Grand Slam...will we ever see it?

[David in FL]

You answer "Yes." 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."

Harder = less likely to me. How are you defining "harder" if not less likely to happen? Is it somehow harder to win any tournament 2 years after winning another, just because of the longer period between wins? If that were the case, I'd think we would see more back-to-back Major wins, at least from those with multiple Majors to their credit. Semantics aside, given more chances to accomplish the same task, I think it's easier to do so than having dramatically fewer chances to do the same thing.

[Golfingdad]

......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.

Fair point.  Although ... isn't he only going to be playing in 100 majors in a 25 year career?

Although I'm with Erik in regards to harder not equalling less likely.  I would say that Tiger finishing 25th in every major, while shooting the exact same score every round of every major is a heck of a lot less likely to happen than him winning the grand slam, but not at all harder.  In fact, I'd say it's quite a bit easier.

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.

Actually, I sort of agree with this, because it would be kind of nice to be able to differentiate between those of us who voted yes because we've already seen one, and those of us who think Tiger's didn't count, yet actually believe that one can still happen.

If I was starting the poll over, I'd probably put:

Will you ever see a Grand Slam in your lifetime?

• Yes
• No
• Already saw one!

---------------------------------------------------------------------

And I tend to disagree with @turtleback when he said that Tiger is the only current player capable.  Rory has shown flashes of brilliance that indicate to me that he could also pull this off, and based on the smallest of sample sizes, Jordan Spieth sure looks like he's destined to be great.

[iacas]

Harder = less likely to me.

Not to me. It's an arbitrary thing you're adding - the calendar year. That's like saying someone is even less likely to win four consecutive majors that have their final rounds end on dates that end with a multiple of 3.

Or, using your definition, I could easily show that winning a major in which Jack Nicklaus finishes second while Ben Hogan finishes third and Adam Scott finishes in fourth is so "difficult" it's flat out impossible.

I consider winning four consecutive majors over eight months more difficult than winning four over five months. The latter requires a much shorter period of "staying hot."

I'm using "difficulty" in reference to the athletic skill required. You're using it as a substitute for probability with arbitrary constraints (calendar years).

Although I'm with Erik in regards to harder not equalling less likely.  I would say that Tiger finishing 25th in every major, while shooting the exact same score every round of every major is a heck of a lot less likely to happen than him winning the grand slam, but not at all harder.  In fact, I'd say it's quite a bit easier.

Another example.

[hopefulhacker]

You answer "Yes."

The poll is asking 2 separate questions. Have I ever seen a grand slam: No (you might have to set aside what you believe it to be... It's not universal as you say) Will I ever see one: I would answer Yes (as I don't think it's impossible to see someone win all 4 majors in the same calendar year. Very unlikely but still possible) The "(or have we ever)" part of the Poll is probably off topic in fairness. OP was asking about our views on the future.

[Spitfisher]

Will you ever see a Grand Slam in your lifetime?

Yes

No

Already saw one!

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't believe I will ever see a grand slam in a traditonal sense of the 4 majors beginning with the April putting tournament in Georgia. I take that back any four majors in a row in one calendar year.

There is just too much parity  today and it doesn't look like its going to change in the future, those that believe so i.e. Tiger woods are hopelessly blinded, we saw his best golf.

[iacas]

The poll is asking 2 separate questions.

So vote in the new poll. It already existed before you posted your response. :)

[hopefulhacker]

Tha[quote name="iacas" url="/t/72266/grand-slam-will-we-ever-see-it/30#post_945346"] So vote in the new poll. It already existed before you posted your response. :) [/quote] Thanks, you're good ;)

[Golfingdad]

... beginning with the April putting tournament in Georgia.

Sorry dude ... but I'm pretty sure you just got yourself blackballed from ever announcing "The Masters ... here on ... CBS"

You are all legally required to say the quoted part in Jim Nantz' voice!!  And you are required to start saying it at EVERY POSSIBLE MOMENT sometime in September, I think.

[turtleback]

(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.

Huh??  Once he hit his stride he made the finals in 6 out of 7 US Amateurs and won 5 of them.  And won the only British Amateur he ever played.  He WAS beating the amateurs pretty easily.  When you have a 70% chance of winning one of the majors and a 100% chance of winning another, the chances of winning 4 in a row are pretty darned good and have nothing, statistically, to say about the chances of a player in the 21st century winning the Grand Slam.

But I certainly agree with your last sentence.  Which makes the Tiger slam a far greater achievement than anything else ever done in golf.

[MS256]

Huh??  Once he hit his stride he made the finals in 6 out of 7 US Amateurs and won 5 of them.  And won the only British Amateur he ever played.  He WAS beating the amateurs pretty easily.  When you have a 70% chance of winning one of the majors and a 100% chance of winning another, the chances of winning 4 in a row are pretty darned good and have nothing, statistically, to say about the chances of a player in the 21st century winning the Grand Slam.

But I certainly agree with your last sentence.  Which makes the Tiger slam a far greater achievement than anything else ever done in golf.

Huh??

[Wally Fairway]

Grand Slam, when I was younger (& I'm mid-50's) meant a career slam - winning each of the 4 majors; and that was quite an accomplishment that some of the games greats were not able to accomplish.

Then along came Tiger and, IMO, holding all for trophies at the same time IS winning the slam. The calendar shouldn't affect recognizing the magnitude of that accomplishment.

[Fourputt]

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.

What you or I think isn't really relevant to what constitutes an "official" grand slam.  The Tiger slam was a great accomplishment, but it still isn't a "grand" slam.  That would be like giving a baseball player the home run title because he broke the record based on a "season" measured from July 12 to the next July 11.

There has never been a professional grand slam and never will be.  The chances were much better back when there were at most a dozen likely winners in any given major.  Now with the fields so deep, and Tiger starting to fade, the best opportunities for it have also passed.

[David in FL]

Not to me. It's an arbitrary thing you're adding - the calendar year. That's like saying someone is even less likely to win four consecutive majors that have their final rounds end on dates that end with a multiple of 3.

Or, using your definition, I could easily show that winning a major in which Jack Nicklaus finishes second while Ben Hogan finishes third and Adam Scott finishes in fourth is so "difficult" it's flat out impossible.

I consider winning four consecutive majors over eight months more difficult than winning four over five months. The latter requires a much shorter period of "staying hot."

I'm using "difficulty" in reference to the athletic skill required. You're using it as a substitute for probability with arbitrary constraints (calendar years).

Another example.

Arbitrary?  Only in so far that definitions themselves are arbitrary, and that's how this particular accomplishment has always been somewhat loosely defined.  As I said, there are really 3 different definitions.  One for lifetime, one for season, and now.....the most recent to even be separately acknowledged.....Tiger's, for consecutive wins that span two seasons.

As for "staying hot"......if someone wins the Masters 3 years apart, did they have to "stay hot" for 3 years?  Of course not, they just need to be playing extraordinarily well each week.  In fact, given that everyone experiences an ebb and flow in their performance, I'd offer that someone probably has to stay "hot" longer to win all 4 in the same year, simply because there isn't enough time for a recovery in performance if a slump does happen, whereas with a 6 month break, there  is.......hell, there's even time for a break to recharge and recover from any injuries between the 3d and 4th.

The athletic skill required for achieving a career GS is based on the difficulty of winning each of the individual tournaments.  From purely an athletic perspective, it's no more difficult to win 4 in a row than it is to win 4 in a lifetime.  I don't think that you or I think that Tiger's accomplishment of 4 in a row isn't "harder" than that of Jack having won all 4, but not consecutively.  The athleticism is the same, the difficulty in achieving the consecutive wins lies in the mathematical improbability of having to win the first Major, then a second, and then a third, before you can even contemplate having won the fourth.  And that same improbability is why I consider the season GS to be harder (more unlikely, improbable, difficult to achieve......use whichever adjective you like) than to string any 4 together consecutively.  In a 25 year career, you only have 25 "starts" at a season GS.......you'll have 100 "starts" at a consecutive slam.

There are people who don't think Tiger has accomplished anything any more difficult than the career slam....and I disagree with that, for exactly the reasons I outlined above.  But if you agree that Tiger's accomplishment eclipses Jack's, then you have to acknowledge that a season GS would eclipse the consecutive slam that spans 2 seasons.

Although ... isn't he only going to be playing in 100 majors in a 25 year career?

Yep......

[Golfingdad]

What you or I think isn't really relevant to what constitutes an "official" grand slam.  The Tiger slam was a great accomplishment, but it still isn't a "grand" slam.  That would be like giving a baseball player the home run title because he broke the record based on a "season" measured from July 12 to the next July 11.   There has never been a professional grand slam and never will be.  The chances were much better back when there were at most a dozen likely winners in any given major.  Now with the fields so deep, and Tiger starting to fade, the best opportunities for it have also passed.

True about the home run title. However, interestingly enough ... Not true about all baseball records. Correct me if I'm wrong, but "streak" type records (which I think a golf grand slam is more comparable to, especially now that golf is year round) can wrap around multiple seasons. The record for longest hitting streak in the NL does that. (Some guy from medieval times ;)) As do several of the other hitting streaks that are over 30 games long.

[phan52]

The Tiger Slam was most impressive, something we'll probably never see again, but that's what it is, not a legit Grand Slam in one golf season. You have to wonder how he would have performed late that season in the Open Championship and the PGA with a true Grand Slam on the horizon.

I don't think we'll ever see it. A lifetime Grand Slam is hard enough.

[Spitfisher]

Sorry dude ... but I'm pretty sure you just got yourself blackballed from ever announcing "The Masters ... here on ... CBS" You are all legally required to say the quoted part in Jim Nantz' voice!!  And you are required to start saying it at EVERY POSSIBLE MOMENT sometime in September, I think.

Hello friends......I meant the masters in beautiful Augusta Georgia! :-D:-D

[turtleback]

Huh??

What is it you don't get?  You claimed that Jones should have been able to beat the amateurs easily, but that wasn't the case.  I demonstrated that in fact he WAS able to beat the amateurs easily.  A 70% winning percentage int he US Amateur and a 100% winning percentage in the British Amateur (albeit in only one attempt) is beating the amateurs rather easily in my book.  Particularly when we delve deeper into what his winning percentage was in individual matches, which was probably over 90%.

[Snowfly]

As far as a Tiger Slam equating a Grand Slam. I would say the are not equal. Most athletic records are based on single season, and career records are based on multiples there of. For example occasionally in the NFL, commentators will mention, for the sake of something to say, that a team is 12-0 going back to the Super Bowl and the last part of the previous season. It all just color commentary.

I do feel Golf is a little different as an individual sport, and holding all four trophies is special.

So we have the Grand Slam, which is winning all four Majors in a single year.

The Tiger Slam (if thats what want to call it) which is holding all four titles at once.

And the Career Grand Slam, which is winning all four of the course of a career.