Grand Slam...will we ever see it?

[turtleback]

2 things can be of equal difficulty but not equal likelihood and the whole slam issue is one of them.

I believe that the difficulty of winning a Tiger slam is the same as the difficulty of winning a single season slam.  But what is indisputable is that the single season slam is less likely because players only have 1/4th the number of opportunities to win the single season slam as to win a Tiger slam.

[Fourputt]

2 things can be of equal difficulty but not equal likelihood and the whole slam issue is one of them.

I believe that the difficulty of winning a Tiger slam is the same as the difficulty of winning a single season slam.  But what is indisputable is that the single season slam is less likely because players only have 1/4th the number of opportunities to win the single season slam as to win a Tiger slam.

And for that reason it isn't as difficult to get the Tiger slam.  The Grand Slam has to start by winning the Masters.  Period.  If you don't do that then the chance is gone.  That makes it a much more difficult accomplishment.  I think that Tiger's Slam is the closest we will ever see to a professional Grand Slam.

[Golfingdad]

And for that reason it isn't as difficult to get the Tiger slam.  The Grand Slam has to start by winning the Masters.  Period.  If you don't do that then the chance is gone.  That makes it a much more difficult accomplishment.  I think that Tiger's Slam is the closest we will ever see to a professional Grand Slam.

The reason I have a problem with people insisting that the Tiger Slam is not a Grand Slam is the underlying connotation that always accompanies the statement that a Grand Slam is somehow better.  "Well, Tiger sorta did it, but not in a calendar year."

The Tiger Slam required somebody to have a stretch where they were at the top of their game for about 9 1/2 months AND across as offseason.  How in the world could you make an argument that that is LESS impressive than being on a hot streak that lasts 4 1/2 months one summer?

I'll buy that they are of equal difficulty (not probability - I'll give you guys that one) but I don't think you can convince me that a Grand Slam is harder than Tiger's.

[iacas]

I'll buy that they are of equal difficulty (not probability - I'll give you guys that one) but I don't think you can convince me that a Grand Slam is harder than Tiger's.

Precisely.

I've used the word "difficult" to mean "hard" to achieve (primarily from a physical perspective), not "unlikely" to achieve from a probability standpoint.

[David in FL]

Precisely. I've used the word "difficult" to mean "hard" to achieve (primarily from a physical perspective), not "unlikely" to achieve from a probability standpoint.

And from a purely physical perspective, neither are more difficult than a career slam.

[iacas]

And from a purely physical perspective, neither are more difficult than a career slam.

I disagree.

It's much easier from a skill perspective to "have your A game" four times over 20-30 years or whatever than to maintain your "A game" for a period of time (whether it's 5.5 or 9.5 months - that's why MUBP ordering is the "easier" grand slam to achieve from a skill perspective - 5.5 months is less time than 9.5).

Never mind the fact that obtaining the "grand slam" (consecutive wins) is a subset of winning the career slam (because winning the grand slam will automatically mean you've won the career slam).

The career slam is both easier from a probability and a skill perspective.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

And for that reason it isn't as difficult to get the Tiger slam.  The Grand Slam has to start by winning the Masters.  Period.  If you don't do that then the chance is gone.  That makes it a much more difficult accomplishment.  I think that Tiger's Slam is the closest we will ever see to a professional Grand Slam.

The reason I have a problem with people insisting that the Tiger Slam is not a Grand Slam is the underlying connotation that always accompanies the statement that a Grand Slam is somehow better.  "Well, Tiger sorta did it, but not in a calendar year."

The Tiger Slam required somebody to have a stretch where they were at the top of their game for about 9 1/2 months AND across as offseason.  How in the world could you make an argument that that is LESS impressive than being on a hot streak that lasts 4 1/2 months one summer?

I'll buy that they are of equal difficulty (not probability - I'll give you guys that one) but I don't think you can convince me that a Grand Slam is harder than Tiger's.

Not really.  He still only has to hit the peaks on the right weeks, same as the Grand Slam.  Out of curiosity, how many other tournaments did Tiger win during that stretch?  Was he hot for the entire period?  Or did he just peak at the right times?

From now on, there is apparently no real off season, so that's no longer a factor (and the Masters is far enough into the season that rust shouldn't be a factor anyway).  Any way you look at it, it's still less likely to get a true single season Grand Slam than it is to get a Tiger Slam, and in my mind that's what makes it a more challenging task or goal.

[jamo]

Not really.  He still only has to hit the peaks on the right weeks, same as the Grand Slam.  Out of curiosity, how many other tournaments did Tiger win during that stretch?  Was he hot for the entire period?  Or did he just peak at the right times? From now on, there is apparently no real off season, so that's no longer a factor (and the Masters is far enough into the season that rust shouldn't be a factor anyway). Any way you look at it, it's still less likely to get a true single season Grand Slam than it is to get a Tiger Slam, and in my mind that's what makes it a more challenging task or goal.

That doesn't make it more challenging. It only only seems that way because you're lumping all non-single-year grand slams together. For instance, if there are four majors, there are four possibilities. Masters-US-British-PGA US-British-PGA-Masters British-PGA-Masters-US PGA-Masters-US-British None of them is explicitly more difficult than any other. If you've won four majors in a row, you've got a 25% chance of it being any one of those. You're lumping the last three together and saying that makes a non-single-season grand slam easier. A single-season grand slam is less likely than the bottom three combined, but not less likely than any one of the bottom three individually.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Not really.  He still only has to hit the peaks on the right weeks, same as the Grand Slam.  Out of curiosity, how many other tournaments did Tiger win during that stretch?  Was he hot for the entire period?  Or did he just peak at the right times?

From now on, there is apparently no real off season, so that's no longer a factor (and the Masters is far enough into the season that rust shouldn't be a factor anyway).  Any way you look at it, it's still less likely to get a true single season Grand Slam than it is to get a Tiger Slam, and in my mind that's what makes it a more challenging task or goal.

That doesn't make it more challenging. It only only seems that way because you're lumping all non-single-year grand slams together.

For instance, if there are four majors, there are four possibilities.

Masters-US-British-PGA

US-British-PGA-Masters

British-PGA-Masters-US

PGA-Masters-US-British

None of them is explicitly more difficult than any other. If you've won four majors in a row, you've got a 25% chance of it being any one of those.

You're lumping the last three together and saying that makes a non-single-season grand slam easier. A single-season grand slam is less likely than the bottom three combined, but not less likely than any one of the bottom three individually.

You aren't reading what I wrote.  I said it would be a more challenging task or goal, because it has to always start with winning the Masters.  The winning of each tournament is not going to be any easier or harder, but having to to it in exactly the right order makes it a more difficult overall challenge.  When you eliminate 3 options, it has to be a more difficult goal to set for yourself.

[hopefulhacker]

You aren't reading what I wrote.  I said it would be a more challenging task or goal, because it has to always start with winning the Masters.  The winning of each tournament is not going to be any easier or harder, but having to to it in exactly the right order makes it a more difficult overall challenge.  When you eliminate 3 options, it has to be a more difficult goal to set for yourself.

I agree with you, but I think it is a mute point as anyone capable of winning a Slam, is going to be aiming to win every major they enter..... BUT while they will go into each 4 thinking they can win, I would be shocked if any Pro had a goal to win all 4 in one calendar year as a specific goal/target... They are far too in the moment to be setting goals like that IMO. I don't think they would be deflated about missing out on the masters and somehow give up until the next season...not that you ever mention that, but the point kind of alludes to it. With regard having 9.5 months to win it, and having to be on top of your game for longer being more difficult as Iacas mentioned, that wouldn't be my thinking at all. If someone was to win 2 or 3 in one calendar year, then I think the additional time gives them the opportunity to focus even more than they would normally do so on a Slam (final major, or two, to complete it). They would have time to really think and adjust their schedule/preparation if the opportunity presented itself... And I think most Pro's would certainly take that time to focus in on them if that scenario presented itself.

[MS256]

That doesn't make it more challenging. It only only seems that way because you're lumping all non-single-year grand slams together.

For instance, if there are four majors, there are four possibilities.

Masters-US-British-PGA

US-British-PGA-Masters

British-PGA-Masters-US

PGA-Masters-US-British

None of them is explicitly more difficult than any other. If you've won four majors in a row, you've got a 25% chance of it being any one of those.

You're lumping the last three together and saying that makes a non-single-season grand slam easier. A single-season grand slam is less likely than the bottom three combined, but not less likely than any one of the bottom three individually.

Four ways to get a slam. Three ways to get a "Tiger slam" and one way to get a single year "Grand slam".

Both equally hard to accomplish because that individual has to win four straight Majors either way, but I'll put my money on seeing another Tiger slam at 3 to 1 over a single year Grand Slam because there are 3 chances at somebody starting a run at it every year.

[turtleback]

And for that reason it isn't as difficult to get the Tiger slam.  The Grand Slam has to start by winning the Masters.  Period.  If you don't do that then the chance is gone.  That makes it a much more difficult accomplishment.  I think that Tiger's Slam is the closest we will ever see to a professional Grand Slam.

I guess it depends on how you define difficult.  If you define it solely with respect to likelihood then you are correct.  I don't define it that way.

[Fourputt]

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt 

 

 

And for that reason it isn't as difficult to get the Tiger slam.  The Grand Slam has to start by winning the Masters.  Period.  If you don't do that then the chance is gone.  That makes it a much more difficult accomplishment.  I think that Tiger's Slam is the closest we will ever see to a professional Grand Slam.

I guess it depends on how you define difficult.  If you define it solely with respect to likelihood then you are correct.  I don't define it that way.

dif·fi·cult

 adjective \ˈdi-fi-(ˌ)kəlt\

: not easy : requiring much work or skill to do or make

: not easy to deal with or manage

: not willing to help others by changing your behavior : stubborn or unreasonable

 

Full Definition of DIFFICULT

1

:  hard to do, make, or carry out :  arduous 

2

a :  hard to deal with, manage, or overcome 

 

b :  hard to understand :  puzzling 

Two definitions apply to this discussion.  "Not easy to manage" for my use of the word, meaning that the Grand Slam is more difficult than the Tiger slam due to the added necessity of having to start with the Masters.

And "stubborn or unreasonable" applies to all of us who continue to worry a bone which is mostly irrelevant since it's beyond unlikely that we will ever see either slam again.

[turtleback]

And "stubborn or unreasonable" applies to all of us who continue to worry a bone which is mostly irrelevant since it's beyond unlikely that we will ever see either slam again.

That is the first time I ever saw you admit to being stubborn and unreasonable.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

And "stubborn or unreasonable" applies to all of us who continue to worry a bone which is mostly irrelevant since it's beyond unlikely that we will ever see either slam again.

That is the first time I ever saw you admit to being stubborn and unreasonable.

Stubborn OR unreasonable.  I admit to a stubborn streak, and that applies in this case.  I don't see my point as unreasonable though.