Tiger's Slam - A Grand Achievement?

[misty_mountainhop]

...

You are telling me that because Hogan happen to win the first three, that his three Majors wins are more impressive than Tiger's 3 major wins in 2000? That is just absurd. Adding a time frame to it is a cheap trick. It's like ESPN trying to drive a story line so they can get more people to watch.

No, I'm not saying that at all.

If he manages that 2 putt then maybe something else happens to derail him.  As long as we are talking about things that didn't happen, we can speculate both positive and negative.  Monday morning quarterbacking is fun, but essentially meaningless.

It's not a "lofty goal".  It's not simply hard to achieve, it's like standing on top of Mt. Everest and thinking you can hit the moon with a BB gun.  In the more than 75 years that the feat has been possible, nobody has won more than 3 of the 4 majors in a calendar year.  With the dilution of opportunity due to relative parity in the upper 25% of golf rankings, it is markedly less likely that anyone would win all 4 in a calendar year now than it has ever been, and it's obviously never been very likely, since it's never been done.

Hanging a carrot out of reach of a donkey to make it pull a cart may have been a stroke of genius for the cartman, but then a donkey is really not that bright.  Are golfers that stupid too?  Or are they just that egotistical (a trait which can manifest itself as stupidity) to think that they have a better chance than the Hall of Fame greats who have tried and failed for the last 75+ years?

We at least do know that holding all 4 titles at one time is possible because it has been done.  Talking about holding them all in one season is still in the realm of science fiction.

You miss the point about the 2-putt. I was simply trying to use it to point out just how close he was to holding all 3 of this year's Majors played so far.

Just because you can't see a pure GS being achieved isn't a strong point is it? I'm pretty sure you would have said, before Woods arrived on the scene with such a bang, that simply holding all 4 at one time was also impossible.....and yet he did it.

[jgreen85]

Just because you can't see a pure GS being achieved isn't a strong point is it? I'm pretty sure you would have said, before Woods arrived on the scene with such a bang, that simply holding all 4 at one time was also impossible.....and yet he did it.

and some in this thread have argued the Tiger Slam is even harder than the Grand Slam.

[iacas]

It came damn near to happening in 1971/72, when Jack held 3 of the trophies and was playing for the fourth.  So back in 1972 were you rooting for Jack to win the British Open so he would have a Grand Slam??

Was I rooting for something six years before I was born? Uhhhhmmmmm, no.

If you want to call Tiger's slam a Grand Slam, fine.  But let's be honest about the change in what Grand Slam meant prior to 2000 and now. You can tell me all about what you think the definition is, but unless you an show me that prior to 2000 you had that same definition it is kind of meaningless.

I don't know that I had a definition prior to 2000 (why would I? Nobody had come close…), but I definitely know (I remember talking to people in college about it and having this same debate) that I defined it as "holding all four major trophies having won them consecutively" prior to April, 2001.

And too many people on the yes side ignore the fact that prior to 2000 NO ONE considered anything other than a calendar slam a Grand Slam. At least no one did it in serious writing.

Because it had barely ever been approached. The guys who went to the British Open didn't win it. Hogan being the exception, but technically the PGA finished up before the British Open, so he didn't even win three consecutive majors. (I'm not looking that up - they said it on "Live From" one night.)

I think it is telling that you literally only need to put "Tiger Woods" in the name of a thread to get tons of traffic on this website...

True of any golf site. Tiger is the only needle-mover in the game. Some others move the needle a little bit… but not like Tiger.

How about the FACT that it is impossible to find any serious discussion of a Grand Slam prior to 2000 that was talking about something OTHER than a calendar year slam?

Again, almost nobody had even gotten close to it. Not in the modern age (i.e. when we had The Internet). Even in 1996 very few people were online… let alone 1972 or whatever. So it was just the media, and even very little of that media is online nowadays.

And let's not forget that Rory won the final two majors last year and yet no one was really hyped about the possibility of a Grand Slam at this year's Masters. Why was the hype level so different between Spieth at this year's British and Rory at this year's Masters. If we accept this new definition of Grand Slam as any 4 consecutive majors, then why would there be such a huge difference in hype levels?

I don't know how you quantify the difference in hype, but I don't know that there was much of a fall-off in hype. As soon as Rory won the British Open they were already talking about him completing the CAREER slam (and then he happened to win the PGA). I'd have called it a Grand Slam if he'd have won the Masters and U.S. Open. And we'd be able to discuss whether the Tiger and Rory Slams were actually GRAND slams. Spoiler alert: I'd vote the same way.

I am not going to call anyone a liar, but I will personally be shocked if anyone can come up with any objective indication that they thought 4 consecutive majors was a Grand slam prior to 2000.

I said it prior to April, 2001. I remember Nick Price and being excited about the 1995 Masters. I also remember being excited in 2008… about the return of Tiger. Paddy was a weird Irish dude who had never played great at Augusta National.

And everyone is STILL IGNORING the FACT that players have 3 times as many opportunities to win a consecutive slam than they do to win a calendar slam.  To win a consecutive slam there is added pressure only on 3 of the majors, since there is no added pressure for the first one - lose it and start over at the next major.  But for a Grand Slam there is added pressure on all four majors, because lose the Masters and you have to wait a whole year for your next chance.

In his peak, 1997 through 2008, Tiger had 11 chances to win the Grand Slam (cannot count 2008).  In the same time period he had 27 chances to win a consecutive slam.  Clearly one has a lower chance of happening.

This is where I get off, though.

Restricting it to the calendar year is like requiring that you shoot 65 in the third round of the second major. It's an arbitrary thing that has no bearing on the actual athletic achievement required to win it . It's just a probability thing. As others said, you could win six majors in a row but if you didn't start with the Masters, you don't get a "Grand Slam"? That's not because you lacked the athletic results to get it done, it's just because you happened to start winning four to six majors in a row at the wrong time? That's dumb. Yeah, that's my opinion, and you can think it's not dumb, and that's fine… but the athletic achievement is basically the same. We could debate whether one is athletically more difficult or the other is, but I don't care - they're all very, very, very difficult.

That's probably part of the reason why I call "four in a row" a "Grand Slam." What are we gonna do - call the next guy who wins four in a row but not in the same calendar year a "Tiger Slam"? If Rory had won the Masters and U.S. Open this year we'd call it a Tiger Slam?

Why? It's winning four majors in a row, and it's just as difficult (to within a fairly small degree, possibly more difficult but again a very small amount) as doing them in the calendar year athletically (not probability)… so let's just use the term we've already got.

Definitions can and do change. Literally!*

* BTW, the official definitions of the word "literally" now includes situations that are the opposite of the historically accepted definition.

On THAT issue, I have far, far stronger feelings than this "Grand Slam" stuff.

[mvmac]

As others said, you could win six majors in a row but if you didn't start with the Masters, you don't get a "Grand Slam"? That's not because you lacked the athletic results to get it done, it's just because you happened to start winning four to six majors in a row at the wrong time? That's dumb.

I know some were swayed by the probability point but I hope they consider the above.

[MyrtleBeachGolf]

Not that it's possible, but if a horse lost the ky derby, won the next two, and COULD and did run the derby the next year~winning it. Would you call the horse a triple crown winner?

I brought this exact point up, 13 pages ago, and someone actually replied yes, the horse would be a triple crown winner in their eyes. Smh.

[jgreen85]

I know some were swayed by the probability point but I hope they consider the above.

I don't see why that's a problem. A guy can have 50, 100, 200 double eagles, but can never claim a "hole in one." It is what it is.

I also doubt anyone would dispute that achievement is miles better than the Grand Slam.

[Mac62]

So by the reckoning of a few of you, a player could literally win 6 majors in a row and you still wouldn't give him the grand slam.  Such a shame that you are so stuck on an arbitrary tag invented by the news media.

Yep.  Same way a football team could win 16 games in a row and have two consecutive .500 seasons (8 games at the end of one season, 8 games at the beginning of the next season), rather than it being considered an undefeated (16-0) season.

[Golfingdad]

Yep.  Same way a football team could win 16 games in a row and have two consecutive .500 seasons (8 games at the end of one season, 8 games at the beginning of the next season), rather than it being considered an undefeated (16-0) season.

Yes, because regular season NFL games relative importance is exactly analogous to the 4 most important golf tournaments in the world.

[Mac62]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mac62

Yep.  Same way a football team could win 16 games in a row and have two consecutive .500 seasons (8 games at the end of one season, 8 games at the beginning of the next season), rather than it being considered an undefeated (16-0) season.

Yes, because regular season NFL games relative importance is exactly analogous to the 4 most important golf tournaments in the world.

Strawman.  Anybody who watches football realizes that regular season NFL games (or rather, the overall win-loss record at the end of the season) are very important.  If you go 8-8, you most likely miss the postseason - which means you have exactly zero chance of winning the Super Bowl, which is the most important game in the NFL world.  Similarly (IMO), if you go 3-1 in Majors over a golf season, it was a great run and you won a lot of money - but you didn't accomplish the Grand Slam.  If you go 1-3 the following season, you won some more money, but you still didn't accomplish the Grand Slam.

When I see a golfer awarded the FedEx Cup for his wins/points that occur across two seasons, I'll be convinced that the "season" isn't a relevant term in golf.  Also, the definition of "Grand Slam" quoted earlier in the thread from PGA.com seems to point toward the calendar year being relevant to the definition in at least somebody's eyes (the PGA's, no less).

[bigaluno]

voted yes.

For me, the grand slam is the achievement of the player to hold them all at the same time. The grand slam, for me, isn't about what you can win between January and December its about winning and holding all the majors at the same time, the next time its played you no longer hold that major (unless the same player defends it obviously)

I hate all this calendar year stuff, and I don't mean to offend anyone but I know bobby jones's achievements were fantastic and his player record was exceptional for the time, but I still believe tigers wins were tougher and the dominance he showed was unreal. Jordan speith looked like he was getting in the zone but I think that missed putt for the double bogey on the 12th? (please correct) showed the tiny crack in the armour. interesting debate tho

[14ledo81]

So far I have not seen anyone argue that the "non-calendar year" grand slam is easier (other than @turtleback 's probability standpoint).  I don't think anyone that is arguing against calling it a grand slam is trying to belittle what happened.

What is wrong with just noting that the "grand slam" occurred in a calendar or it did not?

[David in FL]

I didn't say it had - I'm saying that it SHOULD.  As long as we have people like you who refuse to revise their archaic thinking, we will be stuck with this impossible goal in the game, and what should be the game's biggest honor will never, ever be won by anyone.  That isn't a goal, it's a fantasy.

Because something has never happened, it never could? :-\ [quote name="14ledo81" url="/t/83344/tigers-slam-a-grand-achievement/270#post_1174010"]So far I have not seen anyone argue that the "non-calendar year" grand slam is easier (other than @turtleback 's probability standpoint).  I don't think anyone that is arguing against calling it a grand slam is trying to belittle what happened. What is wrong with just noting that the "grand slam" occurred in a calendar or it did not? [/quote] What's wrong with saying that someone held the title to all 4 majors at the same time and leave it at that?

[saevel25]

And everyone is STILL IGNORING the FACT that players have 3 times as many opportunities to win a consecutive slam than they do to win a calendar slam.  To win a consecutive slam there is added pressure only on 3 of the majors, since there is no added pressure for the first one - lose it and start over at the next major.  But for a Grand Slam there is added pressure on all four majors, because lose the Masters and you have to wait a whole year for your next chance.

You ignore the fact that all of those 4 opportunities are more or less nearly equally likely to happen.

It's equally hard to win Masters to PGA as it is to win The Open to the US Open. They are four majors you have to win in a row. There are four chances for them to happen. To choose one of those chances and claim it is special is absurd.

[nevets88]

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback

And everyone is STILL IGNORING the FACT that players have 3 times as many opportunities to win a consecutive slam than they do to win a calendar slam.  To win a consecutive slam there is added pressure only on 3 of the majors, since there is no added pressure for the first one - lose it and start over at the next major.  But for a Grand Slam there is added pressure on all four majors, because lose the Masters and you have to wait a whole year for your next chance.

You ignore the fact that all of those 4 opportunities are more or less nearly equally likely to happen.

It's equally hard to win Masters to PGA as it is to win The Open to the US Open. They are four majors you have to win in a row. There are four chances for them to happen. To choose one of those chances and claim it is special is absurd.

To add, I would think it would be harder to win with the winter holiday breaking up the momentum and having to make yourself peak next spring. Whereas with a calendar year slam, you're maintaining your momentum within ~140 days versus ~330 days for non calendar consecutive 4. There's ~210 days between the PGA and the next Masters. That's a lot of time to cool off. A lot of time for the vicissitudes of life, on and off the course, to happen.

As for the added pressure of winning a calendar GS in the Masters, imho, I bet they're thinking in the now, just win this current major. That's enough to fill the mind. That's getting way ahead of themselves and thinking that's too big, even for their britches. I even doubt anyone is thinking about a calendar slam in the second major. I don't remember reading any articles before the USO - "Can Spieth win leg number 2 to get the calendar slam?", if there were, it's linkbait/trolling.

[David in FL]

You ignore the fact that all of those 4 opportunities are more or less nearly equally likely to happen.  It's equally hard to win Masters to PGA as it is to win The Open to the US Open. They are four majors you have to win in a row. There are four chances for them to happen. To choose one of those chances and claim it is special is absurd.

Not at all. The relative difficulty of each Major isn't the issue, it's the simple statistical likelihood of the accomplishment given the number of attempts. Every time a player tees it up in a Major, he's beginning another opportunity to win 4 in a row. Every time a player wins a major, he's a quarter of the way there. Without factoring in qualifying for the individual Majors themselves, a player with a 20 year career on the PGA tour, may have as many as 80 opportunities to win that first in the series of 4, and thus an opportunity to win them all. On a calendar year basis, he has at most 20 chances. Give me 80 shots to try to hole out a 100 yard pitch and I'll have a much better chance of doing so, than if I only have 20 shots. Doesn't mean it's going to happen, but it's much more likely.

[Gunther]

To add, I would think it would be harder to win with the winter holiday breaking up the momentum and having to make yourself peak next spring. Whereas with a calendar year slam, you're maintaining your momentum within ~140 days versus ~330 days for non calendar consecutive 4. There's ~210 days between the PGA and the next Masters. That's a lot of time to cool off. A lot of time for the vicissitudes of life, on and off the course, to happen. As for the added pressure of winning a calendar GS in the Masters, imho, I bet they're thinking in the now, just win this current major. That's enough to fill the mind. That's getting way ahead of themselves and thinking that's too big, even for their britches. I even doubt anyone is thinking about a calendar slam in the second major. I don't remember reading any articles before the USO - "Can Spieth win leg number 2 of a calendar slam?", if there were, it's linkbait/trolling.

To your 2nd point, there is talk every year at the US Open about the Master's winner being the only one in the field capable of winning the Grand Slam. Not something that is dwelt on but certainly it is broached each and every US Open. But, to Turtle's point, no one will even mention Zach's ability to win the Grand Slam at the PGA next month.

[Abu3baid]

Here is an article regarding Rory coming into the Masters this year.

Career Grand Slam - PGA.com

Obviously they are making a clear distinction between the two, now notice how they talk about it with JS coming into St. Andrews this year.

Grand Slam - PGA.com

Even though Spieth is the odds-on favorite this week at St. Andrews, odds are against him as he goes after the third leg of the Grand Slam. The first indicator is that no one has ever done this since Palmer came up with the concept of a modern Grand Slam in 1960.

There is a reason they are calling it the "third" leg of the Grand Slam because it starts with a win at the Masters, while for Rory they acknowledge that he is trying to be only the 6th player to win a career Grand Slam.

---

How about from our own TST forum? From the Masters 2015 thread

Thanks for the clarification.  I have not heard that April fool's joke.

Going back to the topic, I hope Rory is not putting too much pressure on himself by wanting to win it so badly.  He needs to just relax and play his own game.  It seems when he gets tense, his driver tends to duck-hook (ditto for me).

Here's hoping Rory completes his career Grand Slam or Ricky Fowler (not Barnes) winning his first major.  Heck it would be great if those two duel it out on the back nine come Sunday.

Can't remember a pre-Masters with so many great storylines going in:

- Tiger Woods back

- Rory McIlroy going for the Career Grand Slam and 3rd major in a row.

- Bubba playing well and with a legitimate shot at his 3rd green jacket in 4 years.

- Jordan Spieth playing his best golf thus far of his career and a chance to really take over as the face of golf in America.

- Phil Mickelson going into Augusta in great form.

[nevets88]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nevets88

To add, I would think it would be harder to win with the winter holiday breaking up the momentum and having to make yourself peak next spring. Whereas with a calendar year slam, you're maintaining your momentum within ~140 days versus ~330 days for non calendar consecutive 4. There's ~210 days between the PGA and the next Masters. That's a lot of time to cool off. A lot of time for the vicissitudes of life, on and off the course, to happen.

As for the added pressure of winning a calendar GS in the Masters, imho, I bet they're thinking in the now, just win this current major. That's enough to fill the mind. That's getting way ahead of themselves and thinking that's too big, even for their britches. I even doubt anyone is thinking about a calendar slam in the second major. I don't remember reading any articles before the USO - "Can Spieth win leg number 2 of a calendar slam?", if there were, it's linkbait/trolling.

To your 2nd point, there is talk every year at the US Open about the Master's winner being the only one in the field capable of winning the Grand Slam. Not something that is dwelt on but certainly it is broached each and every US Open. But, to Turtle's point, no one will even mention Zach's ability to win the Grand Slam at the PGA next month.

The USO is less than 2 months away. It's a no brainer piece to write. I bet there's a template piece where you fill in the blanks. Lots of people forget who won last year's PGA and are so happy to be out of the winter doldrums, the focus is just on the Masters. And the media seems to be propping up the calendar slam. I'm sure there will be as many mentions of the last major winner going for his second consecutive major, which while not acknowledging a calendar slam, is acknowledging the difficulty and rarity of winning two in a row.