or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by misty_mountainhop

You think not? Here's an idea for you - young Chinese/Indian kid rips it up on PGA Tour and wins two majors by the time he's 22. Don't think that'll electrify things? Maybe not amongst U.S. golf fans etc, but it'll be massive for sponsors and where the populations are so enormous. Not really, no. Think it's kinda cool that Jordan's happy to drink from Zach's Jug. Everything I see (so far) from Spieth says 'class'.  Voted 'no' as, hopefully, he's the first Spieth.
That's fine by me if you want to think the accepted definition is all the work of a single writer. It's really isn't and you know it isn't.
Fair point and well put.If people want to alter (weaken) the definition of what constitutes a Grand Slam for golf in order that TW can be described as having achieved it, so be it. Certainly a discussion that can be had. I don't buy it though. It may never be achieved but that doesn't mean we have to cheapen the goal just so that it can be said TW managed to do it and that's as much as I want to say on it really. I still think what he achieved was incredible and, as...
As I alluded to earlier, this thread would have been better to have discussed whether TW's achievement was as impressive (or more so) than a 'classic' (does that do the trick?) Grand Slam. Or maybe ask whether the Grand Slam needs re-defining. It doesn't so, if it's OK, I'll stick to the current definition. Ergo, no Slam. Most people in the thread do not, with respect, say they'd have voted the same in a Garcia/Montgomerie scenario. I pose the question to ask people to...
I'm sorry but there's every bit of logic in doing just that, given the accepted definition of what a Grand Slam is. Nope. I have no idea where the original definition came from but I have no doubt that the accepted definition is all that really matters here. If you'd wanted a wider discussion, maybe the thread title should have been a little more open and more about the merits of whether what TW had achieved should be considered as functionally equivalent? It wasn't. The...
Yep. I think he does. He's won two Majors now and on completely different courses in completely different conditions. One could be luck or an abnormally hot week but two? Far less likely to be luck and he certainly beat a great last round leader board at St. Andrews this week.
Here's a thought and just as a "what if...?". What would people's opinions on this be if it was, say, Colin Montgomerie or Sergio Garcia who'd done as TW did in '00-'01?
Yep. That's the way the cookie crumbles I'm afraid. That's not to say that I wouldn't accept that 6 in a row was a bigger achievement. Just not a Grand Slam. Sorry.
Grand Slam. No "ifs", "buts" or "maybes".   Maybe 30-40 years ago I'd be harder pressed to go one way or the other but today's top amateurs are pros in all but name and endorsements. Paul Dunne, for example, is +5 I think at the moment and just thinking about what that means gives me a headache. He has to shoot -4, on average (or better) every round (usually from tournament tees) in order to maintain that handicap. The modern ams are young, fit, have full-time coaches,...
FWIW, no, of course it wasn't a grand slam. By the accepted norm of the definition. It's a technicality but there you go. That doesn't mean I think it's any less of an achievement though and, unlike many who would equate TW's 'slam' as 'grand', I'm not actually that big of a TW fan. In fact, it's an awesome achievement from an awesome golfer (albeit not quite so awesome any more). Not a Grand Slam though. Sorry.
New Posts  All Forums: