Tiger's Slam - A Grand Achievement?

[iacas]

I don't think my situation is a "doomsday scenario" at all.  Didn't Augusta lose the Eisenhower tree to extreme weather?

And the tournament went off without a hitch.

They are not.  You started this thread because you didn't like people's definition/interpretation of the phrase "Grand Slam" so I took your definition literally. It was simple and concise.  If you want to revise it, cool, but they are not the same thing.

I'm telling you that when I say them, I mean that they're the same thing. If the doomsday scenario you pitched never happens, they're the same thing. Make sense?

Four consecutive majors. Holding all four at the same time. I'm calling those synonymous, because unless something that's NEVER happened in about 80 years happens… they are the same.

If the doomsday scenario happens some day, I'll go back to my "four consecutive different majors" definition. Until then, they're the same.

Tiger Slam - Achieved in succession over two seasons

It wasn't really "over two seasons." It was over one season. Actually, less than one season. It spanned multiple "seasons" but it took less than one full season to accomplish. Semantics, yeah, but that's all we've got in this thread.

Here's a thought and just as a "what if...?". What would people's opinions on this be if it was, say, Colin Montgomerie or Sergio Garcia who'd done as TW did in '00-'01?

I've already answered the question. Grand Slam.

tiger bashing not allowed here

@Rick Martin , that's so off target I don't even want to waste the time. Bash him all you want - just don't take a thread about Keegan Bradley or whatever and post your typical anti-Tiger OFF TOPIC stupid posts.

I question if the build up to the 2000 US Open is the same as the pressure to win the Masters then the US Open then the Open then the PGA. I'm sure there was pressure, but nothing historical leading up to them like it seemed for Spieth at this year's Open. I didn't follow golf then, so please correct me regarding the hype/build up to those championships.

Were you around golf then? Because the EIGHT MONTH layoff from the PGA to the next year's Masters was TREMENDOUS. Tiger had won three in a row and was going for FOUR MAJORS IN A ROW. There was HUGE hype.

[14ledo81]

How about "grand slam" = 4 consecutive majors. "Seasonal grand slam" = 4 majors in a calendar year.

[misty_mountainhop]

Going by the votes, it doesn't seem that your definition is the accepted norm.

Then I say (as most people who voted in the thread do) that they would have won the Grand Slam.

As I alluded to earlier, this thread would have been better to have discussed whether TW's achievement was as impressive (or more so) than a 'classic' (does that do the trick?) Grand Slam. Or maybe ask whether the Grand Slam needs re-defining. It doesn't so, if it's OK, I'll stick to the current definition. Ergo, no Slam.

Most people in the thread do not, with respect, say they'd have voted the same in a Garcia/Montgomerie scenario. I pose the question to ask people to look at their motivations for voting the way they have.

It's been mentioned in this thread a few times.  A writer from the Atlanta Journal (O.B. Keeler) borrowed the Bridge term to label Bobby Jones' feat in 1930.  If anybody doesn't think that Keeler would have written the same thing had Jones won the four in a row starting mid-year, I think you're crazy.

Further, another writer named George Trevor wrote: "This victory, the fourth major title in the same season and in the space of four months, had now and for all time entrenched Bobby Jones safely within the 'Impregnable Quadrilateral of Golf,' that granite fortress that he alone could take by escalade, and that others may attack in vain, forever."

If you think that he wouldn't have written something equally as hyperbolic had Jones started later, you're also crazy.  Just imagine .. "This victory, the fourth major title in a row and in the space of nine months, had now and for all time entrenched Bobby Jones safely within the 'Impregnable Quadrilateral of Golf,' that granite fortress that he alone could take by escalade, and that others may attack in vain, forever."

Now, if you want to argue that it's less impressive over the course of two seasons because it's over a longer time frame, I might disagree, but at least you'd be basing your argument on something other than semantics.

So, it was in fact, the "media".

Another thought question:

If you're playing bridge on New Year's Eve and are crazy enough to bid 7 no trump at 11:58 and you succeed, however the hand takes 4 minutes and concludes at 12:02am on January 1st, is that still technically a Grand Slam?  Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm???

Thanks for the info on where the original Grand Slam concept re. golf came from. Interesting to know but we don't actually know what Keeler or Trevor might have said about whether it should be in a calendar year or not do we? If you'd considered the other parts of my posts, I specifically said I didn't necessarily think TW's achievement was less worthy than a Grand Slam.

This thread title and initial premise didn't advocate the type of discussion you suggest or, if it did, the suggestion was buried in a provocative initial post. Nothing wrong with that necessarily but this is the result.

As for the bridge analogy, I'm afraid I don't play it .

I'll say it again (FWIW), I don't think TW's achievements in '00-'01 were any less impressive or not comparable with a 'classic' Grand Slam. That doesn't make it the Grand Slam in the original sense though does it? Technicality? Yep. Hair splitting? Maybe. The same discussion exists in tennis and it's the calendar year I'm afraid. Here's an article from '01 on the subject, which suggests the discussion isn't uniform anywhere, let alone here:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/story/0,3604,466916,00.html

It does imply the 'nays' outweigh the 'yays' though. I think this is only really an issue because TW was such a great player in his pomp that people want him to have achieved the Slam to kind of cement that greatness undeniably. He didn't though and that's the way it is.

[Infamous 273]

Again, not comparable.  An undefeated season is by name, a seasonal achievement. Grand slam has been applied to so many pursuits that any attempt at coming up with a definitive meaning is doomed to failure, or at best to confusion.  As a term, its meaning has been effectively diluted by overuse.

There has always been an identifier attached when its referenced to winning all of a sports seasonal majors overlapped into two seasons. Most recently: http://www.si.com/tennis/2015/06/26/daily-data-viz-serena-williams-serena-slam-wimbledon Tiger slam is the most notable reference. There's a reason the word "grand" is taken out...because it isn't a true grand-slam. I'll listen to, and respect a revisionists argument when it comes to the definition(s). But I think it's pretty clear the most accepted definition of grand-slam - as it pertains to winning majors - is winning all four in the same season.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mvmac

Going by the votes, it doesn't seem that your definition is the accepted norm.

Then I say (as most people who voted in the thread do) that they would have won the Grand Slam.

As I alluded to earlier, this thread would have been better to have discussed whether TW's achievement was as impressive (or more so) than a 'classic' (does that do the trick?) Grand Slam. Or maybe ask whether the Grand Slam needs re-defining. It doesn't so, if it's OK, I'll stick to the current definition. Ergo, no Slam.

Most people in the thread do not, with respect, say they'd have voted the same in a Garcia/Montgomerie scenario. I pose the question to ask people to look at their motivations for voting the way they have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

It's been mentioned in this thread a few times.  A writer from the Atlanta Journal (O.B. Keeler) borrowed the Bridge term to label Bobby Jones' feat in 1930.  If anybody doesn't think that Keeler would have written the same thing had Jones won the four in a row starting mid-year, I think you're crazy.

Further, another writer named George Trevor wrote: "This victory, the fourth major title in the same season and in the space of four months, had now and for all time entrenched Bobby Jones safely within the 'Impregnable Quadrilateral of Golf,' that granite fortress that he alone could take by escalade, and that others may attack in vain, forever."

If you think that he wouldn't have written something equally as hyperbolic had Jones started later, you're also crazy.  Just imagine .. "This victory, the fourth major title in a row and in the space of nine months, had now and for all time entrenched Bobby Jones safely within the 'Impregnable Quadrilateral of Golf,' that granite fortress that he alone could take by escalade, and that others may attack in vain, forever."

Now, if you want to argue that it's less impressive over the course of two seasons because it's over a longer time frame, I might disagree, but at least you'd be basing your argument on something other than semantics.

So, it was in fact, the "media".

Another thought question:

If you're playing bridge on New Year's Eve and are crazy enough to bid 7 no trump at 11:58 and you succeed, however the hand takes 4 minutes and concludes at 12:02am on January 1st, is that still technically a Grand Slam?  Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm???

Thanks for the info on where the original Grand Slam concept re. golf came from. Interesting to know but we don't actually know what Keeler or Trevor might have said about whether it should be in a calendar year or not do we? If you'd considered the other parts of my posts, I specifically said I didn't necessarily think TW's achievement was less worthy than a Grand Slam.

This thread title and initial premise didn't advocate the type of discussion you suggest or, if it did, the suggestion was buried in a provocative initial post. Nothing wrong with that necessarily but this is the result.

As for the bridge analogy, I'm afraid I don't play it .

I'll say it again (FWIW), I don't think TW's achievements in '00-'01 were any less impressive or not comparable with a 'classic' Grand Slam. That doesn't make it the Grand Slam in the original sense though does it? Technicality? Yep. Hair splitting? Maybe. The same discussion exists in tennis and it's the calendar year I'm afraid. Here's an article from '01 on the subject, which suggests the discussion isn't uniform anywhere, let alone here:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/story/0,3604,466916,00.html

It does imply the 'nays' outweigh the 'yays' though. I think this is only really an issue because TW was such a great player in his pomp that people want him to have achieved the Slam to kind of cement that greatness undeniably. He didn't though and that's the way it is.

Being that this has only been done twice in the history of golf, we only have two data points. One was done a long time ago with two different tournaments and one done 15 years ago. In reality, the two are not that comparable because now a days, amateurs would have a much harder time winning the majors because the competition is so much harder. Maybe they should be separated into:

Ye Old Time Grand Slam

The Modern Grand Slam

For me, the modern is definitely holding all four at the same time regardless of calender year. Three of the four major sports in the US, NHL, NFL, NBA, have seasons that span the calender year. Pro soccer (football) in Europe also spans the calender year. So being hung up on the Gregorian calender dates is trivial.  Add to that the PGA, Euro Tour, Asian Tour all have different and changing start dates to the season, and it makes even more sense to abandon the arbitrary definition.

If Garcia, Monty, Spieth, John Daly, anyone won four in a row, I would say they have the Grand Slam.

[iacas]

Or maybe ask whether the Grand Slam needs re-defining. It doesn't so, if it's OK, I'll stick to the current definition. Ergo, no Slam.

Too many people on the "no" side keep saying things like "it is the definition." And yet… they ignore the results of the poll. They ignore Fred Couples, or Tim Finchem, or others saying Tiger achieved the grand slam. They ignore the countless disagreements. For every URL you post, you can find one that points out that it is NOT the universally accepted definition. And it is not the definition of those who have voted in the poll, by about a 2-to-1 margin.

Most people in the thread do not, with respect, say they'd have voted the same in a Garcia/Montgomerie scenario. I pose the question to ask people to look at their motivations for voting the way they have.

I think most people would. That they haven't answered you specifically doesn't mean they wouldn't answer in the affirmative.

Four in a row - that's how I define a grand slam. I'm sure many

Here's an article from '01 on the subject, which suggests the discussion isn't uniform anywhere, let alone here:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/story/0,3604,466916,00.html

It does imply the 'nays' outweigh the 'yays' though. I think this is only really an issue because TW was such a great player in his pomp that people want him to have achieved the Slam to kind of cement that greatness undeniably. He didn't though and that's the way it is.

Even that article, from 14+ years ago, admits there's no one definition. So you can't keep saying "the current definition." There's no agreement on what "the definition" is!

It was good to see Gary Player's delusions once again, though…

I'll listen to, and respect a revisionists argument when it comes to the definition(s). But I think it's pretty clear the most accepted definition of grand-slam - as it pertains to winning majors - is winning all four in the same season.

The poll says otherwise, no? And no, I'm not putting too much importance on the poll. But it's certainly a data point, and one that conflicts with the notion that it is even "the most accepted definition." Heck, it may have barely been "the most accepted definition" back in 2001. It may not have been. Perhaps among stodgy old reporter types, but among golf fans? We don't know.

[misty_mountainhop]

Being that this has only been done twice in the history of golf, we only have two data points. One was done a long time ago with two different tournaments and one done 15 years ago. In reality, the two are not that comparable because now a days, amateurs would have a much harder time winning the majors because the competition is so much harder. Maybe they should be separated into:

Ye Old Time Grand Slam

The Modern Grand Slam

For me, the modern is definitely holding all four at the same time regardless of calender year. Three of the four major sports in the US, NHL, NFL, NBA, have seasons that span the calender year. Pro soccer (football) in Europe also spans the calender year. So being hung up on the Gregorian calender dates is trivial.  Add to that the PGA, Euro Tour, Asian Tour all have different and changing start dates to the season, and it makes even more sense to abandon the arbitrary definition.

If Garcia, Monty, Spieth, John Daly, anyone won four in a row, I would say they have the Grand Slam.

Fair point and well put.

If people want to alter (weaken) the definition of what constitutes a Grand Slam for golf in order that TW can be described as having achieved it, so be it. Certainly a discussion that can be had. I don't buy it though. It may never be achieved but that doesn't mean we have to cheapen the goal just so that it can be said TW managed to do it and that's as much as I want to say on it really. I still think what he achieved was incredible and, as @iacas has implied elsewhere here, it could be argued it was actually tougher. It'll never be accepted as the classic Grand Slam though.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious

Being that this has only been done twice in the history of golf, we only have two data points. One was done a long time ago with two different tournaments and one done 15 years ago. In reality, the two are not that comparable because now a days, amateurs would have a much harder time winning the majors because the competition is so much harder. Maybe they should be separated into:

Ye Old Time Grand Slam

The Modern Grand Slam

For me, the modern is definitely holding all four at the same time regardless of calender year. Three of the four major sports in the US, NHL, NFL, NBA, have seasons that span the calender year. Pro soccer (football) in Europe also spans the calender year. So being hung up on the Gregorian calender dates is trivial.  Add to that the PGA, Euro Tour, Asian Tour all have different and changing start dates to the season, and it makes even more sense to abandon the arbitrary definition.

If Garcia, Monty, Spieth, John Daly, anyone won four in a row, I would say they have the Grand Slam.

Fair point and well put.

If people want to alter (weaken) the definition of what constitutes a Grand Slam for golf in order that TW can be described as having achieved it, so be it. Certainly a discussion that can be had. I don't buy it though. It may never be achieved but that doesn't mean we have to cheapen the goal just so that it can be said TW managed to do it and that's as much as I want to say on it really. I still think what he achieved was incredible and, as @iacas has implied elsewhere here, it could be argued it was actually tougher. It'll never be accepted as the classic Grand Slam though.

There is no official definition. So there is none to be weakened. Just because one writer says it's the definition, doesn't mean it is official.

[misty_mountainhop]

There is no official definition. So there is none to be weakened. Just because one writer says it's the definition, doesn't mean it is official.

That's fine by me if you want to think the accepted definition is all the work of a single writer. It's really isn't and you know it isn't.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious

There is no official definition. So there is none to be weakened. Just because one writer says it's the definition, doesn't mean it is official.

That's fine by me if you want to think the accepted definition is all the work of a single writer. It's really isn't and you know it isn't.

But is not official and not written as a definition from any of golf's governing bodies. Writers can write whatever they want. You know that. They do not decide what is official.

[Jakester23]

Being that the 4 tournaments Bobby Jones won were different than the 4 Tiger won I don't see how there can be a official definition of the term GRAND. I think have a solution. The calendar slam can have the term Grand as long as we refer to what Tiger did as the GOAT Slam.

[misty_mountainhop]

But is not official and not written as a definition from any of golf's governing bodies. Writers can write whatever they want. You know that. They do not decide what is official.

So, in other words, you believe what you want and I'll believe what I want. Revisionists will no doubt concede that Woods won a Grand Slam. That's fine and I guess that's why this thread is now on page 13. It's not for me though.

Here's another thought. If, say, Greg Norman had achieved a calendar year Slam before 2000, would a significant number of people honestly be arguing that Woods had also achieved a Grand Slam in '00-01'? I think not. Much of this is driven by the fact it's a) Woods that's being considered here and b) no-one's done it so, you know, go on, give it to Woods so we can say someone's done it.

[David in FL]

There is no official definition. So there is none to be weakened. Just because one writer says it's the definition, doesn't mean it is official.

Of course there's no "official definition". That's why this silly thread has run as long as it has. There is however common usage, which, until now has been all 4 in the same season/calendar year. As has been said before. No one is going to change their mind, and it's simply semantics. Given Tiger's meteoric demise, I'm beginning to understand why it might be a more important distinction to some than I first realized though. Another box checked in the GOAT discussion, or not....

[iacas]

Here's another thought. If, say, Greg Norman had achieved a calendar year Slam before 2000, would a significant number of people honestly be arguing that Woods had also achieved a Grand Slam in '00-01'? I think not.

I think so. They'd be basically equivalent. Norman would hold the four titles longer due to the layoff. But they'd be virtually equivalent. So why call them different things? Calendar-year and non-calendar-year is the only real difference.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious

But is not official and not written as a definition from any of golf's governing bodies. Writers can write whatever they want. You know that. They do not decide what is official.

So, in other words, you believe what you want and I'll believe what I want. Revisionists will no doubt concede that Woods won a Grand Slam. That's fine and I guess that's why this thread is now on page 13. It's not for me though.

Here's another thought. If, say, Greg Norman had achieved a calendar year Slam before 2000, would a significant number of people honestly be arguing that Woods had also achieved a Grand Slam in '00-01'? I think not. Much of this is driven by the fact it's a) Woods that's being considered here and b) no-one's done it so, you know, go on, give it to Woods so we can say someone's done it.

Why are we revisionists? There is no official definition. We are not revising an official definition, just disagreeing with some writers (plural) definition. There are other writers (plural) and pro golfers who disagree with the non-official arbitrary definition. As Erik responded, they both would have held all four at the same time. That is impressive no matter how you define it.

I think some folks (not necessarily you BTW) don't want to call what Woods did the Grand Slam because they want to diminish the achievement. Guys like Dan Jenkins for example. They don't want to give him credit because they don't like him. "Well it was nice, but it was NOT a real Grand Slam." I can hear them say that.

[misty_mountainhop]

Of course there's no "official definition". That's why this silly thread has run as long as it has. There is however common usage, which, until now has been all 4 in the same season/calendar year.

As has been said before. No one is going to change their mind, and it's simply semantics. Given Tiger's meteoric demise, I'm beginning to understand why it might be a more important distinction to some than I first realized though. Another box checked in the GOAT discussion, or not....

An interesting point I think....

I think so. They'd be basically equivalent. Norman would hold the four titles longer due to the layoff. But they'd be virtually equivalent. So why call them different things? Calendar-year and non-calendar-year is the only real difference.

With respect, I disagree. I agree re. semantics etc. I mean, what's the difference in terms of difficulty? Not a lot, if anything. People being people though, they'd credit Norman with a Grand Slam but not Woods. Why is there any importance to thinking that what Woods did was a Grand Slam? Why is his actual achievement not simply admired for what it was? Maybe there's more to the point (above) from @David in FL than many would care to admit. Personally, I don't think it'll ever be badged as a Grand Slam and I don't think the parlance as to what constitutes a Grand Slam will change.

[misty_mountainhop]

Why are we revisionists? There is no official definition. We are not revising an official definition, just disagreeing with some writers (plural) definition. There are other writers (plural) and pro golfers who disagree with the non-official arbitrary definition. As Erik responded, they both would have held all four at the same time. That is impressive no matter how you define it.

I think some folks (not necessarily you BTW) don't want to call what Woods did the Grand Slam because they want to diminish the achievement. Guys like Dan Jenkins for example. They don't want to give him credit because they don't like him. "Well it was nice, but it was NOT a real Grand Slam." I can hear them say that.

That logic cuts both ways. There are many who'd blindly jump up and down swearing that Woods had achieved a Grand Slam, just because it's Woods. He seems to polarise conversations somewhat more than other golfers!

[iacas]

Personally, I don't think it'll ever be badged as a Grand Slam and I don't think the parlance as to what constitutes a Grand Slam will change.

Scroll up. It's already been badged as such by many and the definition has never really been universal (not since about 1934 anyway).