or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by misty_mountainhop

Didn't like @turtleback's point? Thought it was pretty convincing myself. Owning all Majors at a single point in time is indeed impressive. However, unless you're re-defining/revising/cheapening the commonly accepted norm for what the golfing GS is, Woods' pretty awesome achievement in '00-'01 is not the Grand Slam. I understand now - we're attempting to re-define, as a lesser target, the golf Grand Slam. If that's what people want to do, they're welcome to it.
Ah. Now you've gone and ruined it. Great point. Thus, the end of this thread arrived.
Maybe the weather. Round 1 had the breeze from a nasty quarter on the back 9 and round 3 would have been pretty damp underfoot with a slightly easier wind direction, so maybe shots were easier to control in round 3, both in the air and in terms of run out on the green once they'd pitched.
Equally, one can find many quotes supporting the classic definition of it i.e. 4 Majors in a single calendar year. OK, you got me there - fair criticism. I was simply suggesting that as most of the posters here are American, that Woods is American and/or precedent for Woods fanaticism, there may be some pro-Woods bias in the poll. Happy to be strung up for it though.   Fair points. You may convince me yet.
Knew it was mistake to bring that up! I'm not suggesting we're comparing U.S. players with other nationalities (although that was what I was suggesting with the virtual "What if Monty had done this?" scenario). I am suggesting there may simply be an element of "Woods is a U.S. player therefore I'd really like it if he was deemed to have achieved a Grand Slam" bias in the thinking here. To be clear, I don't like what I've seen of Woods, the public persona. More than happy...
Well, a whole 49 people as of now. The poll here may well agree with your initial premise but it's hardly the definitive bit of data is it? I'd also put it to you that there is likely to be pro-TW bias in the outcome as the majority of posters here are U.S. citizens and too many people, in general, simply think Woods is best, no matter what. No problem if we move the goalposts a little eh? Tomato? Tomato? He was certainly a Hell of a player for 10-15 years.
That logic cuts both ways. There are many who'd blindly jump up and down swearing that Woods had achieved a Grand Slam, just because it's Woods. He seems to polarise conversations somewhat more than other golfers!
An interesting point I think.... With respect, I disagree. I agree re. semantics etc. I mean, what's the difference in terms of difficulty? Not a lot, if anything. People being people though, they'd credit Norman with a Grand Slam but not Woods. Why is there any importance to thinking that what Woods did was a Grand Slam? Why is his actual achievement not simply admired for what it was? Maybe there's more to the point (above) from @David in FL than many would care to...
I'm not sure the quoted "double-digit lead" is that much fun is it?Seriously though, could Trump really get the Republican nomination?
So, in other words, you believe what you want and I'll believe what I want. Revisionists will no doubt concede that Woods won a Grand Slam. That's fine and I guess that's why this thread is now on page 13. It's not for me though. Here's another thought. If, say, Greg Norman had achieved a calendar year Slam before 2000, would a significant number of people honestly be arguing that Woods had also achieved a Grand Slam in '00-01'? I think not. Much of this is driven by the...
New Posts  All Forums: