     T36      T16      T18    DNP       5      T23    
U.S. Open  T26     CUT      DNP    T4       T22       DNP    
Brit Open    T2        1          1        1        2         1

In the U.S. Open he had one top 5.  Same in the Masters.  He also missed the cut once, and finished in the top 30 or 40 several times.  A bit better than journeyman results, I would say.

Those exact same years he won the British Open four times.  The two years he did not win, he came in 2nd.  

Mike Clayton made a great point about Thomson.  But can we attribute all his great results in Britain to molding his game to the conditions there?  Or could the fields have something to do with that too?  

Remember that when the Americans DID start playing the British Open again, in the 1960's, Thomson still did well.  But all those victories and 2nd place finishes mostly became 5th place, or 9th place, or 8th place, or 24th place.  He won once more in 1965.  

So...Americans not there, Thomson wins every British Open in sight, or comes in 2nd.  Americans there, Thomson stops winning almost entirely.  Yet still kept on winning the New Zealand Open those years.  Still did great in Australia and the European Tour.  He didn't lose his game.  Conclusion seems obvious to me.  

The early Masters fields?  Don't know, but I suspect they got a lot more of the world's best players than the British Open did.  

I'm still confused about when the Masters became a major.  Did the golfing world consider it a very big deal in the 1930's...1940's...1950's?  What about the PGA?      

PS -- thanks for spelling Thomson's name right!  (Without that extra "p" I gave him.)  

[Matt_Sullivan]

Jim, you can make similar strength of field claims about some of the the other majors as well. As has been pointed out, the early Masters fields were weakish -- did it t really only become a major when Arnie started winning it on TV? The PGA was a match play event until the late 50s, a totally different animal, and attracted very little international attention or participation during this period. The US Open probably had the most consistent quality fields, although very little international participation until the 70s

I don't view Hogan and Snead's victories as evidence of the weakness of the British, more as an indicator of the quality of those players. The Hogan example is interesting in that from 1950 to 1953 inclusive he entered 9 majors (4 US Opens, 4 Masters and a British; he never played the PGA after the accident) and won 6! One could say that the odds favoured him winning the British. Would you say that Hogan's dominance of the US Tour during this period (playing on a limited schedule and with physical ailments) was evidence of the weakness of the Tour, or of his greatness? I would say the latter; and I would say that his win at the British Open was evidence of his greatness, not the Open's weakness.

[Jim Nugent]

I don't view Hogan and Snead's victories as evidence of the weakness of the British, more as an indicator of the quality of those players. The Hogan example is interesting in that from 1950 to 1953 inclusive he entered 9 majors (4 US Opens, 4 Masters and a British; he never played the PGA after the accident) and won 6! One could say that the odds favoured him winning the British. Would you say that Hogan's dominance of the US Tour during this period (playing on a limited schedule and with physical ailments) was evidence of the weakness of the Tour, or of his greatness? I would say the latter; and I would say that his win at the British Open was evidence of his greatness, not the Open's weakness.

You just agreed Snead and Hogan were two fantastic players.  Yet they only played the British Open one time each.  That is my point.  Many (IMO most) of the world's very best players did NOT play the British Open from 1934 to 1960.  The fields were not world-class.  It's hard for me to see how that counts as a major.

Now add to this two more facts.  One, the guys who did win the British in that era, mostly stopped winning when the Americans showed up.  (Just as they didn't win from 1921 to 1934, when the top American players crossed the Atlantic.)  Two, the best non-American guys also played the U.S. Open and the Masters then, and never won.  

You asked about the other majors.  I don't really know.  Would be interesting to learn more about their history.  Pretty sure the top Americans played them all.  That makes their fields stronger IMO.  Also think at least some of the best non-Americans played many U.S. majors as well.  Bobby Locke played a number of U.S. Opens, and did quite well, though he never won.  He played several Masters, and had a good record, though I don't think he ever contended.  Thomson did nicely in the U.S. majors, but not outstanding.  

[Jim Nugent]

Sean, it's not just strength of field.  Lots of other things count: you covered them pretty well.  But field is critical.  If an event misses many or most of the world's best players -- not just for one year but for several decades -- that calls into question how "major" it really is.  At least to me.  

This is why the U.S. and British Amateur championships do not count as majors to me, definitely now and maybe never.  



 

[Andrew Summerell]

Non-U.S. players started winning around 1934 after the top Americans stopped playing.  They did not win when the best players like Snead and Hogan played.  And when the best American golfers returned in the early 1960's, non-U.S. players again stopped winning most of the time.  

American golfers only won 4 times in the '60's.

Jim,

Your argument highlights more about how different majors were (and are) important to golfers from different countries. If you asked Australian golfers in the 50’s what major they considered the most important, a large majority would have said the British Open (It’s would probably be similar today as well). American golfers of the same era probably would have said one of the American majors.

I can always remember reading the meticulous care that Thomson took in his preparation for the British Open, but I have never read that he bothered with that much preparation for any of the other majors. This is shown out by the fact that, during the peak of his career, he did even bother playing the U.S. Open in ’55, ’58, ’59, ’60 & ’62 until the end of his career. He never bothered to play the P.G.A. Championship at all. This all suggests that he didn’t value these tournaments.

The PGA Tour site lists that Thomson played in 105 PGA Tour tournaments but it also lists his British Open wins among his victories, therefore listing his British Open attempts among his tournaments. That removed 30 tournaments from his total tournaments played, meaning he only played 75 tournaments in the U.S. during a 29 year career until he joined the seniors tour & won 9 tournaments in one year. 75 tournaments in 29 years doesn’t seem like that big an effort.

Snead actually came 11th on his first attempt at the British open. After winning it in ’46, he tied for 6th in ’62 & missed the cut in ’65 & ’76. That’s 1 win in 5 attempts. Of course, he never won a U.S. Open.

[Matt_Sullivan]

Good post Andrew -- some nice research.

BTW, I am still interested in joining Newcastle as an overseas member. I will be down in Sydney in October and might PM you for a game if you are keen

[Sean Walsh]

Jim,

By your argument if Tiger decides to spend more quality time with his wife and child and gives The Open a miss for a few years then it is no longer a major?  

Also it is not very enlightening to use Mr Thomson's results in the other majors to approximate his standard of golf.  His game was made exclusively for links or at least fast, firm golf courses.  He was at a huge disadvantage when playing on American style courses and at a great advantage on more familiar terrain.  Think Lendl playing on grass.

[Jim Nugent]

Andrew -- you're right that Snead played the British in 1937.  Thanks for correcting me.  So he won on his second attempt there.

You're also right that he played after his win, but only sort of.  He didn't go back till he was in his 50's and 60's, and well past his years of winning majors.  When he was a legitimate contender to win, he went one for two in the British Open.

While I'm not 100% sure, I think Thomson played most of those 75 PGA events in just a few years, not 29.  Pretty sure he played full-time in 1953 and 1954.  He had no wins those years, no seconds, at most one third (if that), came in 29th and 44th on the money list.  i.e. he had average results, and did not challenge in the U.S.-based majors.  In fact he missed the cut in one.  Yet those same years he was King Kong in the British Open, winning in 1954, and placing 2nd in 1953.

Do you really think the field (lack of it) had nothing to do with Thomson's great success there?  Remember that when the U.S. players started playing the British again, Thomson's results fell way off.

Thomson played the U.S. Open and Masters a total of 12 times.  He did not do very well.  He missed several cuts, got DQ'd another time, almost never contended.  Perhaps those poor results are the reason he chose not to play in the U.S. more than he did.  

Even in the 1960's and 1970's, few American golfers crossed the pond.  In 1976, I count 14, including 62 year old Sam Snead.  Yet they won 2/3rds of all British Opens from 1960 through 1983.  

[Jim Nugent]

Sean, that's not quite my argument.  If Tiger and Phil and Ernie and a good portion of the world's top 50 players stop playing the British Open for the next 25 years, I will question if it should count as a real major.  

[Sean Walsh]

Jim,

You're basing your argument on the extraordinary talents of two golfers (2 of the best ten of the last 100years).  It seems to me that you disparage not only a great golfer's playing ability but also his character by suggesting that he quit playing the US tournaments ONLY because of his poor results.  Is it that difficult to accept that some people (especially non-americans) may become a little jaded traipsing around a foreign country playing golf courses they abhor. Remembering this was the 50's not the highly paid decades of late.

International travel was in its infancy, difficult (probably the reason Snead, Hogan etc. chose to give The Open a miss) and expensive.

[Jim Nugent]

Sean, I don't mean to put down Thomson, though I can see what I said there did that a bit.  Was mostly giving a different possible answer to the point someone made, that suggested Thomson didn't play the U.S. majors much, because he didn't consider them important.  

Look, I've made my argument now, probably more than you all wanted to hear it.  Last (?) time: I don't believe the British Open field was first-class, for a quarter century or so before 1960.  Most of the world's top golfers did not play, IMO.  That makes me wonder if it really should be counted as one of the world's most important events, during that era.    

[Jim Nugent]

Just ran across this statement in Wikipedia on the British Open...

"Because of a lack of participation by American players due to the overseas travel times, the Open Championship was not considered a major in the U.S. until the early 1960s, when Arnold Palmer began competing in Great Britain. Until that time, many U.S. players considered the Western Open as one of golf's majors."

While not everything in Wiki is right, this gives my exact reasoning.  

Interesting about the Western, which I've heard before, including here on GCA.com.  Absolutely disagree with retroactive compiling of records.  If they had different majors in earlier eras, we should count those for players of that time.  Not the ones anointed today.  

[Mike_Clayton]

Jim,

What a pity the American players of that era were so ignorant of the history of the game and the great courses they would have played - and the fact they could have proved themselves to be complete players the way Nicklaus,Watson and Palmer did in a later era.
Imagine what it would have done for the reputation of guys like Middelcoff or Demaret to have won The Open.
The Open was always a major - whether it was respected by the best American players or not -  and it's fortunate it does not rely on an insular few for its place in history.

[Shane Gurnett]

Just ran across this statement in Wikipedia on the British Open...

"Because of a lack of participation by American players due to the overseas travel times, the Open Championship was not considered a major in the U.S. until the early 1960s, when Arnold Palmer began competing in Great Britain. Until that time, many U.S. players considered the Western Open as one of golf's majors."

While not everything in Wiki is right, this gives my exact reasoning.  

Interesting about the Western, which I've heard before, including here on GCA.com.  Absolutely disagree with retroactive compiling of records.  If they had different majors in earlier eras, we should count those for players of that time.  Not the ones anointed today.  

Jim,

You need to do a little more research than simply pulling a few quotes of Wikipedia. Palmer won the Open Championship in 61, so lets take a look at the respective results from the previous 10 years of both the Open Championship and thew Western Open

Open Championship (winner and course)

1960 St Andrews Kel Nagle  
1959 Muirfield Gary Player  
1958 Royal Lytham & St Annes Golf Club Peter Thomson
1957 St Andrews Bobby Locke
1956 Royal Liverpool Golf Club Peter Thomson
1955 St Andrews Peter Thomson
1954 Royal Birkdale Golf Club Peter Thomson  
1953 Carnoustie Golf Links Ben Hogan  
1952 Royal Lytham & St Annes Golf Club Bobby Locke
1951 Royal Portrush Golf Club Max Faulkner  

Western Open

1960 Western Golf & Country Club Redford, Michigan Stan Leonard
1959 Pittsburgh Field Club Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Mike Souchak
1958 Red Run Golf Club Royal Oak, Michigan Doug Sanders
1957 Plum Hollow Country Club Southfield, Michigan Doug Ford
1956 Presidio Golf Club San Francisco, California Mike Fetchick
1955 Portland Golf Club Portland, Oregon Cary Middlecoff
1954 Kenwood Country Club Cincinnati, Ohio Lloyd Mangrum
1953 EBellerive Country Club Saint Louis, Missouri .J. "Dutch" Harrison
1952 Westwood Country Club Saint Louis, Missouri Lloyd Mangrum
1951 Davenport Country Club Pleasant Valley, Iowa Marty Furgol

I will take the Open Championship winners (and venues) against the Western Open "champions" any day thank you very much.

Wikipedia also has this to say about the Western Open:

"In its early decades it was regarded by some as a major championship, although this designation was unofficial and it is never included in tallies of golfers' major championship wins nowadays."

Peter Thomson proved his class in 1965 beating a top class field at Birkdale which included Palmer, Nicklaus and Lema, 3 of the top 4 on the US money list at the time. His class and place in history, along with the Open Championship, is undeniable.

[Jim Nugent]

Shane, I didn't say the Western was a major.  Would really like to know more about this, i.e. what the players and public considered to be the real big tournaments of the various eras.  

I also agree the British Open from 1960 on was a major, making Thomson's win that year a major win.  

Let me ask you directly.  Do you think the British Open got a world-class field, from the mid 1930's till 1960?  

[Shane Gurnett]

Jim you quoted a phrase from Wiki which said "Until that time, many U.S. players considered the Western Open as one of golf's majors" and then said "this gives my exact reasoning".

You need to decide what you do and do not believe.

I have no reason to believe that the field strength during the period you quoted was not worthy of the event being a major. Are you not going to give Hogan a amjor for his Open Championship win in 1953??? American golf and its players have long been ranked too highly anyway.

[Sean Walsh]

I think The Open would have attracted the best players from "THE WORLD".  The fact that those players from continental America chose not to compete is their loss not the tournaments.  Apart from the 2 legends you have mentioned I believe that the rest probably had as much chance of beating Thomson et al as he did of beating them in America. And thus probably decided against the expense of travelling.

If you want to be pedantic there are only two Majors being the 2 Opens.  The PGA is still something of an outcast and The Masters only a recent addition (Major wise) its history lacking.