Comments on: Bobby Jones’ Grand Slam Casts a Long Shadow Over Golf

By: Doug

Doug — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 02:00:51 +0000

The fact that Jone was only a part time golfer needs to be mentioned also.
Between the age of 20-28 Jones won 13 of 23 slam events, and was 1st/2nd in 19 of 23 slammers.
His competition in the pro events was comparable to the sixties with Nicklaus, Palmer, and Player.
I question whether Tiger could have done any better than Jones on a relative basis.
If we could bring a 28 year old Jones into the game today with the tools that are available I believe that Tiger would have his hands full in Major championships.

By: BD

BD — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:54:51 +0000

“The problem is that his version of the Slam is constantly referred to as a standard for today’s pros when the tournaments that made up Jones’ version were far less competitive for the reasons I gave.”

I just don’t think this is the case. Obviously, Jones’ “version of the slam” included two amateur titles, which today’s pros would not be eligible to play in. So it’s unlikely Jones’ version of the slam is regarded as a “standard” for today’s pros.”

“Because Jones was an amateur, far too many have assumed that the best players in his time were largely amateurs as well, when in fact they were not.”

I would think the opposite is true. I would think that because today’s amateurs are regarded as being so greatly inferior to today’s pros, that many people today would assume a similar disparity in talent existed 80 years ago. However, it seems clear that the best amateurs of the 1920s and 1930s were much closer in ability to the playing professionals of that era than would be true today. Mostly this is due to the fact that there was so little money to be made as a touring professional, there was little reason for top amateurs to make the switch.

“It is too bad that Jones didn’t turn pro and play with the Hagens and Sarazens of the world more often.”

I don’t think this is regrettable at all. The fact that arguably the greatest golfer of all time (up to that point) retired as an amateur stands as a monument to the importance of the amateur game to the history of golf. Moreover, Jones did in fact square off against the likes of Hagen and Sarazen plenty of times (for a guy who didn’t play all that much tournament golf to begin with). Not only that, he beat them! Jones has a better record in the majors they played in common — the U.S. and “British” Opens: Jones won 7 of those; Hagen 6; Sarazen 3.

By: Phil

Phil — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 18:33:50 +0000

BD, thanks for writing. I am very aware of Jones’ record and position in the game as the first (or second if a person is inclined towards Hagen) player of his time, so his winning of any title is not a fluke, nor have I intimated as much. The problem is that his version of the Slam is constantly referred to as a standard for today’s pros when the tournaments that made up Jones’ version were far less competitive for the reasons I gave. Because Jones was an amateur, far too many have assumed that the best players in his time were largely amateurs as well, when in fact they were not. It is too bad that Jones didn’t turn pro and play with the Hagens and Sarazens of the world more often.

By: BD

BD — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 18:08:10 +0000

I think you’re taking an unnecessarily harsh tone toward Jones’ legacy. Your basic point is valid: by any reasonable measure of competetiveness, Jones’ Grand Slam does not measure up to what we refer to as the “modern” Grand Slam. However, the four national championships Bobby won in 1930 were all highly prestigious and coveted titles in his day. To win all four in one year was certainly a major accomplishment deserving of a great deal of “hype,” and I don’t see how attaching the label “Grand Slam” to that accomplishment works any injustice to Jones’ contemporaries or to the game’s historical integrity.

I would point out (although it hardly needs to be said) that Jones was not merely some lucky weekend golfer who happened to capture all four national championships in the same year. He was, by general agreement, the greatest golfer of his era, pro or amateur. The fact that his Grand Slam would have been more “impressive” against stronger fields would in no way justify the inference that his Slam was any kind of fluke.

You seem to lament the fact that Jones’ record “casts a long shadow over today’s players nearly eight decades later.” I for one hope Jones is remembered and celebrated forever. Like any sport, golf needs its heroes. Today’s players SHOULD feel in awe of the game’s giants and try to emulate them. The “hype” that Jones’ inspired was a fantastic boon to the sport’s popularity in the 1920s and beyond, just as it will be a boon to today’s game if someone can pull off a modern slam.