How Would You Define the 21st Century Grand Slam?

by Ryan Ballengee on Nov 16, 2009 4:07 PM EST Comment 14 comments

From time to time, we have to step back and reevaluate the things that are vaunted in our culture.

Radio used to be king. Then it was TV. Soon, it'll be the Internet.

Big Bird was once the bomb. Then it was Elmo. Now it's some other weird puppet. (My personal fave is Oscar the Grouch.)

We also have to do the same in golf. It's the 21st century, yet we are still using the 20th century notion of the four major championships. For years, we have doubted the PGA Championship's uniqueness and continued validity as a major. I've even gone so far as to hypothetically try drinking the PGA Tour's Kool-Aid that the Players Championship is the fourth major. It didn't taste that bad, but the aftertaste had some serious impact on golf history.

Tiger wouldn't have 14 majors. Jack wouldn't have 18. We would perhaps think a little bit differently about scheduling. The whole notion of scheduling around the four majors would have to be warped to fit the nuveau set of majors. The PGA of America or Augusta National could be rendered meaningless with the stroke of the cultural pen. Could you imagine a world in which the US Open wouldn't be a major? Dream on. The implications would just be too much to swallow.

But, John Huggan got me thinking about what the majors should be in the 21st century. His geopolitical bias not withstanding, his argument about why the makeup of golf's majors should change makes sense. The world is much flatter thanks to the proliferation of competitive professional golf tours around the globe. With golf in the Olympics, it is clear that the game will become more global. Having a country like Australia, with its Triple Crown, out of the mix of majors seems like lunacy. There could be a day in which the HSBC Champions just becomes the Asian Open - without a title sponsor and with a cherished history.

The rub in all of this is the impact on the history of the sport. Tiger Woods hadn't been to Australia in 11 years until this weekend. Jack Nicklaus used to make it an annual pilgrimage. It's the same argument to be made about the Players, but thousands of miles away.

So, here's the challenge I'm laying down. If we could start over in the 21st century and redefine the four major championships (and only four, this isn't the Champions Tour), what would the Grand Slam be for you? Here's what mine would be:

US Open
Open Championship
Australian Open
Japan Open

Would yours be exactly the same? Completely different?

You can use ANY criteria that you want to get to your four. Purse size, strength of field, geographic diversity. Whatever you want. Let's have some fun with this!

0 recs | Comment 14 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Are you assuming that sometime this century we will be beaming from place to place around the globe so travel won’t be a problem ? Are you also assuming that purses will be equalized around the world so one Tour doesn’t have most of the best players ?

OK – here’s my potential Grand Slam based on present political and economic conditions in the US.

The Shanghai Masters
The Beijing US Open
The Hong Kong British Open
and the Yang Tze PGA (get it ? YANG tze…PGA…) :-)

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Nov 16, 2009 4:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I would keep the current four majors we have, but add two to them, the players, and the australian open, who says golf can’t have six majors? Tradition? Thats exactly what you are implying by changing the majors; messing with tradition. And second, golf didn’t always have four majors, until the masters, there was three professional majors, with the two amateurs(U.S. and British) to round it out for the amateurs. I think six would be a good number.

by dbagley on Nov 16, 2009 6:31 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Just because we change some of the majors wouldn’t mean that major totals changed. When the LPGA dropped the du Maurier and made the Women’s British a major, the old du Maurier wins continued to be counted… and the Women’s British didn’t become retroactive. In fact, the change gave way to the “Career Super Slam.” We now credit Karrie Webb with winning five different majors. In this case, Jack would still have all his majors and Tiger would have the opportunity of a super slam.

Anyway, Ryan, I think your four sound pretty good. The US and British Opens are the only two majors that have been major from the start. The Masters is an invitational, not something you qualify for, so I’m not sure it should have been a major anyway; the TPC is at least a matter of merit. If we really want to say this is a global game, we need to have majors all over the place! Choosing the Australian Open would definitely draw attention to that part of the world, and that’s a long-running tourney like the other two. The questionable one for me is the Japan Open; it’s another long-running tourney, which I think counts for a lot when you talk about majors… but would the Tour go there or China? We definitely need one major in Asia. With a little tweaking, I might go for the WGC-HSBC Championship as the fourth; I suspect that would be the political choice.

Mike Southern
www.ruthlessgolf.com

by Ruthless Mike on Nov 16, 2009 11:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

How do you figure you don’t qualify for the Masters ? Players spend all year trying to qualify for it. The only guys who don’t have to qualify are the former champions. Just because they don’t have special qualifying tournaments doesn’t mean you don’t have to qualify. Same goes for the PGA.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Nov 17, 2009 9:29 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

When I think of the Masters, I think of...

Tiger’s chip in ‘05, Mickelson’s putt in ‘04, Tiger’s dominance in ’97, Crenshaw in ’95, Freddie in ’92, Jack & Freddie both in the mix in ’98, Faldo coming from behind in ’89, ’90 & ’96, Norman collapsing, Jack in ’86 and the list goes on.

Most of us can close our eyes and picture Amen Corner.

These guys have a green jacket: Tiger, Jack, Phil, Vijay, Freddie, Olazabal, Faldo, Crenshaw, Seve, Arnie, Gary Player, Tom Watson, Ray Floyd, Cary Middlecoff, Sam Snead, Ben Hogan, Jimmy Demaret, Byron Nelson, Gene Sarazen and the list goes on.

That’s what makes it a major. Call it what you what, market it how you want, try to add a 5th major, 10th major, whatever. The players want to win (1) The Masters (2) The Open Championship (3) US Open (4) PGA Championship. It may vary slightly depending on who you ask, but those are the four majors. After that, the Players, WGC events, Tour Championship and a player’s hometown event all fall into a tie for fifth.

The HSBC Champions was first played in 2005 and was won by David Howell, then YE Yang in ‘06, Phil in ’07, Sergio in ’08 & Phil again in ’09. That is the entire history of the tournament. I think its going to be a nice event and hope Tiger & Phil make it a regular stop, but it’s not going to be a major any time soon.

by MattSpence on Nov 17, 2009 10:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Don’t you think that if, for example, the Tour just randomly declared that the FBR, the Puerto Rico Open, The Transitions Championship, and the Irish Open were going to be the majors for 2010, the players (after the shock wore off) wouldn’t be lining up to win those four tournaments ? History is history – winning a major is winning a major. And remember, there are names like Cabrera, Immelman, Weir, O’Meara, Lyle, Zach Johnson, Mize, and Stadler on the trophy, too.

How about all the great names that have won at The Colonial, The Nelson, Pebble Beach, The Memorial, or Bay Hill ? Couldn’t they have become majors ? No – probably not…but the names are the same on the trophies.

The US and British Opens are always going to be majors – it’s history. The Masters grew out of respect for the greatest amateur of all time and didn’t start out to be anything other than an invitational. It was time, course, and players that turned it into a major. And the PGA is…well…I love the PGA…but it is the American PGA and not really international in its affect other than history. Other countries have their own PGA’s. History made it a major, but the Tour broke away from the PGA.

The Australian Open could be a major if PGA Tour players could be convinced of travelling halfway around the world, disrupting sleep and schedule for at least 3 weeks out of the year. They have the courses, and there have been greats (Palmer and Nicklaus) who used to make the trip to give their tour a boost….which is basically what Hogan, Palmer, and Nicklaus did for the British Open that restored its major status. Remember, Hogan couldn’t win the Grand Slam in ‘53 because The PGA was right after The British and he couldn’t get back in time.

By the way – I agree with you 100% – there are very few things in golf easier to picture in the mind of a golfer than Amen Corner….well…maybe DLIII’s chip in at 16…years before Tiger did it !! (lol)

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Nov 17, 2009 10:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If winning the four majors is somehow indicative of being ’ the best golfer in the world’ then we need the world represented. Let’s start with one major in each major timezone:

the Open (Europe)
US Open (America)
HSBC Champions (China/Asia)

Then let’s have one major that moves around (eg a redefinition of one of the other WGC’s). It could rotate through US, Europe (but not UK), Australia, South Africa, other Asian countries, Middle East, etc on say a 6-year cycle.

Perhaps someone else can solve the timing issues this might cause.

by lusakajoe on Nov 17, 2009 4:42 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

I would go with the following:

The Masters
The US Open
The Open Championship
The PGA Championship

The history and tradition of these tournaments are part of what make them majors. The thought of a worldwide tour with worldwide majors is nice, but the history isn’t there.

Aaron Baddeley and Peter Lonard have both won back-to-back Australian Open championships in the past ten years. That immediately prevents the tournament from leaving the following category: “Events Won By Aaron Baddeley & Peter Lonard” AKA “definitely not a major”.

I would like to see the WGC get behind a couple more worldwide events and have them count towards both the PGA & European Tours. Adding the WGC moniker and prize money to events in Australia & South Africa, as well as returning the World Cup to a WGC event, would give more top players the incentive to play.

The travel is ultimately the issue, though. If you can’t get Tiger there, the fans and media won’t accept it as a big deal regardless of what the tours or sponsors say.

by MattSpence on Nov 17, 2009 8:18 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

But, is the Australian Open in rougher shape because of the rise in money in other tourneys in the US? I mean, there may be a cause and effect to make the Aussie Triple Crown fields weaker.

Find me! Email: ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com, Twitter: http://twitter.com/waggleroomryan, or Facebook: http://facebook.com/waggleroom.

by Ryan Ballengee on Nov 17, 2009 8:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think the biggest problem with the Australian Open is that it’s in Australia.

by MattSpence on Nov 17, 2009 9:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

…meaning…. ? I can’t tell anymore – are you making a point or taking a shot ?

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Nov 17, 2009 9:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If it were up to me

the best players in the world would play every week, all over the world, for my viewing pleasure.

However, its not realistic for the players. We’re lucky to see Tiger and Phil playing the international schedules that they are this year. I hope it continues, but don’t expect them to spend the entire offseason playing on the other side of the world.

by MattSpence on Nov 17, 2009 10:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs