Tiger's Slam - A Grand Achievement?

[saevel25]

Here's a tennis perspective, for and against, about the same argument. Similar points are made that were made here, but I thought I'd post it anyway.

Baseball, unless you are going after a consecutive games with a hit, then they overlap into the next season ;)

[imsys0042]

Too many sensitivities here and I noticed not many answered my question earlier about what a Grand Slam was prior to 2000.

I would say before 2000 I would have always considered it to be a calendar year only, because no one had ever done anything to challenge the traditional notion of what it was.   I recall several years that the winner of the Masters was the only eligible person to win the Grand Slam.   And when I heard it on TV from the announcers I kind of rolled my eyes because I didn't think it would ever happen.

The term was applied to Bobby Jones winning the 4 majors of his time, in the same year, by a sports writer.   It applied to that specific event and carried over because no one really ever got too far with achieving it**.   When Tiger did what he accomplished in 2000-2001, it potentially changed things.   From early on I think some people thought it counted as a slam, although most of the sports writers stuck with the calendar year meaning of the term.   So we got the "Tiger" slam, which is silly because if someone else does it, then you've tied it to a particular player, not what it really is.

Nothing wrong with the term being changed to include the Tiger Slam as a Grand Slam.  Things change over time.   Doesn't diminish Bobby Jones in any way by including Tiger because the fourth win was the following major either.   Both did amazing things to win those.

** note that Hogan could have won but couldn't play in the PGA.   He won the first 3 in 1953.   To me personally, that puts Hogan up there with Jones and Tiger.   His car accident really affected him.

[Gunther]

I would say before 2000 I would have always considered it to be a calendar year only, because no one had ever done anything to challenge the traditional notion of what it was.   I recall several years that the winner of the Masters was the only eligible person to win the Grand Slam.   And when I heard it on TV from the announcers I kind of rolled my eyes because I didn't think it would ever happen. The term was applied to Bobby Jones winning the 4 majors of his time, in the same year, by a sports writer.   It applied to that specific event and carried over because no one really ever got too far with achieving it**.   When Tiger did what he accomplished in 2000-2001, it potentially changed things.   From early on I think some people thought it counted as a slam, although most of the sports writers stuck with the calendar year meaning of the term.   So we got the "Tiger" slam, which is silly because if someone else does it, then you've tied it to a particular player, not what it really is. Nothing wrong with the term being changed to include the Tiger Slam as a Grand Slam.  Things change over time.   Doesn't diminish Bobby Jones in any way by including Tiger because the fourth win was the following major either.   Both did amazing things to win those. ** note that Hogan could have won but couldn't play in the PGA.   He won the first 3 in 1953.   To me personally, that puts Hogan up there with Jones and Tiger.   His car accident really affected him.

To your 1st paragraph: of course you did that's what it is and always has been. Beyond that, I agree that what Tiger did was singular and as such, I have a feeling that if Jordan were to win the PGA, then the next 3 (which could happen) it might be referred to as a Tiger Slam and you know? That would be awesome!

[Ernest Jones]

I'm in the camp that believes the "calendar year" criteria is a totally arbitrary and silly requirement. Hell, we haven't even used the same calendar throughout history and there's no guarantee we'll be sticking with this one till the end of days. 4 in a row is 4 in row, regardless of which point on the circle is deemed to be the beginning.

[Aflighter]

I vote no because it clearly says in same year starting with masters and I also cannot stand Tiger so simple enough haa.

[Gunther]

I'm in the camp that believes the "calendar year" criteria is a totally arbitrary and silly requirement. Hell, we haven't even used the same calendar throughout history and there's no guarantee we'll be sticking with this one till the end of days. 4 in a row is 4 in row, regardless of which point on the circle is deemed to be the beginning.

But what did u think pre-2000? It was an acknowledged feat. Why did your opinion change after 2000?

[Ernest Jones]

But what did u think pre-2000? It was an acknowledged feat. Why did your opinion change after 2000?

I didn't follow golf at all back then, so never gave it any thought at all. Sorry. Lol. But I once lived in Barrie, Ontario for 6 months (July-Dec 1997) and a further 6 months (Jan-June 1998) and I have always told people that I lived in Barrie for a year. I've certainly never told anyone that I lived in Barrie for 2 half years... Does that help? Edit* just noticed that you say I changed my mind in 2000. Pretty presumptuous no? Just Gunther being Gunther. ;-)

[Gunther]

Ok, well not having sports conciousness prior to 2000 is certainly viable and if that's so then yes, I was remiss in implying your thoughts then. But, the main point here is and really should be the simple fact that Tiger accomplished the Tiger Slam in 2000 and Bobby Jones accomplished the Grand Slam in 1927. That is history. EDIT: apologies, flipped between PC and phone on that reply, meant to quote and respond to EJ.

[Ernest Jones]

Ok, well not having sports conciousness prior to 2000 is certainly viable and if that's so then yes, I was remiss in implying your thoughts then. But, the main point here is and really should be the simple fact that Tiger accomplished the Tiger Slam in 2000 and Bobby Jones accomplished the Grand Slam in 1927. That is history. EDIT: apologies, flipped between PC and phone on that reply, meant to quote and respond to EJ.

Yes, but did I live in Barrie for a year or only two consecutive half years? No tricks, just a question of logic versus semantics.

[Golfingdad]

Yes, but did I live in Barrie for a year or only two consecutive half years? No tricks, just a question of logic versus semantics.

26 fortnights.

Duh.

Or better yet ... "18 score and 5 days."

[Gunther]

Yes, but did I live in Barrie for a year or only two consecutive half years? No tricks, just a question of logic versus semantics.

One full year...I think? Not sure there's a 100-year-old term to describe that though so don't quite understand the relevance.

[iacas]

… I noticed not many answered my question earlier about what a Grand Slam was prior to 2000.

I did. I said four consecutive majors was my definition.

When Phil won the 2005 PGA and then the 2006 Masters he was in the same place heading into the U.S. Open (and finished T2 there…) that year as Jordan Spieth going into the British Open this year. Phil was going for the third leg of the Grand Slam in the 2006 U.S. Open.

It's not about "sensitivities." You keep insisting that the definition "is" one thing and one thing only. You are incorrect. People get to define it however they like, and there is no single, universal definition. There are posts in this very thread which illustrate this from various sources, some of whom have won majors and thus done far more in professional major championship golf than you (or I) could ever dream of accomplishing.

YEAR: 2006.

COURSE: Winged Foot.

SCORES: 70-73-69-74--286.

RESULT: Tied for second, one shot behind Geoff Ogilvy.

PAIRING: Kenneth Ferrie.

NOTEWORTHY: Mickelson was trying to join Tiger Woods as the only players in the last 50 years to win three straight majors.

QUOTEWORTHY: "At that time he had won the last two majors and I got the feeling that the crowd were desperate for Phil not only to win the U.S. Open but to get the third leg of the Grand Slam. After we finished on 18, you could definitely feel the disappointment from the crowd, compared with the excitement during the round." -- Ferrie.

One full year...I think? Not sure there's a 100-year-old term to describe that though so don't quite understand the relevance.

It was also called the impregnable quadrilateral, and that term was coined in 1930, which means we're looking at only 85 years.

BTW, I'm guessing you don't define the "Grand Slam" as winning the British and U.S. Opens and Amateurs, do you? Probably not. Yet one could argue that's what it originally meant. After all, those are the events he won. AFAIK Bobby Jones never held all four major championship titles at one time until he happened to do them in the same calendar year. For all you know, had he won the last two of one year and the first two of the next year (and then retired), OB Keeler might have still called it a "Grand Slam."

[Gunther]

I did. I said four consecutive majors was my definition. When Phil won the 2005 PGA and then the 2006 Masters he was in the same place heading into the U.S. Open (and finished T2 there…) that year as Jordan Spieth going into the British Open this year. It's not about "sensitivities." You keep insisting that the definition "is" one thing and one thing only. You are incorrect. People get to define it however they like, and there is no single, universal definition. There are posts in this very thread which illustrate this from various sources, some of whom have won majors and thus done far more in professional major championship golf than you (or I) could ever dream of accomplishing.

Your position is analogous to deeming the Players the 5th major. It's just not, much the same way winning 4 majors consecutively across seasons is not a grand slam. No one who matters acknowledges either, although all who matter acknowledge the greatness of both accomplishments.

[iacas]

Your position is analogous to deeming the Players the 5th major.

No, it isn't.

Though I will point out that perhaps 5 or 10 or 50 years from now if the Players becomes a major it will be yet another point in the long line of "definitions can change."

It's just not, much the same way winning 4 majors consecutively across seasons is not a grand slam.

I'm getting tired of typing this: there is no single, universal definition of the "Grand Slam" (and no amount of your insisting that there is will change that). If you continue with that you'll be restricted from the thread.

[Ernest Jones]

One full year...I think? Not sure there's a 100-year-old term to describe that though so don't quite understand the relevance.

Umm...how about the term "a year"? Anyway, the point was simply that putting artificial start and end points on a years duration is...artificial. That's the point some of us are trying to make. Clearly it's a point you're not willing to consider...so...whatevs.

[Lakitu]

I think the Tiger Slam is more impressive. As stated in this thread numerous times, it's because of the layoff between the PGA and Masters. Consistency in golf is tremendous. Pretty much every year a player gets hot and dominates for months at a time... then cools off noticeably (see Adam Scott, Snedeker, etc). Any attempt to discredit the "Tiger Slam" is just petty, imo. Tiger effectively won it in my eyes. Didn't he finish solo 5th in the Masters that year anyways? Lol. If he had won that Masters, he would have won six in a row. Astounding - the best golf ever played and probably that ever will be played.

Jordan Spieth is unquestionably the best in the world right now, but who knows? He could cool off big time next year. No telling how the big publicity is going to affect him either. (For the record, I like him a lot.)

[Fourputt]

Too many sensitivities here and I noticed not many answered my question earlier about what a Grand Slam was prior to 2000.

To be honest, I never thought about it one way or the other.  Even when they talk about Bobby Jones' Slam it's still apple to oranges, because it was a completely different accomplishment.  Since nobody has ever done what is popularly called the Grand Slam, it was really nothing more than a topic for discussion - 19th hole conversation.

How can you seriously define or give a name to, or argue over, something which has never been done?  Tiger's accomplishment is quite possibly the "Grandest Slam" we will ever witness, so why quibble over a name?

[Silent]

I think the Tiger Slam is more impressive. As stated in this thread numerous times, it's because of the layoff between the PGA and Masters. Consistency in golf is tremendous. Pretty much every year a player gets hot and dominates for months at a time... then cools off noticeably (see Adam Scott, Snedeker, etc). Any attempt to discredit the "Tiger Slam" is just petty imo. Tiger effectively won it in my eyes. Didn't he finish solo 5th in the Masters that year anyways? Lol. If he had won that Masters, he would have won six in a row. Astounding - the best golf ever played and probably that ever will be played. Jordan Spieth is unquestionably the best in the world right now, but who knows? He could cool off big time next year. No telling how the big publicity is going to affect him either. (For the record, I like him a lot.)

That's not the case at all. At least not for me. It's merely semantics as said before. For me the original definition as winning them in one season / calender year is what a true Grand Slam is. What Tiger did was extremely impressive and possibly the most impressive achievment I'll ever witness, but it's not a Grand Slam imho.