[Jon Wiggett]

A large blood orange is still an orange as a cat is a mammal and a dog is a mammal but a cat is not a dog. It really is not that difficult. A Grand Slam is only that and a Career Grand Slam is only that but a 'non-annual grand slam is also a Career Grand Slam and visa/versa.

Jon, your analogy doesn't work. Mammal is a classification that contains dogs and cats. The only real parallel here would be that "Grand Slam" is the classification that includes "Career," "Calendar-Year," and "Non-Calendar-Year."

Look, at the end of the day, you define it differently than I do, and you ignore the "variations" as Wikipedia calls them. That's all.

So, truce? You don't have to take it, because I will, and have. Everyone gets to have their own definition.

Orange or mammal they are the same principle so if one does not work then neither does the other. 


Never mind, we all know your right anyway IYO  

[Peter Flory]

I didn't realize that Sarazen and Hagen both skipped the British in 1930.  That definitely takes down the level of competition. 

Does anyone know if there were other players who participated in the ams and opens in 1930 besides Jones?  It would have to have been some independently wealthy amateur players- probably other members of one of the Walker Cup teams if anybody.  It doesn't look like any of them from either side even played in 2 events to me. 

That really highlights the difference between then and now- with travel, etc.  Back in 1930, going overseas to play in an event was not a routine thing to do. 

One other really interesting story is the career of Craig Wood.  He lost all 4 of the modern majors by playoff and was the Greg Norman of his day- famously being on the receiving end of Sarazens double eagle at the Masters (which probably wouldn't have happened if they used the modern day order of play... Wood was in the clubhouse and Sarazen knew that he needed to gamble).  Wood hit some historically long drives, including a 400+ yard drive at the Old Course and another into the burn on the 1st.  He later broke the curse and took down the first 2 majors of the season a couple years after his heartbreak at the Masters and had one of the greatest seasons ever. 

[V. Kmetz]

I didn't realize that Sarazen and Hagen both skipped the British in 1930.  That definitely takes down the level of competition. 

Does anyone know if there were other players who participated in the ams and opens in 1930 besides Jones?  It would have to have been some independently wealthy amateur players- probably other members of one of the Walker Cup teams if anybody.  It doesn't look like any of them from either side even played in 2 events to me. 

That really highlights the difference between then and now- with travel, etc.  Back in 1930, going overseas to play in an event was not a routine thing to do. 

One other really interesting story is the career of Craig Wood.  He lost all 4 of the modern majors by playoff and was the Greg Norman of his day- famously being on the receiving end of Sarazens double eagle at the Masters (which probably wouldn't have happened if they used the modern day order of play... Wood was in the clubhouse and Sarazen knew that he needed to gamble).  Wood hit some historically long drives, including a 400+ yard drive at the Old Course and another into the burn on the 1st.  He later broke the curse and took down the first 2 majors of the season a couple years after his heartbreak at the Masters and had one of the greatest seasons ever.

Lawson Little, Dick Chapman, and Frank Stranahan were some that followed Jones, but in Bobby's time, he may have been the only one to ever compete in all four in one year...


Jess Sweetser and Cyril Tolley were two BJ contemporaries who played multiple majors of that time on both shores, but the list likely can be put on half a small Post-It note.  (Sweetser only played in one more Br. Am in 1940, despite being the first American winner in 1926)

[A.G._Crockett]

I didn't realize that Sarazen and Hagen both skipped the British in 1930.  That definitely takes down the level of competition. 

Does anyone know if there were other players who participated in the ams and opens in 1930 besides Jones?  It would have to have been some independently wealthy amateur players- probably other members of one of the Walker Cup teams if anybody.  It doesn't look like any of them from either side even played in 2 events to me. 

That really highlights the difference between then and now- with travel, etc.  Back in 1930, going overseas to play in an event was not a routine thing to do. 

One other really interesting story is the career of Craig Wood.  He lost all 4 of the modern majors by playoff and was the Greg Norman of his day- famously being on the receiving end of Sarazens double eagle at the Masters (which probably wouldn't have happened if they used the modern day order of play... Wood was in the clubhouse and Sarazen knew that he needed to gamble).  Wood hit some historically long drives, including a 400+ yard drive at the Old Course and another into the burn on the 1st.  He later broke the curse and took down the first 2 majors of the season a couple years after his heartbreak at the Masters and had one of the greatest seasons ever.

None of what follows is meant to diminish in ANY way what Bobby Jones did in 1930, much less his career.  It is only for context.
Between 1916 and 1930, no amateur other than Jones won the US Open.  During that period, only four amateurs even made the Top Ten in the US Open, and only Johnny Goodman in 1933 would ever again win the US Open as an amateur.
Same at the British Open; no amateur won in the decade prior to 1930, and only three amateurs made the Top Ten during that time.
In short, by 1930, other than Jones himself, professionals dominated golf and had been for the previous decade.  The key point about 1930 is NOT how many top amateurs played in the two Opens; it's the quite obvious point that none of players that were contenders at either of the two Opens were in either of the two Ams.  By 1930, the Ams were exactly that, and FAR from the toughest fields that Jones could have faced that year. 

Add to that the fact that in the Ams, Jones had to beat one amateur a day, rather than the entire field, and the difficulty of winning those two tournaments becomes an order (or two) of magnitude less difficult.  Not necessarily less significant, especially in the eyes of the public, but less difficult for sure.
For difficulty and magnitude of achievement, I'll take Hogan's 1950 season and Woods holding all four at once, in either order, hands down over what Jones did.  And that's no knock on Jones.

[Niall C]

I do believe it is apples to oranges but just playing Devil's Advocate in response to both AG's and VK's posts, the difficulty in winning the US and British Amateurs isn't just the quality of the field but also having to produce the goods round after round. In medal play a poor or average round might be mitigated by the other three rounds whereas in matchplay even a good round might be eclipsed by a stellar round by your opponent. Factor in that your opponent might know the course a lot better; rises to their game to try and get a famous scalp; and that general the quality of the field is still very, very good.

It took Jones three attempts to win the British Amateur with the first two being knocked out in one of the first rounds and then the quarter final. I'm also not sure that it was only one game a day in 1930. They might still have been playing two. When, all said and done, still a great achievement and not just a walk in the park.

Niall

[Peter Pallotta]

The 'objective' quality of play was no doubt higher in 2000-2001: Tiger was a better golfer than Jones was, and faced tougher competition.
But the 'subjective' experience was more intense and challenging in 1930: Jones winning four majors in a row, in the same calendar year, with the relatively arduous cross-Atlantic travel and the vagaries of match play.
For those of you who have played (and played well) since your teens and are still playing in your 60s and 70: you no doubt played (objectively) better golf and against tougher competition when you won the club championship at 32, full of then-youthful insouciance and confidence; but I'd imagine that winning a senior club championship at 70, the ego now long battered by the vagaries of life and the body sore with the arduous realities of aging, would be (subjectively) much more challenging, and satisfying.
Which of those club championship wins are more 'impressive'?  And impressive to whom -- to the world, or to you yourself?       

[Mike Wagner]

We'll never know .. but as a side note, I'd bet a lot of $ that Tiger himself thinks winning 6 USGA Championships in a row was more impressive than both.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Add to that the fact that in the Ams, Jones had to beat one amateur a day, rather than the entire field, and the difficulty of winning those two tournaments becomes an order (or two) of magnitude less difficult.
...

Specious argument. How many majors would Tiger have if you eliminated those where he didn't beat the entire field everyday?

[Jim_Kennedy]

No one has ever duplicated Jones' feat.


No one has ever duplicated Tiger's feat.


Even!

[Garland Bayley]

No one has ever duplicated Jones' feat.


No one has ever duplicated Tiger's feat.


Even!

Well, Ben Hogan won the last three of 1953, and then finished 72 holes at the Masters in first place in 1954. We'll just say Tiger duplicated Ben's feat.
While we are at it, we might as well start calling it the Hogan Slam.

[Pete_Pittock]

We'll never know .. but as a side note, I'd bet a lot of $ that Tiger himself thinks winning 6 USGA Championships in a row was more impressive than both.

Close, but no cigar  Yes he won the Junior 1991-1993 and the Am 1994-1996, but he competed in the US Open in 1995 and 1996, but that's still 6 of 8

[Jim_Kennedy]

No one has ever duplicated Jones' feat.
No one has ever duplicated Tiger's feat.

Even!

Well, Ben Hogan won the last three of 1953, and then finished 72 holes at the Masters in first place in 1954. We'll just say Tiger duplicated Ben's feat.
While we are at it, we might as well start calling it the Hogan Slam.

Whatever floats your boat. I'm sure he was thinking the same thing while he was slipping the green jacket on Snead come Monday.

[A.G._Crockett]

No one has ever duplicated Jones' feat.
No one has ever duplicated Tiger's feat.

Even!

Well, Ben Hogan won the last three of 1953, and then finished 72 holes at the Masters in first place in 1954. We'll just say Tiger duplicated Ben's feat.
While we are at it, we might as well start calling it the Hogan Slam.

Whatever floats your boat. I'm sure he was thinking the same thing while he was slipping the green jacket on Snead come Monday.

Jim, not only that, but Hogan didn't win the last three of the previous year.  The PGA, which Hogan didn't play, was the third major of 1953, but overlapped by a day or two with the British Open.  So Hogan won the first two and then the 4th of 1953 before losing The Masters playoff in 1954. 

I have read that Hogan skipped the PGA a number of times after the wreck because it was too many consecutive days of golf for his legs to tolerate, but it's still arguably the most unfortunate scheduling in sports history.

[Jim_Kennedy]

A.G.,


That's right, thanks for the heads up. The PGA was held during the first week of July and The Open during the second week. I have to agree that it was a ridiculous bit of scheduling, and its quite possibly the worst in sports history, as you said.


p.s Please let Garland know. 

p.p.s. In looking that up I saw that Hogan was the only player to have won the Masters , the US Open, and The Open in a single season, so he has that going for him.
 

[Sean_A]

Well, The PGA wasn't a huge deal for for the vast majority of non PGA members until after the tourney went stroke play and the field size was drastically increased from its 32/64 size fields. The pro grand slam wasn't really a solid deal until maybe 1960. For instance, Hagen wasn't majors, he was winning the PGA Championship which was largely for PGA members. I doubt there were very many non Americans who even played in the event during this time. Generally speaking, today we assign many major wins which simply wasn't the case at the time. There is a very strong case that the only two real pro majors were the US Open and Open until 1960ish.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

There is a very strong case that the only two real pro majors were are the US Open and The Open until 1960ish.
Light the blue touch paper ......


Atb

[V. Kmetz]

I do believe it is apples to oranges but just playing Devil's Advocate in response to both AG's and VK's posts, the difficulty in winning the US and British Amateurs isn't just the quality of the field but also having to produce the goods round after round. In medal play a poor or average round might be mitigated by the other three rounds whereas in matchplay even a good round might be eclipsed by a stellar round by your opponent. Factor in that your opponent might know the course a lot better; rises to their game to try and get a famous scalp; and that general the quality of the field is still very, very good.

It took Jones three attempts to win the British Amateur with the first two being knocked out in one of the first rounds and then the quarter final. I'm also not sure that it was only one game a day in 1930. They might still have been playing two. When, all said and done, still a great achievement and not just a walk in the park.

God no, not a walk in the park in the least...it's incredible Jones' percentage of tournaments to wins in medal and match formats once the lid came off in 1923 (as a fricking 21 year old). And we know nothing of Jones if we do not know the familiar tale of how such winning strained him...and yet another plus factor for the great man is the fact he would not have been so familiar with the tremendously different classic links courses, like the rest of the field would have been.  While by the time of his Slam he probably played Merion, Oakmont and perhaps other championship venues (like Baltusrol or Brae Burn [MA]) a dozen or more x in competition and preparation... THAT is a sign of a great golfer, to experience such a different style of play and GCA and prosper.


But the bottom line is that no discussion of The American Century in golf can ensue without Nicklaus Woods and Jones' achievements, which render them the Father, the Son and the  Holy Ghost of the competitive era... whether you start that in 1894 or Ouimet or Jones first appearance at Merion in 1916.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

There is a very strong case that the only two real pro majors were are the US Open and The Open until 1960ish.
Light the blue touch paper ......

There's a very real argument to be made that the British Open wasn't a major for several decades until Arnie (and Jack) helped to "revive" it in the 60s.

The field in the 1959 British Open had, IIRC, FOUR American players in it, two of whom were amateurs, and none of whom you would know and none of whom made the cut. And this, at a time when American golfers were very dominant. And… yet it counts as a "major" for Gary Player.

[Mike Schott]

Winning the masters is no big deal. Easiest so called major. If he can make a Tiger slam with the other 3 and The Players Championship, then the feat can be compared to Bobby's.

What does it mean the Masters is the easiest so called major? Is the course the easiest? Golfers compete against each other, not the golf course.

[Garland Bayley]

No one has ever duplicated Jones' feat.
No one has ever duplicated Tiger's feat.

Even!

Well, Ben Hogan won the last three of 1953, and then finished 72 holes at the Masters in first place in 1954. We'll just say Tiger duplicated Ben's feat.
While we are at it, we might as well start calling it the Hogan Slam.

Whatever floats your boat. I'm sure he was thinking the same thing while he was slipping the green jacket on Snead come Monday.

Jim, not only that, but Hogan didn't win the last three of the previous year.  The PGA, which Hogan didn't play, was the third major of 1953, but overlapped by a day or two with the British Open.  So Hogan won the first two and then the 4th of 1953 before losing The Masters playoff in 1954. 

I have read that Hogan skipped the PGA a number of times after the wreck because it was too many consecutive days of golf for his legs to tolerate, but it's still arguably the most unfortunate scheduling in sports history.

You guys just can't get over the fact that Ben Hogan was better than Tiger in every way!

[Thomas Dai]

There is a very strong case that the only two real pro majors were are the US Open and The Open until 1960ish.
Light the blue touch paper ......

There's a very real argument to be made that the British Open wasn't a major for several decades until Arnie (and Jack) helped to "revive" it in the 60s.
The field in the 1959 British Open had, IIRC, FOUR American players in it, two of whom were amateurs, and none of whom you would know and none of whom made the cut. And this, at a time when American golfers were very dominant. And… yet it counts as a "major" for Gary Player.

Bit like all those US events played over numerous decades when hardly any Brits or international players played in them and those that did weren’t exactly made welcome.
Atb

[Sean_A]

There is a very strong case that the only two real pro majors were are the US Open and The Open until 1960ish.
Light the blue touch paper ......

There's a very real argument to be made that the British Open wasn't a major for several decades until Arnie (and Jack) helped to "revive" it in the 60s.

The field in the 1959 British Open had, IIRC, FOUR American players in it, two of whom were amateurs, and none of whom you would know and none of whom made the cut. And this, at a time when American golfers were very dominant. And… yet it counts as a "major" for Gary Player.

The difference is they were open as the name implies. That wasn't the case for the PGA or the Masters. Americans had and still do have a huge advantage where majors are concerned...even when two majors weren't known as majors.

Ciao

[Niall C]

It's an interesting discussion when a tournament was or wasn't a major. The Open certainly suffered for a bit post WWII although to say Palmer re-invented it in the early 1960's is unfair on the likes of Peter Thomson and Bobby Locke etc. It still had the history that made Hogan feel he had to win it.


I'd have thought the US Open probably didn't really come into the realms of being considered a major until after WWI when US golf was becoming the dominant force ? But what I think you can say is that both the US and the Open can claim to be international competitions for at least a large part of their existence. I'm not sure you can say that about the Masters ?


Back in the 1980's and 1990's the PGA probably had more international players than either of the other to US majors. In fact it is worth googling some of the leading players on the European tour during that period and it is quite surprising how few times they played in US majors. Sam Torrance who won 21 times in Europe and was second on the Order of Merit twice had nearly as many Ryder Cup appearances (8 ) as he had appearances in US majors (10).   


Niall

[Kalen Braley]

4 pages of inanity with some real reasoned arguments mixed in, so i figured i'd better jump in too. 

1)  Love the comparison of the Pats and Colts winning vs NFL teams, as opposed to Jones beating up on amateur-ridden weak fields.  Jones to Tiger is no comparison, its not even apples and oranges, its in a different galaxy.

2)  Erik's arguments are terrific and spot on here, Holding all 4 majors at once is insanely difficult, especially in the modern era. Quibbling over calendar year designations is absurd...

[JESII]

Wait...would it be a superior achievement for someone to win them all in the same calendar year?


I think so, but open to hearing why not...other than the 8 month wait.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()