Grand Slam...will we ever see it?

[billchao]

The situations are not remotely comparable.  You can draw nothing statistical form Jones' Slam.  Most members of this board could not name any other winner of the British Amateur nor could they name who the semifinalists were in the one he won.  The pros were FAR batter in Jones' day than the amateurs, so even ignoring the tremendous increase in the number of great  players, Jones wasn't even competing in the best of his own era in half of his majors. Besides the Tiger slam, Tiger has had 3 years in which he won 2 majors.  Let him play his other 2 majors in those years against competition that relatively speaking is not even up to the level of the Buy.com tour and then we might have some statistical resemblance between now and Jones' era.  Same for the 5 times Jack won 2 majors in a year. Lest anyone think I am just plumping Tiger.

I don't disagree with you about the quality of competition, but if the sport assigns the arbitrary label of a major championship to an event, it has to be recognized. Bobby Jones won all the majors at the time in a single year. It was a different era, but the fact of the matter is, he did it under the circumstances of his time. It would be like saying only 10 of the Montreal Canadiens 24 Stanley Cup championships count because there were only six teams in the league for the first 14. You can't take away their achievements just because the league has changed.

[MS256]

I doubt it but you (at 30) have better odds than me (at 58).

Some day maybe all of the stars line up. Who knows?

Even in Jones' grand slam he had a lot of "lucky" things go his way, and knew it. A slam today would be exponentially harder than it was then with amateur events as part of the slam, like Turtleback mentioned, and the sheer amount of world class competition. Even if the amateurs were still included it would be harder today.

The only viable intervening variable that could have made amateurs tougher back then relative to talent pool size was that quite a few top players chose to remain amateurs for their whole career, which is pretty much unheard of today. Even with that taken into account the amateurs still weren't as good as the pros overall (except Jones).

[saevel25]

It does matter, because it considered the Grand Slam of golf. Jones is the only one to win all 4 majors in a year. Doesn't matter if 2 of them were Amateur titles. At the time the 4 majors were what Jones played in an won. He is the ONLY golfer to do that in a golfing season. Tiger is the only golfer to win all 4 Modern Majors in a row. The statistical math still works because of how I framed the instances.

[turtleback]

I doubt it but you (at 30) have better odds than me (at 58).

Some day maybe all of the stars line up. Who knows?

Even in Jones' grand slam he had a lot of "lucky" things go his way, and knew it. A slam today would be exponentially harder than it was then with amateur events as part of the slam, like Turtleback mentioned, and the sheer amount of world class competition. Even if the amateurs were still included it would be harder today.

The only viable intervening variable that could have made amateurs tougher back then relative to talent pool size was that quite a few top players chose to remain amateurs for their whole career, which is pretty much unheard of today. Even with that taken into account the amateurs still weren't as good as the pros overall (except Jones).

I'm not taking away from his achievement, but I am saying that it provides no useful data for making statistical inferences.  And while I wouldn't take away from his achievement, I think it does need to be seen in perspective.  Just like the MC consecutive Stanley cup runs are nice but not nearly as impressive as the shorter runs of the Islanders and Oilers.  Or Nelson's 11 event winning streak is not nearly as impressive as Tiger's streak of 7.

And no, very few top players were amateurs.  To see this all you have to do is look at the tournaments where the amateurs and pros played together, namely the US and British Opens.  Jones was an outlier as an amateur.  Other than him very very few amateurs won.  Or even finished anywhere near the top.

[MS256]

I'm not taking away from his achievement, but I am saying that it provides no useful data for making statistical inferences.  And while I wouldn't take away from his achievement, I think it does need to be seen in perspective.  Just like the MC consecutive Stanley cup runs are nice but not nearly as impressive as the shorter runs of the Islanders and Oilers.  Or Nelson's 11 event winning streak is not nearly as impressive as Tiger's streak of 7.

And no, very few top players were amateurs.  To see this all you have to do is look at the tournaments where the amateurs and pros played together, namely the US and British Opens.  Jones was an outlier as an amateur.  Other than him very very few amateurs won.  Or even finished anywhere near the top.

There is no doubt that several of those that remained amateurs could have not only been pros but among the best pros. Quimet was probably the best example but there were others. Their finishes in majors isn't a full indicator of what they could have done if they were professionals full time instead of devoting most of their time to other things.

[Golfingdad]

There will be some that say Tiger did it when he won US Open 2000 The Open 2000 PGA 2000 Masters 2001, granted not in the same year but consecutive. Personally I think the calendar stipulation is splitting hairs he won them all concurrently.

Yeah, I totally agree with this.  I don't get why there has to be a distinction between calendar years.  Heck, I'd argue its MORE impressive to do since it requires being at the top of your game for 10-ish months in a row, rather than just 5.

Some responders in the "2014 Major Winners" thread predict Tiger will win all four.

Delusional or Bromance, you tell me

Or just playing the odds.  I predicted Tiger would win 2 this year, so if I was a betting man, it might behoove me to just bet him to win all four, instead of guess the wrong two. ;)

[iacas]

Yeah, I totally agree with this.  I don't get why there has to be a distinction between calendar years.  Heck, I'd argue its MORE impressive to do since it requires being at the top of your game for 10-ish months in a row, rather than just 5.

I consider it a Grand Slam. Thus, I've already seen it in my lifetime.

After winning three, remember how long we anticipated the Masters the following spring?

[Kieran123]

What Tiger did is a grand slam - who says what order you have to win them in ( in a row )? You hold all four at once? Grand Slam. Screw the gregorian.

[Jakester23]

Tiger's slam is the most impressive accomplishment in golf history IMO.I know what Bobby Jones did was amazing but its not even close to as difficult.

[GolfGuy123]

There is no doubt that several of those that remained amateurs could have not only been pros but among the best pros. Quimet was probably the best example but there were others. Their finishes in majors isn't a full indicator of what they could have done if they were professionals full time instead of devoting most of their time to other things.

As far as I know and have researched you are absolutely correct on this. Not sure why some are disagreeing.

Tiger's slam is the most impressive accomplishment in golf history IMO.I know what Bobby Jones did was amazing but its not even close to as difficult.

I am a big Tiger fan and I absolutely do agree that the Tiger Slam is the most impressive accomplishment in golf history...

However what he did was not a grand slam. The reason it's titled "Tiger Slam" is because it had to be called something other than "Grand Slam". Out of this world achievement, YES...Victory in all four majors in the same calendar year, no.

( @jakester not directing this second part at you, just trying to make a general point for all who do consider it a Grand Slam)

[iacas]

I am a big Tiger fan and I absolutely do agree that the Tiger Slam is the most impressive accomplishment in golf history... However what he did was not a grand slam. The reason it's titled "Tiger Slam" is because it had to be called something other than "Grand Slam". Out of this world achievement, YES...Victory in all four majors in the same calendar year, no.

I consider it a grand slam. It's not a universal opinion.

[Jakester23]

What Tiger did isn't a grand slam.  Its THEE GRAND SLAM.  Bobby Jones slam was amazing but Tigers was and is the only true GRAND SLAM ever.

[turtleback]

There is no doubt that several of those that remained amateurs could have not only been pros but among the best pros. Quimet was probably the best example but there were others. Their finishes in majors isn't a full indicator of what they could have done if they were professionals full time instead of devoting most of their time to other things.

It isn't how good you might have been if XXX happened, it is how good you actually were.  And the amateurs of Jones' day were nowhere near as good as the pros, with the sole exception of Jones.  The actual amateurs, not the hypothetical ones, were the ones Jones was beating in the US and British Amateurs.

[hopefulhacker]

Poll is asking 2 very separate questions IMO. What response do you give, if you haven't seen a grand slam but think you might do so in future.

[David in FL]

Poll is asking 2 very separate questions IMO. What response do you give, if you haven't seen a grand slam but think you might do so in future.

I think there are 3 different versions of the GS.

1.  Winning all 4 Majors in your career.

2.  Winning all 4 in the same season.

3.  The one no one seemed to have thought of before Tiger did it......holding all 4 titles at the same time, having won them consecutively, but not in the same season.

All are Grand Slams.....

FWIW, make no mistake, from a statistical perspective, someone is far more likely to do it like Woods did, than they are to win all 4 in a single season.  For the same reason you are more likely to string a run of 4 birdies together at some point in a round, than you are to specifically birdie any given 4 holes.  Every birdie (Major win) starts the count over again and you're a quarter of the way there with 3 to go.  Blow it, and you don't have to wait until next year......

......another way to look at it.  If a golfer has a 25 year career, he has 25 chances to collect the single season GS.  If he plays 500 tournaments in that 25 year career, he has 500 chances to accomplish the consecutive GS.

Woods has a Grand Slam.  There's still one out there that is harder to attain

[hopefulhacker]

I personally don't think Tiger will ever regain the form he had to win 4 in a row/grand slam/ whatever slam ever again. Rory is the only one that I think has the ability to do it....if he ups his game to another level... Which I think he can. What odds? Let's just say I wouldn't bet on it :) But I think he has a chance.... Albeit a tiny tiny one. Outside of Rory, the next guy that can do it is probably on his way to school

[MS256]

It isn't how good you might have been if XXX happened, it is how good you actually were.  And the amateurs of Jones' day were nowhere near as good as the pros, with the sole exception of Jones.  The actual amateurs, not the hypothetical ones, were the ones Jones was beating in the US and British Amateurs.

(A) Some of the best players are taken out of a professional talent pool when they choose to remain amateurs for long periods of time.

(B) At the same time they also increase the talent level of the amateur ranks.

Even common sense says that would always be the case anytime there is little motivation to turn pro.

If the level of play in the amateur ranks is not increased from it, and if the level of play in the pro ranks was so far above the amateur ranks, Jones should have been able to beat the amateurs very easily (which wasn't the case at all).

End result was that the level of amateur play was increased in relation to professional play compared to today and the level of professional play was decreased compared to today from the absence of potential world class full time golfers in the talent pool. Both add up to it being much harder to win a professional Major today, and that's not even taking into account the even bigger factor of the size of worldwide talent pools today compared to the miniscule pool sizes back then.

[iacas]

Poll is asking 2 very separate questions IMO. What response do you give, if you haven't seen a grand slam but think you might do so in future.

You answer "Yes."

Woods has a Grand Slam.  There's still one out there that is harder to attain

I disagree. "Harder" is not the same as "less probable." I think winning a fourth major seven months after winning the third is much "harder."