Tiger's Slam - A Grand Achievement?

[iacas]

I contend that if you hold the title of all four majors you've won the grand slam. The calendar year is irrelevant and arbitrary.

Tiger won the modern day Grand Slam already. Heck I could make the case it was tougher. He won it over 10 months not just 5.

[MyrtleBeachGolf]

By definition, you must win all 4 in the same calendar year. If the PGA Tour doesn't consider the Tiger Slam an official Grand Slam, then neither do I.

[iacas]

By definition, you must win all 4 in the same calendar year. If the PGA Tour doesn't consider the Tiger Slam an official Grand Slam, then neither do I.

I disagree that that's the "definition."

I define it as "winning all four majors in a row." The "calendar year" is an arbitrary, pointless thing.

Consider the definition of "career grand slam," which clearly doesn't have a silly limit like that. That just requires that you win four, in any order you want, over any period of time. Heck… Tiger won the "career grand slam" in four consecutive events!

[saevel25]

By definition, you must win all 4 in the same calendar year. If the PGA Tour doesn't consider the Tiger Slam an official Grand Slam, then neither do I.

I found it kinda stupid they say calendar year, yet the PGA Tour recently changed that the golfing season doesn't follow the calendar year. I believe now PGA Tour season starts in October.

I agree with Erik, that definition is silly. There is no significant change in the overall meaningfulness of having all four majors in your possession at one time just by considering it during a calendar year or not. The fact is you have to win 4 majors in a row and Tiger did that.

[jamo]

By definition, you must win all 4 in the same calendar year. If the PGA Tour doesn't consider the Tiger Slam an official Grand Slam, then neither do I.

The PGA Tour puts on as many major tournaments a year as I do, therefore we both have equal input into the definition of a Grand Slam.

[Gunther]

Tiger's achievement was singular and tremendous but it was not a grand slam, as has been defined for 100 years or so. 4 in the same year would be a more, albeit slightly, impressive feat.

[jbishop15]

By definition, you must win all 4 in the same calendar year. If the PGA Tour doesn't consider the Tiger Slam an official Grand Slam, then neither do I.

PGA Tour also says Sam Snead's team wins count towards his official Tour win record.

[RJH999]

Well **** yeah it was.

[iacas]

Tiger's achievement was singular and tremendous but it was not a grand slam, as has been defined for 100 years or so. 4 in the same year would be a more, albeit slightly, impressive feat.

100 years ago there was no Masters or PGA Championship, and I'd have called what Bobby Jones did if he won four consecutive "majors" (for the time) at the same time too. Even against those super weak fields… :D

Furthermore, again, I could make the case that winning four consecutive majors across eight or nine months is the more impressive feat than doing so over four or five months. It's easier to get "hot" for a shorter period of time.

[Gunther]

100 years ago there was no Masters or PGA Championship.

Pardon? What does that have to do with the definition of grand slam? Bobby Jones won the grand slam back then, 4 majors of the time in the same year.

[iacas]

Pardon? What does that have to do with the description of grand slam?

It illustrates that the definition is pliable and subject to change.

After all, we still have the U.S. Am, the British Am, and the two Opens. Yet a player who wins those won't be considered today to win the "grand slam" (whether in one calendar year or not).

[saevel25]

Tiger's achievement was singular and tremendous but it was not a grand slam, as has been defined for 100 years or so. 4 in the same year would be a more, albeit slightly, impressive feat.

Really? When did Bobby Jones with The Master's and the PGA championship in the same year he won the US Open and The Open?

[Gunther]

Really? When did Bobby Jones with The Master's and the PGA championship in the same year he won the US Open and The Open?

You're kidding, right?

[Phil McGleno]

You're kidding, right?

Typical Gunther post-just being rude to others while adding little to the talk. Yes he is serious-You said the definition has not changed and it clearly has. I voted yes. Tiger won the Grand Slam. So did Jones because those were the four majors. Tigers was more impressive by FAR too.

[tristanhilton85]

I'm not sure that it is a Grand Slam... considering we go out of our way to give it it's own name (The Tiger Slam) and have to ask ourselves if it is the same or not suggests that it is different from what most consider a Grand Slam. [quote name="Gunther" url="/t/83344/tigers-slam-a-grand-achievement#post_1171856"]Tiger's achievement was singular and tremendous but it was not a grand slam, as has been defined for 100 years or so. 4 in the same year would be a more, albeit slightly, impressive feat.[/quote] I don't think that what Tiger did was any easier or less impressive than a "traditional" Grand Slam. Considering the fact that he had to wait 8 months between wins 3 and 4 and deal with the pressure leading up to it, I think you could make the case that the Tiger Slam is even more impressive.

[Gunther]

It illustrates that the definition is pliable and subject to change. After all, we still have the U.S. Am, the British Am, and the two Opens. Yet a player who wins those won't be considered today to win the "grand slam" (whether in one calendar year or not).

You're reaching now. Those were the majors of the time and constituted the grand slam then. He won them in the same calendar year; hence, he achieved the grand slam. Switching out the majors has no bearing on that, the point you're arguing is the timeline. Tennis also follows the traditional guidelines.

[saevel25]

You're kidding, right?

What is more important, the actual tournaments or just winning four of any tournament they haphazardly name as important? The majors are not the majors without the tournaments. If the tournaments considered to be the majors have shifted over the years then they shouldn't consider a grand slam to be strictly within a calendar year.

If you want to say, "Oh hey he won the grand slam in the same golfing season." That is fine. A Grand Slam should be winning any four majors in consecutive order.

I don't think that what Tiger did was any easier or less impressive than a "traditional" Grand Slam. Considering the fact that he had to wait 8 months between wins 3 and 4 and deal with the pressure leading up to it, I think you could make the case that the Tiger Slam is even more impressive.

Absolutely. Is Spieth just riding a tremendous hot streak. What if he won the US Open, The Open, the PGA championship then just flopped next year at the Master's because he had a big layoff?

[iacas]

You're reaching now.

I disagree, and just because you say so doesn't make it so. The calendar year is an irrelevant and arbitrary thing. Tiger held all four major championship titles at the same time. That's a Grand Slam in my book.

You disagree. Cool.