Most Likely to Complete the Grand Slam Next

[00steven]

I’ll say Rory. Brooks is the best major player but he has really struggled at the open championship. I’d be shocked if he doesn’t win the masters though.

 

Scottie has to win another major before I even consider him. Winning is hard, look at Spieth and how his window seems to have closed for now.

[ColinKelvin]

10 hours ago, 00steven said:

I’ll say Rory. Brooks is the best major player but he has really struggled at the open championship. I’d be shocked if he doesn’t win the masters though.

 

Scottie has to win another major before I even consider him. Winning is hard, look at Spieth and how his window seems to have closed for now.

Koepka's had four Top 10 finishes at the Open - a 4th, 2x 6th places and a 10th.  Last two years not great (M/C on the Old Course wasduring his injury spell IIRC) but his record is pretty good overall. I think he will win an Open.

[Bye]

It would be great if Rory and Jordan can get it done this year. Jordan could do with winning before the PGA rolls round. 
 

Can’t see anyone beating Scotty S at the Masters though. Rory’s approach play is not up to winning at Augusta at the moment. 

[00steven]

10 hours ago, ColinKelvin said:

Koepka's had four Top 10 finishes at the Open - a 4th, 2x 6th places and a 10th.  Last two years not great (M/C on the Old Course wasduring his injury spell IIRC) but his record is pretty good overall. I think he will win an Open.

I hope so!

[Shilgy]

On 3/12/2024 at 9:18 AM, ColinKelvin said:

I think we can give Watson and Palmer a pass given it was the PGA they didn't win - it's barely a major, players couldn't play in both for much of the 60s due to scheduling, and it should count only as a tie-breaker when comparing careers, or alternatively 0.5 majors IMO.

 

Of course by that logic. Jordan Spieth has pretty much achieved the Grand Slam (of proper majors).

Watson played in 30 straight PGA’S and we should give him a pass for not winning it?
 

 Palmer similar never missed one. In Palmer’s case there were a few Open Championships missed but zero PGA’s. I thought 1958 to 1994 covered all of the 60’s?😏

 

AND….it was Arnold’s writer Bob Drum and he that supposedly created the modern majors!  

[Shilgy]

It’s just about as likely it’s Åberg anyways.🤣

 

But Rory & Spieth certainly have it “easier” already having won 3.

Edited March 14 by Shilgy

[stinger_gc]

Here’s my power rankings of guys most likely to complete the career grand slam next:

1. Phil

2. Spieth

3. Brooks

4. Rahm

5. Kaymer

6. Cabrera

7. Charlie Woods

8. John Daly

9. Sir Nick Faldo

10. Tiger as a lefty

Edited March 14 by stinger_gc

[PeterJP]

I'm surprised no one has focused on the 'depth of field' argument, as in "It's harder today to complete the Grand Slam than it was in Gene Sarazen's day [or Hogan's, or Player's or Nicklaus' or Woods' day] because the modern-day fields are so much deeper than they were in the past, and there are so many more great golfers on tour and playing any given Major than there were in the 30s [or 50s, or 60s, or 70's or 2000s] -- and so it's going to be an even bigger challenge to complete the Slam in the coming years than it used to be, because Rory and Rahm and Brooks and Speith and Scottie have so many more players who are capable of winning a major to beat than did Woods, or Nicklaus or Player or Hogan or Sarazen". 

It's not an argument I myself would make, but I am surprised that no one else has! 🙂

 

 

Edited March 15 by PeterJP

[dwboston]

5 hours ago, stinger_gc said:

Here’s my power rankings of guys most likely to complete the career grand slam next:

1. Phil

2. Spieth

3. Brooks

4. Rahm

5. Kaymer

6. Cabrera

7. Charlie Woods

8. John Daly

9. Sir Nick Faldo

10. Tiger as a lefty

 

Phil actually has a good track record at all of this year's major sites.  Augusta - obviously, Valhalla - runner-up to Rory at the PGA, Pinehurst - runner-up to Payne Stewart, Troon - runner-up to Stenson.

 

We'll know golf has a sense of humor when Spieth, Rory and Phil all win majors this year - only Jordan wins at Augusta, Phil at Troon, and Rory at Valhalla. 😀

 

It would be poetic for Phil to win at Pinehurst.   I think Spieth has a good shot at Pinehurst as well.

[golferdude54]

I say absolutely none of the current active major winners and that includes Rory, Koepka, Spieth. The pressure of joining the career Grand Slam winners list will get to them and only the next 20 year old who wins their first major by over 5 strokes has the best chance.

[stinger_gc]

4 minutes ago, dwboston said:

 

Phil actually has a good track record at all of this year's major sites.  Augusta - obviously, Valhalla - runner-up to Rory at the PGA, Pinehurst - runner-up to Payne Stewart, Troon - runner-up to Stenson.

 

We'll know golf has a sense of humor when Spieth, Rory and Phil all win majors this year - only Jordan wins at Augusta, Phil at Troon, and Rory at Valhalla. 😀

 

It would be poetic for Phil to win at Pinehurst.   I think Spieth has a good shot at Pinehurst as well.

I mean Phil’s record at Troon is as follows:

2004: 3rd

2016: 2nd

2024: ??

As for Valhalla, I think it’s one of the worst major venues from an architectural standpoint and shouldn’t even host the Kentucky State Open.
1 is one of the worst opening holes ever. I remember in 2014 everyone just bombed it over the dogleg and flipped a wedge onto the green. The double fairway on 7 is stupid, no one even takes the left line because it’s not the worth the risk and the pro’s can still reach the green in 2. 13th green seems super artificial and Iooks like something out of dungeons and dragons. Also there’s so many power lines on that golf course, looks like a muni. I understand the venue makes the PGA of America a lot of money but I’m getting sick of it. 5 big tournaments in a 28 year span is enough. No more Valhalla for the next 20 years please! 

[OBbogey5]

Has nobody mentioned Zach Johnson..??! Have we not learned our lesson??

[stinger_gc]

15 minutes ago, OBbogey5 said:

Has nobody mentioned Zach Johnson..??! Have we not learned our lesson??

I’d rather watch Cantlay sweep all 4 (just for context I hate Cantlay more then @Fergusonhates Scheffler)

[ColinKelvin]

11 hours ago, Shilgy said:

Watson played in 30 straight PGA’S and we should give him a pass for not winning it?
 

 Palmer similar never missed one. In Palmer’s case there were a few Open Championships missed but zero PGA’s. I thought 1958 to 1994 covered all of the 60’s?😏

 

AND….it was Arnold’s writer Bob Drum and he that supposedly created the modern majors!  

Yes, that was kinda my (tongue-in-cheek) point.  I'm not disputing that it *is* a major, as the golf world sees it as such now - but I am questioning its historical claim. The PGA is by far the weakest major and it seems to be an artificial addition - as you say, Arnie just said it was a major while chatting to a writer and the whole idea stuck (bad choice for his career record as it turned out - if only he had picked the Western Open, which was seen by some as a major for quite a long time!):

 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/david-fay-history-of-majors

 

Peter Thomson won five Opens and played in various other majors but never once competed in the PGA. When you look at the careers of the European golden era in the 80s, you'll notice that Seve had already won the Open and the Masters by the time he teed it up in a PGA; Sandy Lyle played in it once between 1980-90 despite winning the Open, Masters (and Players); Bernhard Langer had two second places in the Open and didn't play in the PGA until 1985, having won the Masters. Sam Torrance had played on five Ryder Cup teams and beaten the US twice before playing it. In other words, it seems to have been quite a closed shop until the 80s (and the start of the world rankings?) even for the best Europeans, as well as having a weak identity which has seen it change from matchplay to strokeplay and dot around the calendar over the years.  Of course, travel was more expensive back then etc. - maybe they were invited and never came as they were playing what they felt was an equivalent event in Europe (?) but the assumption that the PGA has always been a true major looks dodgy to me as it was almost entirely a domestic US event until the 1980s, with a small number of South Africans and Australians making up the numbers alongside all those club pros in the field.

Edited March 15 by ColinKelvin

[bscinstnct]

1 hour ago, ColinKelvin said:

Yes, that was kinda my (tongue-in-cheek) point.  I'm not disputing that it *is* a major, as the golf world sees it as such now - but I am questioning its historical claim. The PGA is by far the weakest major and it seems to be an artificial addition - as you say, Arnie just said it was a major while chatting to a writer and the whole idea stuck (bad choice for his career record as it turned out - if only he had picked the Western Open, which was seen by some as a major for quite a long time!):

 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/david-fay-history-of-majors

 

Peter Thomson won five Opens and played in various other majors but never once competed in the PGA. When you look at the careers of the European golden era in the 80s, you'll notice that Seve had already won the Open and the Masters by the time he teed it up in a PGA; Sandy Lyle played in it once between 1980-90 despite winning the Open, Masters (and Players); Bernhard Langer had two second places in the Open and didn't play in the PGA until 1985, having won the Masters. Sam Torrance had played on five Ryder Cup teams and beaten the US twice before playing it. In other words, it seems to have been quite a closed shop until the 80s (and the start of the world rankings?) even for the best Europeans, as well as having a weak identity which has seen it change from matchplay to strokeplay and dot around the calendar over the years.  Of course, travel was more expensive back then etc. - maybe they were invited and never came as they were playing what they felt was an equivalent event in Europe (?) but the assumption that the PGA has always been a true major looks dodgy to me as it was almost entirely a domestic US event until the 1980s, with a small number of South Africans and Australians making up the numbers alongside all those club pros in the field.

 

Great stuff and I’m not going to contradict anything. 
 

I’ll just point out that if you look at who has won the current Grand Slam, it’s exclusively the most elite to play the game and pretty much just includes the top 4 major championship winners of the “modern era”

 

Jack, TW, Hogan, Player. And just add Gene Sarazen who played in the 20s

 

 

 

 

[NetBogey]

Viktor Hovland 

[Rearviewmirror]

Big call based on how he has started the year, but I've gotta go Viktor Hovland.

[NetBogey]

23 minutes ago, Rearviewmirror said:

Big call based on how he has started the year, but I've gotta go Viktor Hovland.

I have more confidence in Viktor performing well in the majors than any of the other guys listed! 

[Shilgy]

5 hours ago, ColinKelvin said:

Yes, that was kinda my (tongue-in-cheek) point.  I'm not disputing that it *is* a major, as the golf world sees it as such now - but I am questioning its historical claim. The PGA is by far the weakest major and it seems to be an artificial addition - as you say, Arnie just said it was a major while chatting to a writer and the whole idea stuck (bad choice for his career record as it turned out - if only he had picked the Western Open, which was seen by some as a major for quite a long time!):

 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/david-fay-history-of-majors

 

Peter Thomson won five Opens and played in various other majors but never once competed in the PGA. When you look at the careers of the European golden era in the 80s, you'll notice that Seve had already won the Open and the Masters by the time he teed it up in a PGA; Sandy Lyle played in it once between 1980-90 despite winning the Open, Masters (and Players); Bernhard Langer had two second places in the Open and didn't play in the PGA until 1985, having won the Masters. Sam Torrance had played on five Ryder Cup teams and beaten the US twice before playing it. In other words, it seems to have been quite a closed shop until the 80s (and the start of the world rankings?) even for the best Europeans, as well as having a weak identity which has seen it change from matchplay to strokeplay and dot around the calendar over the years.  Of course, travel was more expensive back then etc. - maybe they were invited and never came as they were playing what they felt was an equivalent event in Europe (?) but the assumption that the PGA has always been a true major looks dodgy to me as it was almost entirely a domestic US event until the 1980s, with a small number of South Africans and Australians making up the numbers alongside all those club pros in the field.

Make me wonder if it was the travel expense why were the first 16 US Open winners from England or Scotland?  Perhaps a few worked here in the states but I don’t believe all were. On the flip side Americans won 9 of 10 Open Championship from 1924-1933.

Rather than travel costs it was likely the two world wars that kept players from playing for many years.  And the fact that for most “tour professional” was not really a living. They held club jobs as well.

 

As far as arbitrarily picking the PGA I recall it was an attempt to recreate the Grand Slam won by Jones so the question was what was the professional equivalent.  PGA was a big deal as, again, many of the pros also held club jobs.

[Shilgy]

For those touting Phil at the US Open….i can only assume you’ve placed a wager on him in support?🤣

[Pastit]

3 hours ago, Shilgy said:

Make me wonder if it was the travel expense why were the first 16 US Open winners from England or Scotland?  Perhaps a few worked here in the states but I don’t believe all were. On the flip side Americans won 9 of 10 Open Championship from 1924-1933.

Rather than travel costs it was likely the two world wars that kept players from playing for many years.  And the fact that for most “tour professional” was not really a living. They held club jobs as well.

 

As far as arbitrarily picking the PGA I recall it was an attempt to recreate the Grand Slam won by Jones so the question was what was the professional equivalent.  PGA was a big deal as, again, many of the pros also held club jobs.

It may have been the mode of travel to our Open & time, plus pre-qualifying was needed until quite late in history. I believe I read somewhere that Mr Palmer had to pre-qualify at some stage. Snead came only once and famously asked if the Old Ciurse was still under construction ( paraphrasing ) as he viewed it from the old railway. Perhaps the last of the sheep were still grazing. 

Edited March 15 by Pastit

[ColinKelvin]

41 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Make me wonder if it was the travel expense why were the first 16 US Open winners from England or Scotland?  Perhaps a few worked here in the states but I don’t believe all were. On the flip side Americans won 9 of 10 Open Championship from 1924-1933.

Rather than travel costs it was likely the two world wars that kept players from playing for many years.  And the fact that for most “tour professional” was not really a living. They held club jobs as well.

 

As far as arbitrarily picking the PGA I recall it was an attempt to recreate the Grand Slam won by Jones so the question was what was the professional equivalent.  PGA was a big deal as, again, many of the pros also held club jobs.

Sure, the PGA was important to Americans - but my point is that it was only from the mid-1980s onwards that the leading Europeans started to play in it regularly by which time it had been going for 70 years. That, to me, undermines its history as a supposed "major".  I suspect they couldn't get in before that as they didn't play in America (apart from the earliest winners who had relocated to the states). I believe some of the early US Open winners from the UK were also pros who had relocated.

 

Anyway, I'm off on a tangent to the thread topic.  I reckon we'll know a lot more about Scheffler's chances by the end of the year - if he adds another major he doesn't have already (or more than one) in 2024 then maybe he'll be the current favourite given his ability and form.

 

I spectated at the 2015 Open at St Andrews. I remember Spieth had a chance on the last hole to get into a playoff for his third major of the calendar year.  That doesn't happen often!

[Dave230]

Rory is still the most likely. He has shown he has the game for winning at Augusta, he has plenty of low rounds there. Just needs to do it. Seems to have a mental block. But he only needs for it all to click once and he has it. We all thought Sergio wouldn't win a major when he did, but he pulled it off.

 

Spieth has won twice on the PGA Tour in 6 years now. He hasn't been in the top 25 in the PGA Championship in 4 years. Needs to prove he's good enough to win more tournaments again first. Capable of winning another Masters out of the blue, given his record on that course. But a random PGA course, I don't see it without improving his form.

 

Koepka needs two other majors. Masters it looks he's trending in the right way. But could have won two of them and didn't. Could have a similar block to Rory there. Then needs an Open. He's capable there too. But not an obvious one. He's been brilliant at winning at a specific type of course. Won 3 in New York I think? That long, big rough, tight sort of test that USGA and PGA put up. Open is different to that.

 

Rahm needs two as well, don't really see how he couldn't win the other two, but two harder to win than one.

[KennyP]

Winning any major is difficult enough. You need a lot of things to line up that week. Winning a major on demand is one hundred times as difficult. Winning a major on demand to complete the grand slam is nigh on impossible. That's why only 5 players have done it. 

 

 

 

Edited March 15 by KennyP

[Shilgy]

1 hour ago, ColinKelvin said:

Sure, the PGA was important to Americans - but my point is that it was only from the mid-1980s onwards that the leading Europeans started to play in it regularly by which time it had been going for 70 years. That, to me, undermines its history as a supposed "major".  I suspect they couldn't get in before that as they didn't play in America (apart from the earliest winners who had relocated to the states). I believe some of the early US Open winners from the UK were also pros who had relocated.

 

Anyway, I'm off on a tangent to the thread topic.  I reckon we'll know a lot more about Scheffler's chances by the end of the year - if he adds another major he doesn't have already (or more than one) in 2024 then maybe he'll be the current favourite given his ability and form.

 

I spectated at the 2015 Open at St Andrews. I remember Spieth had a chance on the last hole to get into a playoff for his third major of the calendar year.  That doesn't happen often!

Yeah, I knew I recognized you! 🤣

I was there in 2015 as well…and 2019 at Royal Portrush.

[Shilgy]

2 hours ago, Pastit said:

It may have been the mode of travel to our Open & time, plus pre-qualifying was needed until quite late in history. I believe I read somewhere that Mr Palmer had to pre-qualify at some stage. Snead came only once and famously asked if the Old Ciurse was still under construction ( paraphrasing ) as he viewed it from the old railway. Perhaps the last of the sheep were still grazing. 

My recollection was Snead thought it was an old abandoned course….but all of your post I definitely agree with.

[Hawkeye77]

On 3/15/2024 at 3:32 AM, ColinKelvin said:

 Arnie just said it was a major while chatting to a writer and the whole idea stuck (bad choice for his career record as it turned out - if only he had picked the Western Open, which was seen by some as a major for quite a long time!):

 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/david-fay-history-of-majors

 

 

 

 

Some fantasy in that article.

 

The four majors were recognized as such as far back as the early 1940s and plenty of newspaper articles to support that - there were recognized next tier championships, but the four are and were the four.  In fact, although there are plenty of other examples if one takes the time to research old newspapers, the article below has a nice story from 1941 re Craig Wood confirming that.  I've found several over the years.  The whole Western Open major thing just gets repeated around here a lot, but it was one of those next tier.  The Masters was considered one of the four majors very shortly after it got started.

 

The Palmer story, which was complete BS but told by Palmer and Drum over and over, is that the idea for the Grand Slam (not any majors) came about as the result of a conversation between Palmer and Drum on an airplane ride to the British Open, which Drum took credit for the rest of his life.  Look up a writer name Will Grimsley - and fortunately a few years ago someone took the time to debunk it, even though it was pretty well known it was nonsense.  Good read -- idea of professional grand slam goes back to 1932 (not the now recognized four) and talked about over and over through the years before Arnie and Drum "created it", haha.

 

Edit:    Sorry, forgot to include the article!!

 

https://www.thinkingaboutgolf.com/blog/arnie-bob-drum-a-trans-atlantic-flight-and-the-modern-grand-slam-one-of-golf-s-great-myths

Edited March 17 by Hawkeye77

[Shilgy]

On 3/15/2024 at 3:13 AM, bscinstnct said:

 

Great stuff and I’m not going to contradict anything. 
 

I’ll just point out that if you look at who has won the current Grand Slam, it’s exclusively the most elite to play the game and pretty much just includes the top 4 major championship winners of the “modern era”

 

Jack, TW, Hogan, Player. And just add Gene Sarazen who played in the 20s

 

 

 

 

Just one that played recently and three whose prime was over half a century ago.

[Hawkeye77]

On 3/15/2024 at 9:06 AM, Shilgy said:

Make me wonder if it was the travel expense why were the first 16 US Open winners from England or Scotland?  Perhaps a few worked here in the states but I don’t believe all were. On the flip side Americans won 9 of 10 Open Championship from 1924-1933.

Rather than travel costs it was likely the two world wars that kept players from playing for many years.  And the fact that for most “tour professional” was not really a living. They held club jobs as well.

 

Interesting on the U.S. Open in the early years - for some reason the overseas guys came and likely had sponsors and were the better golfers - not sure if very many came or they were just that much better and more inclined to seek out competition?  Better go back and read my Ouimet and Vardon books!

[tomjas]

Thomson lived in Australia and travel was by ship in those days with Australia-UK taking 6 weeks alone so probably got sick of being away 

 

Didn’t like American courses either apparently