Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'brooks koepka'.
Found 2 results
Many reasons I wanted to start this too many to list. He really only cares about the Majors, on top of that he just finished up a historical T-2 At Masters, WIN PGA Championship, Second At the US Open and T-4 At The Open. A feat that was accomplished by Spieth in 2015, Tiger in 2005 and Nicklaus in 1973. Also winning Back to Back US Opens 2017-2018 and PGA Championships 2018-2019, something that hasn't been done since Tiger Woods. Who knows what we could see from him in 2020, but all I know is that he sure as heck likes the Majors and I sure do think he will continue this in 2020. Yet, most people seemingly underestimate and overlook him. I do very much think he deserves more credit than he is now. PGA Championship 2018: Why doesn't golf consider Brooks Koepka a star? - Golf Digest Brooks Koepka is a two-time U.S. Open champion and one of golf's best young talents. Why isn't he treated like a star? Still the same story today. ^
If Brooks Koepka wins the first two majors of 2019… then he will have won four majors in a row. But… two of those majors will be the PGA Championship, as he won last year at Bellerive and would win in 2019 at Bethpage Black. So his four majors would be: U.S. Open, PGA, Masters, PGA. No British Open. I contend that Tiger holds a Grand Slam because he: Won and held all four major championship trophies. Won all four in a row (i.e. there wasn't a year where they held one twice or something goofy). Brooks wouldn't have done that - he'd be missing the British Open. So, while winning four majors in a row is a pretty remarkable achievement, because it doesn't include the British Open… I'm tempted to say it's not even a slam at all. Consider that if the next U.S. President banned golf (just go with me here) and only the British Open was played for his one and only term in office, would someone who won all four of those be considered to have won a slam? I don't think so. So… I'm waffling between "slam but not a grand slam" and "not a slam at all." I think I'll end up on the latter, and that's the choice I made for now. P.S. Tiger's grand slam is still a grand slam IMO even though they weren't won in a calendar year, because they were still won within a year. Hell, he added The Players Championship within that same year-long span. I think just because the year changed is too arbitrary a distinction, particularly when waiting eight months to play the fourth of the four majors is probably a lot tougher than just winning four majors April through August. Winning June through April is tougher. You have to be playing at a high level for that much longer.