Tiger's Slam - A Grand Achievement?

[tristanhilton85]

Really, all it comes down to is whether or not having it done in the same calendar year makes a difference to you. To this point, that has always been in my head as part of the definition of what the Grand Slam is. It seems a bit silly to me, honestly, but that's how I've always thought of it.

Adding the calendar year stipulation simply makes it less probable that somebody will achieve the feat as not only do you have to win 4 in a row, but you have to do it starting with the Masters. In other words there is only one chance to start a Grand Slam every year instead of four.

I voted no in the poll, but I can certainly understand the logic in voting yes.

[dbuck]

THE Grand Slam is all four with the same year before the name, ie 2014 Masters, 2014 US Open, etc. It is what it is.

I do wholeheartedly agree that holding all four at the same time is the equivalent and equally impressive. In 80 years it has been done--once. That is a pretty exclusive club.

[Ernest Jones]

THE Grand Slam is all four with the same year before the name, ie 2014 Masters, 2014 US Open, etc. It is what it is.

Source?

[Golfingdad]

Source?

" THE Grand Slam is all four with the same year before the name, ie 2014 Masters, 2014 US Open, etc. It is what it is."

-dbuck (2015)

[pumaAttack]

"THE Grand Slam is all four with the same year before the name, ie 2014 Masters, 2014 US Open, etc. It is what it is."

-dbuck (2015)

Well there we have it.

Tiger slam is not a grand slam.

[Hatchman]

This sounds funny to me unless he means its different because it includes the Masters and the PGA in place of the 2 amateurs.  Because that was the ONLY slam that ever occurred prior to Tiger so "the one he grew up with" couldn't have meant anything else. [/quote] Bingo! Oh, I shouldn't have referenced another game.

[Ernest Jones]

"[COLOR=181818]THE Grand Slam is all four with the same year before the name, ie 2014 Masters, 2014 US Open, etc. It is what it is."[/COLOR] [COLOR=181818]-dbuck (2015)[/COLOR]

Lol.

[Hatchman]

"The Grand Slam in men's golf is an unofficial concept, having changed over time. In the modern era, the Grand Slam is generally considered to be winning all four of golf's major championships in the same calendar year. Before The Masters was founded [1934], the national amateur championships of the US and the UK were considered majors along with the two national opens; only Bobby Jones has ever completed a Grand Slam. No man has ever achieved a modern Grand Slam, Eldrick Tont "Tiger" Woods being the closest in winning all four consecutively but over two calendar years [1999-2000]."

[Shorty]

^^^^^^^^^^

The above has been cut and pasted from somewhere with no attribution or acknowledgement. The implication being that it is the "correct" answer.

It is essentially someone's opinion.

The thread indicates that there are different ways of looking at it.

[Hatchman]

^^^^^^^^^^ The above has been cut and pasted from somewhere with no attribution or acknowledgement. The implication being that it is the "correct" answer. It is essentially someone's opinion. The thread indicates that there are different ways of looking at it.

That's one way to look at it.

[dbuck]

Source?

Source?  This is the internet, we don't actually have to have a source, LOL :)

I recently heard Arnold Palmer claim that he and Mark McCormack coined the phrase in 1960 referring to the modern tournaments.  Obviously a lot of folks assume this definition or we wouldn't have 12 pages on this thread. I have heard "all four in the same year" referred to as "The Grand Slam" since the 1970's.  I have never heard any alternate definition or this type of conversation until Tiger won all four in a row, but not in the same calendar year. Everyone started calling it the "Tiger Slam".  If 4 in a row regardless of the year was the definition, there would be no need to call it the "Tiger Slam".

As Erik said, holding all 4 at the same time is equally or perhaps more difficult and impressive than just in a calendar year as you have that down time from the PGA to the next Masters. But the idea of all four in order as being "The Grand Slam" has been around at least since I became familiar with golf in the 70's.

There are a couple of minute changes I would make to the rules because I don't like them as they are. I could put up a poll and maybe more than 50% would agree, but that wouldn't change the rule. Or I can choose to ignore them and play as I wish, but I am playing something other than golf.

[dbuck]

And to clarify, I wasn't sitting around chatting with the King, it was a bit on the Golf Channel :). Video of Mr. Palmer speaking though, not repeated by someone else.

[dbuck]

"THE Grand Slam is all four with the same year before the name, ie 2014 Masters, 2014 US Open, etc. It is what it is."

-dbuck (2015)

Hahahaha

[Ernest Jones]

Source?  This is the internet, we don't actually have to have a source, LOL :) I recently heard Arnold Palmer claim that he and Mark McCormack coined the phrase in 1960 referring to the modern tournaments.  Obviously a lot of folks assume this definition or we wouldn't have 12 pages on this thread. I have heard "all four in the same year" referred to as "The Grand Slam" since the 1970's.  I have never heard any alternate definition or this type of conversation until Tiger won all four in a row, but not in the same calendar year. Everyone started calling it the "Tiger Slam".  If 4 in a row regardless of the year was the definition, there would be no need to call it the "Tiger Slam". As Erik said, holding all 4 at the same time is equally or perhaps more difficult and impressive than just in a calendar year as you have that down time from the PGA to the next Masters. But the idea of all four in order as being "The Grand Slam" has been around at least since I became familiar with golf in the 70's. There are a couple of minute changes I would make to the rules because I don't like them as they are. I could put up a poll and maybe more than 50% would agree, but that wouldn't change the rule. Or I can choose to ignore them and play as I wish, but I am playing something other than golf.

Lol, all good! I have no issue with differing opinions, that's what makes a forum worthwhile. As long as people aren't acting like wieners, and you've never been a weiner about this kind of stuff.

[sean anigans]

How come when the talk turns to the greatest golfer ever, it's tiger/jack? I mean, bobby jones is the only winner of a calendar slam, and the guy won 13 majors even though he retired at 28! Personally, i think it's a silly argument, but seems bobby should be considered by those who choose to argue it.

[Phil McGleno]

^^^^^^^^^^ The thread indicates that there are different ways of looking at it.

And yet this point seems to be missed because others think they know that the definition of Grand Slam is written in stone.

[mvmac]

@dbuck , please remember to multi-quote, thanks.

http://thesandtrap.com/t/69379/new-to-the-sand-trap-little-things-members-expect-and-ask-of-fellow-members

[boogielicious]

[QUOTE name="14ledo81" url="/t/83344/tigers-slam-a-grand-achievement/180_30#post_1173231"]   ???? Hasn't there been quite a few analogies made?  Why is this one deemed off-topic? [/QUOTE] Because discussing the rules of bridge makes Scott's brain hurt so much that he has the urge to throw on his tuxedo and race to the nearest Denny's!!:-P (Seriously though, it was the fact that we weren't analogizing anymore, we were wandering and just talking about bridge.  What are we?  65 year old Jewish women??) [QUOTE name="Hatchman" url="/t/83344/tigers-slam-a-grand-achievement/180_30#post_1173232"] "I think it's a slam," PGA Tour Commissioner Tim Finchem said Sunday, warding off any dispute about whether what Woods has done deserves the highest praise. "It's a different kind of slam than we grew up with, but different is OK."[/QUOTE] This sounds funny to me unless he means its different because it includes the Masters and the PGA in place of the 2 amateurs.  Because that was the ONLY slam that ever occurred prior to Tiger so "the one he grew up with" couldn't have meant anything else.

:-D