Tiger's Slam - A Grand Achievement?

[saevel25]

But there was Grand Slam buzz for Jordan even though he hadn't won the third one yet.  If they are the same, why was there so much talk about Jordan's possible GS bid and none for Rory's??

Maybe because the media has no clue that winning a the Masters to the PGA is no different than winning the other ones in consecutive order.

Heck, a lot of the golfing world thought the ball started were your aligned your body. Just because everyone thinks its right doesn't make it right.

That is the thing you guys have not and probably cannot explain.  If a slam starting with the BO is the same as one starting with the Masters, why was there so much GS hype for Jordan and no GS hype for Rory (and none for Phil in 2005).  Twist and turn all you want.  But unless and until you can convincingly explain it, I will continue to believe that most of the people who voted yes in the poll do not really believe it enough that it made them really think Rory was going for a possible Grand Slam bid at this years Masters.  (I mean, maybe they did think that, but it is strange to think that someone would think that Rory was going for a Grand Slam but never bother mentioning it. - again, contrast the hype leading up to this year's BO)  And is the result, IMO, of a misguided and unneeded attempt to puff Tiger's record.  And I say this as a committed fanboy of Tiger's.

So you are basically saying as long as the masses say it is, then it must be true? People thought the world was flat for centuries.

I believe it enough, because I understand how difficult it is to win a major. I understand that just because in one instance someone could win them in the same year, doing so doesn't make it special to the point it deserves it's own title. Just because the sports media decides it to be doesn't mean it's the correct way to think it as.

[turtleback]

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback

But there was Grand Slam buzz for Jordan even though he hadn't won the third one yet.  If they are the same, why was there so much talk about Jordan's possible GS bid and none for Rory's??

Maybe because the media has not clue that winning a the Masters to the PGA is no different than winning the other ones in consecutive order.

Heck, a lot of the golfing world thought the ball started were your aligned your body. Just because everyone thinks its right doesn't make it right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback

That is the thing you guys have not and probably cannot explain.  If a slam starting with the BO is the same as one starting with the Masters, why was there so much GS hype for Jordan and no GS hype for Rory (and none for Phil in 2005).  Twist and turn all you want.  But unless and until you can convincingly explain it, I will continue to believe that most of the people who voted yes in the poll do not really believe it enough that it made them really think Rory was going for a possible Grand Slam bid at this years Masters.  (I mean, maybe they did think that, but it is strange to think that someone would think that Rory was going for a Grand Slam but never bother mentioning it. - again, contrast the hype leading up to this year's BO)  And is the result, IMO, of a misguided and unneeded attempt to puff Tiger's record.  And I say this as a committed fanboy of Tiger's.

So you are basically saying as long as the masses say it is, then it must be true? People thought the world was flat for centuries.

I believe it enough, because I understand how difficult it is to win a major. I understand that just because in one instance someone could win them in the same year, doing so doesn't make it special to the point it deserves it's own title. Just because the sports media decides it to be doesn't mean it's the correct way to think it as.

When your "arguments" descend to this level of silliness there is no longer any point in engaging.  Show me the post where you said Rory was going for (specifically) a Grand Slam.  I think you are arguing for something for which you are completely unable to demonstrate your prior belief when other analogous situations arose.  Until you do so the only response you can expect from me is:

Show me the posts

[saevel25]

When your "arguments" descend to this level of silliness there is no longer any point in engaging.  Show me the post where you said Rory was going for (specifically) a Grand Slam.  I think you are arguing for something for which you are completely unable to demonstrate your prior belief when other analogous situations arose.  Until you do so the only response you can expect from me is:

Show me the posts

Again I said there isn't if you read my earlier post. Again there isn't any for Spieth either. So your claim there doesn't matter. To quote you, it's just silly to require any previous posts on the matter.

Prior belief doesn't need to be warranted to argue for something. Beliefs are formed and changed as experiences happen. Beliefs and opinions can change in an instance. See the few people who have stated they changed their vote in this thread from yes to no or vice versa.

Even if this thread is the first serious discussion ever on what is to be considered a Grand Slam. I can still take my opinion as I stated above. Still the fact remains you have stated nothing of significance that points to naming the four consecutive wins from The Masters to the PGA should be considered the Grand Slam over the other 3 ways you can have four consecutive wins of the majors.

The only fact you have is the misguided treatment of the term Grand Slam by other people.

[David in FL]

You're starting with the assertion that a Slam starting with the Masters is inherently different, and then trying to prove it through statistics.

Not at all.

I've only asserted that simple probability and statistics show that you're more likely to accomplish something if you're given 4 times as many tries at it.  I've said many times that any one "Slam" is no easier or more difficult than any other single "Slam".  But that's not the issue.  It's the likelihood of achieving one specific "Slam" compared to the likelihood of achieving any one of the other 3.

You can't clump a Slam starting with the U.S. Open with a PGA slam as if they're the same thing. They're not.

So there is a difference between a Slam that begins with a U.S. Open, and one that begins with the PGA....?   Sorry, but now I'm confused as to your point.....

[mvmac]

Maybe because the media has no clue that winning a the Masters to the PGA is no different than winning the other ones in consecutive order.

Golfers/people, especially on this site, disagree with the media all the time, yet when it comes to the grand slam having to occur in the same year, "that's the way it is", like it's written in the Rules of Golf or something.

Also, TST counts as media, we get 2 million page views a month, provide content and get media credentials at tournaments. We have several staff members that agree with the "four in a row" definition of the grand slam. So there is no consensus in the media about the definition

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback

When your "arguments" descend to this level of silliness there is no longer any point in engaging.  Show me the post where you said Rory was going for (specifically) a Grand Slam.  I think you are arguing for something for which you are completely unable to demonstrate your prior belief when other analogous situations arose.  Until you do so the only response you can expect from me is:

Show me the posts

Again I said there isn't if you read my earlier post. Again there isn't any for Spieth either. So your claim there doesn't matter. To quote you, it's just silly to require any previous posts on the matter.

Prior belief doesn't need to be warranted to argue for something. Beliefs are formed and changed as experiences happen. Beliefs and opinions can change in an instance. See the few people who have stated they changed their vote in this thread from yes to no or vice versa.

Even if this thread is the first serious discussion ever on what is to be considered a Grand Slam. I can still take my opinion as I stated above. Still the fact remains you have stated nothing of significance that points to naming the four consecutive wins from The Masters to the PGA should be considered the Grand Slam over the other 3 ways you can have four consecutive wins of the majors.

The only fact you have is the misguided treatment of the term Grand Slam by other people.

Why this constant need to see "the posts"?  They aren't there because we didn't make them.  I didn't make any this year for Spieth either.  So what?  I won't make any predictions the next time someone wins two consecutively either.  How that validates TB's viewpoint I have no idea, but if he wants to believe it does then so be it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25

Maybe because the media has no clue that winning a the Masters to the PGA is no different than winning the other ones in consecutive order.

Golfers/people, especially on this site, disagree with the media all the time, yet when it comes to the grand slam having to occur in the same year, "that's the way it is", like it's written in the Rules of Golf or something.

Also, TST counts as media, we get 2 million page views a month, provide content and get media credentials at tournaments. We have several staff members that agree with the "four in a row" definition of the grand slam. So there is no consensus in the media about the definition

Yep.  The only consensus is in the heads of those who believe it.  For me, the grand slam is simply holding all four titles at one time.  Holding all four in the same calendar year may add icing in the minds of some, but as an accomplishment, the only difference is in the timing, and that adds nothing pertinent to the difficulty of the feat.  The fact that Spieth didn't even get to 3 in a row, despite the advantage of the number one player in the world sitting at home in a cast, says to me that we need to really appreciate what has occurred in the past and not place such a high premium on something which is really no more than an accident of timing.

Even those players who only achieved a half slam should be lauded, and anyone who makes it 3 in a row (3/4 slam?) are in a class by themselves.

[jgreen85]

Golfers/people, especially on this site, disagree with the media all the time, yet when it comes to the grand slam having to occur in the same year, "that's the way it is", like it's written in the Rules of Golf or something.

Also, TST counts as media, we get 2 million page views a month, provide content and get media credentials at tournaments. We have several staff members that agree with the "four in a row" definition of the grand slam. So there is no consensus in the media about the definition

except TST was in alignment with the rest of the media in not claiming Rory was going for 3rd leg of the "grand slam." Your staff members did not cover Rory's attempt at the Masters as going for the 3rd leg of the slam, which should have gotten significantly more coverage than "career grand slam." I think we all agree a career grand slam should not be in the same discussion with a Grand Slam or a Tiger Slam. There is media (TST included) consensus: Rory was not going for the Grand Slam and Jordan was.

TST can be changing its mind, which is fine, state it as such. TST wants to change the definition of Grand Slam to winning 4 majors in a row, again state it as such.

[Golfingdad]

except TST was in alignment with the rest of the media in not claiming Rory was going for 3rd leg of the "grand slam." Your staff members did not cover Rory's attempt at the Masters as going for the 3rd leg of the slam, which should have gotten significantly more coverage than "career grand slam." I think we all agree a career grand slam should not be in the same discussion with a Grand Slam or a Tiger Slam. There is media (TST included) consensus: Rory was not going for the Grand Slam and Jordan was.

TST can be changing its mind, which is fine, state it as such. TST wants to change the definition of Grand Slam to winning 4 majors in a row, again state it as such.

How does them NOT talking about something "prove" what their opinions on it were?

[Aflighter]

You are saying if Spieth won the Masters first then he would have a harder time winning the next three tournaments? So if you want to win consecutive majors you need to skip the Masters and just focus on starting with the other three?  It isn't harder to win, it just occurs lest often. People want to make this way of winning the same four tournaments more special when it isn't.  What if by some slim chance the PGA decides to make The Masters the last tournament in the season. Lets say the golfing season starts March 1st. Tiger's Slam becomes a Grand Slam. See how arbitrary it is to define a Grand Slam by a time frame.  Now suddenly Tiger's Slam becomes more important?  I like it :)

When I mean harder I mean its harder to win the 4 consecutive majors starting with the masters than it is just to win 4 consecutive starting with anyone because like has been said you get more chances.Kinda like its harder to par your first 4 holes in a row compared to parring 4 in a row during the rest of the round because you would have to start over the round.I see the grand slam as something that has to happen during the season and not won between seasons.But thats just my opinion and if I was a tiger fan then id probably think it was because thats way people think.I personally think Hogan was best ever play game and the amount of majors he won in the shorter amount of attempts should say alot for that but thats me being a hogan homer instead of a tiger homer.

[rkim291968]

Some of you are splitting hairs on this.   Winning 4 majors in a row is equally hard no matter which one you start with (Master, US Open, etc).   Winning 4 in the same season is "rarer," not necessary harder, than winning any 4 straight.    Harder does not mean rarer.

[turtleback]

I changed some minds, which is way more than usually happens in an internet discussion, so I will be content with that.  We have now reached the point where reasonability has gone out the window and there is no  point in continuing.

Anyone who wants to contend that the golf world treats a Tiger slam the same as a Grand Slam is free to continue deluding themselves.

[porc]

The calendar year is obviously not irrelevant. It is harder to achieve a Grand Slam this way, because there are less chances to do so.

[jamo]

Not at all. I've only asserted that simple probability and statistics show that you're more likely to accomplish something if you're given 4 times as many tries at it.  I've said many times that any one "Slam" is no easier or more difficult than any other single "Slam".  But that's not the issue.  It's the likelihood of achieving one specific "Slam" compared to the likelihood of achieving any one of the other 3. So there is a difference between a Slam that begins with a U.S. Open, and one that begins with the PGA....?   Sorry, but now I'm confused as to your point.....

Four Slams. You've got a 25% chance of winning any one of them. Masters -> U.S. Open -> British -> PGA U.S. Open -> British -> PGA -> Masters British -> PGA -> Masters -> U.S. Open PGA -> Masters -> U.S. Open -> British The only reason you're grouping the last three is because of the calendar. So you're not "proving" anything with these probabilities, you're just taking your baseline opinion (that there's something "special" about a Slam that starts with the Masters) and manipulating the percentages to back that baseline up. If you don't start with the mindset that a Slam beginning with the Masters means anything special, then the probabilities don't bear out that there's anything special about a Slam that begins with the Masters.

[mvmac]

except TST was in alignment with the rest of the media in not claiming Rory was going for 3rd leg of the "grand slam." Your staff members did not cover Rory's attempt at the Masters as going for the 3rd leg of the slam, which should have gotten significantly more coverage than "career grand slam." I think we all agree a career grand slam should not be in the same discussion with a Grand Slam or a Tiger Slam. There is media (TST included) consensus: Rory was not going for the Grand Slam and Jordan was.

The third leg of a potential "Rory Slam" also wasn't covered by the media. Rory had to win the Masters to complete his career slam, so that would have been the bigger story.

Agree with what @Golfingdad just said in trying to prove a negative.

TST can be changing its mind, which is fine, state it as such. TST wants to change the definition of Grand Slam to winning 4 majors in a row, again state it as such.

I said several staff members, not all of them. @tristanhilton85 voted "No" and I don't know the opinions of others.

[Golfingdad]

The third leg of a potential "Rory Slam" also wasn't covered by the media. Rory had to win the Masters to complete his career slam, so that would have been the bigger story.

Right.  All that the "talk" then being about a career slam proves is that the career slam is a really, really big deal.  It doesn't mean that a grand slam or a "rory slam" or whatever is less of a big deal, but the career slam is huge.  And the most important distinction there is that he was already only one win away from said career slam, and he was only halfway to the grand or "grand" slam.

Rest assured, had Rory won the Masters, the hype for him going for 4 in a row (regardless of what you want to call it) coming into the US Open would have been through the roof.

Oh, and one last minor point ... had Spieth won last week, and then pulled off the slam next month, I would actually give him a little more credit than Tiger; but not because they occurred in the same calendar year, but rather because they would have been his FIRST four majors.  That's really cool.

Alas, it wasn't to be.

[jgreen85]

Right.  All that the "talk" then being about a career slam proves is that the career slam is a really, really big deal.  It doesn't mean that a grand slam or a "rory slam" or whatever is less of a big deal, but the career slam is huge.  And the most important distinction there is that he was already only one win away from said career slam, and he was only halfway to the grand or "grand" slam.

Rest assured, had Rory won the Masters, the hype for him going for 4 in a row (regardless of what you want to call it) coming into the US Open would have been through the roof.

Oh, and one last minor point ... had Spieth won last week, and then pulled off the slam next month, I would actually give him a little more credit than Tiger; but not because they occurred in the same calendar year, but rather because they would have been his FIRST four majors.  That's really cool.

Alas, it wasn't to be.

Wow, career grand slam is a bigger story than the grand slam; wow; that's, that's, that's.....sigh.

I'm with turtleback " We have now reached the point where reasonability has gone out the window and there is no point in continuing."

[Ernest Jones]

It's a moot point, Tiger will win all 4 next year starting with Augusta. I'll bet Rick Martin's house on it!

[mvmac]

Wow, career grand slam is a bigger story than the grand slam; wow; that's, that's, that's.....sigh.

At that time, yes because he could have gotten it done that week.

If Rory won at Augusta then the focus would have been grand slam/Rory slam.