Tiger's Slam - A Grand Achievement?

[misty_mountainhop]

Scroll up. It's already been badged as such by many and the definition has never been universal.

Well, a whole 49 people as of now. The poll here may well agree with your initial premise but it's hardly the definitive bit of data is it? I'd also put it to you that there is likely to be pro-TW bias in the outcome as the majority of posters here are U.S. citizens and too many people, in general, simply think Woods is best, no matter what. No problem if we move the goalposts a little eh?

Tomato? Tomato? He was certainly a Hell of a player for 10-15 years.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

Scroll up. It's already been badged as such by many and the definition has never been universal.

Well, a whole 49 people as of now. The poll here may well agree with your initial premise but it's hardly the definitive bit of data is it? I'd also put it to you that there is likely to be pro-TW bias in the outcome as the majority of posters here are U.S. citizens and too many people, in general, simply think Woods is best, no matter what. No problem if we move the goalposts a little eh?

Tomato? Tomato? He was certainly a Hell of a player for 10-15 years.

Bobby Jones was American too. So is Jack Nicklaus. So we aren't debating US versus some other nation, are we? Maybe you do have a little anti-Woods bias then?  We are not discuss GOAT by the way.

[misty_mountainhop]

Bobby Jones was American too. So is Jack Nicklaus. So we aren't debating US versus some other nation, are we? Maybe you do have a little anti-Woods bias then?  We are not discuss GOAT by the way.

Knew it was mistake to bring that up! I'm not suggesting we're comparing U.S. players with other nationalities (although that was what I was suggesting with the virtual "What if Monty had done this?" scenario). I am suggesting there may simply be an element of "Woods is a U.S. player therefore I'd really like it if he was deemed to have achieved a Grand Slam" bias in the thinking here.

To be clear, I don't like what I've seen of Woods, the public persona. More than happy to concede that what he's like as a private individual may be way removed from some of the media-driven crap we get with him.

I'll seriously dispute, however, the suggestion that just because I suspect Woods is a person I'm not sure I like, that has somehow blinded me to his golfing achievement. For example, the discussion in whichever thread it is around here about whether Woods' achievements are more than Nicklaus's started with me favouring Nicklaus (I grew up watching what he did) based mainly on his Majors tally and the other big names he often faced. However, given some of the points made re. Woods' total PGA wins, for example, or the depth of field Woods has regularly had to face cf . Nicklaus, I'm more than happy to change my view and, that overall, Woods probably shades the GOAT argument. I don't doubt his past ability to get that silly white ball round a golf course etc.

Anyway, it's been fun but I'm out of this one.

[iacas]

Well, a whole 49 people as of now. The poll here may well agree with your initial premise but it's hardly the definitive bit of data is it?

I've never claimed it's definitive. It is a data point, like the quotes before from Couples and others about how they define a "Grand Slam."

I'd also put it to you that there is likely to be pro-TW bias in the outcome as the majority of posters here are U.S. citizens and too many people, in general, simply think Woods is best, no matter what. No problem if we move the goalposts a little eh?

Changing the name doesn't change the actual accomplishment. So I think that has little to do with it. Especially since the Tiger Slam may have actually been a teeny tiny bit more difficult to achieve (difficult from an athletic achievement standpoint, not difficult from a probability standpoint).

To be clear, I don't like what I've seen of Woods, the public persona. More than happy to concede that what he's like as a private individual may be way removed from some of the media-driven crap we get with him.

That's neither here nor there.

I'll seriously dispute, however, the suggestion that just because I suspect Woods is a person I'm not sure I like, that has somehow blinded me to his golfing achievement.

Yet you find it appropriate to suggest the opposite: that people who "like" Tiger are willing to be blinded to "the definition"? C'mon… :P

[saevel25]

I am suggesting there may simply be an element of "Woods is a U.S. player therefore I'd really like it if he was deemed to have achieved a Grand Slam" bias in the thinking here.

Nah.

I think general sports fans in the USA care more about Tiger than golf. They don't seem to follow Rory as much. Rory is much more a global star than he is a star in the US.

If you are a golfer or a serious golfing fan, not just a Tiger fan. I think that type of fan from the US would consider the achievement Tiger did in 2000-2001 the same way for a golfer who is not from the US.

Well, a whole 49 people as of now. The poll here may well agree with your initial premise but it's hardly the definitive bit of data is it? I'd also put it to you that there is likely to be pro-TW bias in the outcome as the majority of posters here are U.S. citizens and too many people, in general, simply think Woods is best, no matter what. No problem if we move the goalposts a little eh?

Tomato? Tomato? He was certainly a Hell of a player for 10-15 years.

If you've read some of the Tiger threads you would realize there are plenty of Tiger haters on this forum as well.

It's definitive in the fact that in a poll comprised of golfing fans in general and serious golfers tend to understand the significance of Tiger's achievement for what it is, a Grand Slam. They are not blinded by word play as a way to diminish what he did.

[misty_mountainhop]

I've never claimed it's definitive. It is a data point, like the quotes before from Couples and others about how they define a "Grand Slam."

....

....

Yet you find it appropriate to suggest the opposite: that people who "like" Tiger are willing to be blinded to "the definition"? C'mon… :P

Equally, one can find many quotes supporting the classic definition of it i.e. 4 Majors in a single calendar year.

OK, you got me there - fair criticism. I was simply suggesting that as most of the posters here are American, that Woods is American and/or precedent for Woods fanaticism, there may be some pro-Woods bias in the poll. Happy to be strung up for it though.

Nah.

I think general sports fans in the USA care more about Tiger than golf. They don't seem to follow Rory as much. Rory is much more a global star than he is a star in the US.

If you are a golfer or a serious golfing fan, not just a Tiger fan. I think that type of fan from the US would consider the achievement Tiger did in 2000-2001 the same way for a golfer who is not from the US.

If you've read some of the Tiger threads you would realize there are plenty of Tiger haters on this forum as well.

It's definitive in the fact that in a poll comprised of golfing fans in general and serious golfers tend to understand the significance of Tiger's achievement for what it is, a Grand Slam. They are not blinded by word play as a way to diminish what he did.

Fair points. You may convince me yet.

[isukgolf]

I do not think its a good comparison to compare Rory and Tiger with number of golf fans ... Tiger is has been at this game longer, more success to-date, and tons and tons more media attention via commercials etc ... It appears little else in golf is based on a calendar year ... so I am not sure why it is so important to make a stand on this point ... With said I could careless what someone calls it ...

[mmoan2]

Equally, one can find many quotes supporting the classic definition of it i.e. 4 Majors in a single calendar year.

OK, you got me there - fair criticism. I was simply suggesting that as most of the posters here are American, that Woods is American and/or precedent for Woods fanaticism, there may be some pro-Woods bias in the poll. Happy to be strung up for it though.

Fair points. You may convince me yet.

I think it is telling that you literally only need to put "Tiger Woods" in the name of a thread to get tons of traffic on this website... Here we are 14 pages deep discussing whether his 4 majors in a row meet the criteria of a grand slam. I'm guilty as charged, but there's gotta be some non-golf people out there saying to themselves "Are these people friggin' pathetic or what?" Something about Tiger Woods has made him the most iconic athlete outside of Michael Jordan since I've been alive, at least in the U.S. It's interesting to see opinions from across the pond!

[jgreen85]

It appears little else in golf is based on a calendar year ... so I am not sure why it is so important to make a stand on this point ...

Why this hang up on "calendar year"? Who is arguing "calendar year" is definitive in this? "Calendar year" is simply used to distinguish the traditional Grand Slam from the Tiger Slam. I think the Grand Slam is the Masters -> US Open -> The Open -> The PGA - in that order. Why? Because the Masters is the first major of the Season! The Season's first major. Can't birdie them all if you don't birdie the first. If one birdies 2 through 18 and then plays #1 again and birdies it, did he birdie all the holes in a round? Damn impressive, but he did not!

Also funny the rules/handicap purists are 100% against "breakfast balls," but meh, the grand slam watch starts whenever someone wins 1 major.

[Ernest Jones]

Why this hang up on "calendar year"? Who is arguing "calendar year" is definitive in this? "Calendar year" is simply used to distinguish the traditional Grand Slam from the Tiger Slam. I think the Grand Slam is the Masters -> US Open -> The Open -> The PGA - in that order. Why? Because the Masters is the first major of the Season! The Season's first major. Can't birdie them all if you don't birdie the first. If one birdies 2 through 18 and then plays #1 again and birdies it, did he birdie all the holes in a round? Damn impressive, but he did not! Also funny the rules/handicap purists are 100% against "breakfast balls," but meh, the grand slam watch starts whenever someone wins 1 major.

There are clearly defined rules that a govern all those scenarios EXCEPT the Grand Slam. For some, a Grand Slam is winning all 4 majors consecutively. For others, they must be in the same calendar year starting with the Masters. It's seems that in the absence of a definition coming from one of the ruling bodies, there is no definitive answer, only opinions.

[Hatchman]

I think it is telling that you literally only need to put "Tiger Woods" in the name of a thread to get tons of traffic on this website... Here we are 14 pages deep discussing whether his 4 majors in a row meet the criteria of a grand slam. I'm guilty as charged, but there's gotta be some non-golf people out there saying to themselves "Are these people friggin' pathetic or what?" Something about Tiger Woods has made him the most iconic athlete outside of Michael Jordan since I've been alive, at least in the U.S. It's interesting to see opinions from across the pond!

Very good point. All one needs to do on iconic sports figures is put thier name, initial, brand and presto, immediate recognition. Golden Bear, Bambino, TW, AJ, MJ, Doc, Wilt, Pete, Lance, etc. That's the way we've culturally developed to admire and follow, root, or despise.v oh, forget the last two, gambler and a juicer.

[sean anigans]

Not that it's possible, but if a horse lost the ky derby, won the next two, and COULD and did run the derby the next year~winning it. Would you call the horse a triple crown winner?

[turtleback]

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

What clearly says?  And at least you are honest about your opinion of Tiger and how it colors your opinions.

There is zero logic in any argument that says Tiger did not win the Grand Slam.....none

When someone says his opponents have zero logic but does nothing to actually demonstrate this or make an argument of their own it usually means they cannot defend their position.  But in any case it is woefully weak.  How about the FACT that it is impossible to find any serious discussion of a Grand Slam prior to 2000 that was talking about something OTHER than a calendar year slam?

Grand Slam is a baseball term.

Actually it is a bridge term.  And if we want to go back to origins, if you take the last 6 tricks of one had and the first 7 tricks of the next hand no one would call that a Grand Slam in the bridge world.  Which is bout as relevant assume of the other stuff put forth on this thread.

I challenge anyone to find any reference to the grand slam in golf that was written prior to 2000 that even hints at 4 consecutive majors being a Grand Slam.  Jack certainly did not think that, since it was well known that he lost a little interest in every season in which he did not win the Masters.

And let's not forget that Rory won the final two majors last year and yet no one was really hyped about the possibility of a Grand Slam at this year's Masters.  Why was the hype level so different between Spieth at this year's British and Rory at this year's Masters.  If we accept this new definition of Grand Slam as any 4 consecutive majors, then why would there be such a huge difference in hype levels?

I am not going to call anyone a liar, but I will personally be shocked if anyone can come up with any objective indication that they thought 4 consecutive majors was a Grand slam prior to 2000.  And I hate the fact that I am on @gunther's side.

Quote:

Originally Posted by phan52

What do they call it at IHOP? Tiger should know.

tiger bashing not allowed here

A pox on both your houses.  Grow up.

Thought exercise:

Somebody wins the first three majors one year.  Early August that same year there is some International event that causes a postponement of the PGA Championship (consider how 9/11 pushed back the '01 Ryder Cup to '02)

Let's also assume for this hypothetical that said golfer wins the PGA when it finally gets played.

What difference should it make if they are able to work out the logistics such that its played in December or in February??

Isn't the feat EXACTLY the same either way?

Not so much a theoretical.  In 1971, for ridiculous reasons, the PGA was held as the first major of the year in February.  Jack won it.  In 1972, Jack won the Masters and the US Open.  At this point he was holding 3 of the 4 major trophies.  No one thought he was going for a Grand Slam at the British Open in 1972, even though, had he won, he would have owned all 4 major trophies at once.  Of course the counter to that is that they were not consecutive, since the '71 Masters, US, and British Opens intervened between his '71 PGA and his '72 Masters.  But it is kind of like your scenario and noone though he was going for a GS at the '72 British.

Anyone remember any talk about Harrington having 2 legs on a Grand Slam in '08?  I remember a lot of silly talk about asterisks but nothing about a Grand Slam.  Certainly nothing like the Jordan hype we just had.  How about '94 when Nick Price won the British and the PGA.  Remember a lot of Grand Slam talk at the '95 Masters?  Me neither

I'm about the biggest "fanboy" and defender of Tiger's record around, but I do not think his record needs to be artificially fluffed by changing the general understanding of what a Grand Slam is, as evidenced by how consecutive majors were viewed in the past.  I'll gladly surrender if anyone can show me any serious contemporaneous writings about a potential Grand Slam when a player has won 2 consecutive.

I was around back then and it didn't happen for Trevino in '71, it didn't happen for Snead in '51 (well, I guess I wasn't around for that one), it didn't happen for Watson in '82, and it didn't happen for Mickelson in '05.

So no, I really do not believe that prior to 2000 most (any?) people though any 4 consecutive majors was a Grand Slam.  And so I see no reason to believe that most people think that Tiger's slam is really a Grand Slam.  TST polls notwithstanding, since they are a skewed population and no statistical validity.

And everyone is STILL IGNORING the FACT that players have 3 times as many opportunities to win a consecutive slam than they do to win a calendar slam.  To win a consecutive slam there is added pressure only on 3 of the majors, since there is no added pressure for the first one - lose it and start over at the next major.  But for a Grand Slam there is added pressure on all four majors, because lose the Masters and you have to wait a whole year for your next chance.

In his peak, 1997 through 2008, Tiger had 11 chances to win the Grand Slam (cannot count 2008).  In the same time period he had 27 chances to win a consecutive slam.  Clearly one has a lower chance of happening.

IMO:

Grand Slam > Tiger Slam > Bobby Jones' Slam.

[turtleback]

Yes, he held all four major titles at once.

That is the principle behind the Grand Slam, at least for me.

So if Jack had won the '72 British Open you would have called it a Grand Slam?  I'm pretty sure you would have been the only one, yet he would have held all four titles at once.

[turtleback]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Source?

Everything that was written about the Grand Slam between 1960, when Palmer revived the idea, and 2000.   Look you can call the definition anything you like, but what you cannot do is find anyone calling a consecutive slam a Grand Slam prior to 2000.  THIS is why this is revisionism.

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.

It came damn near to happening in 1971/72, when Jack held 3 of the trophies and was playing for the fourth.  So back in 1972 were you rooting for Jack to win the British Open so he would have a Grand Slam??  Because he would have held all four trophies at that point.  I do not know if you WERE, but if so I'm pretty sure you were alone.  How in the word did the press miss the fact that he was going for a Grand Slam?  Even given the difference in the times, there was waaaaaaaay more hype for Jordan's attempt at the third leg than there was for what you now seem to be possibly claiming was Jack's attempt at the fourth leg.  In fact I recently watched a replay of the '72 British Open and the words Grand Slam never were spoken at all.

If you want to call Tiger's slam a Grand Slam, fine.  But let's be honest about the change in what Grand Slam meant prior to 2000 and now.  You can tell me all about what you think the definition is, but unless you an show me that prior to 2000 you had that same definition it is kind of meaningless.

And, as you know I am the polar opposite of a Tiger hater.

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.

And too many people on the yes side ignore the fact that prior to 2000 NO ONE considered anything other than a calendar slam a Grand Slam.  At least no one did it in serious writing.

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....

I think that is a big part of it and completely unnecessary.  The effect of the slam on Tiger's bona fides as GOAT depend on the accomplishment, not what some folks decide to call it after the fact.

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.

I think it is the other way around.  People are calling something a Grand Slam that never previously had been considered as such in a mis-guided attempt to fluff a record that needs no fluffing.

Sorry for the multiple posts, recently sometimes the multi button does not appear.  And then it reappears.

[Golfingdad]

Look you can call the definition anything you like, but what you cannot do is find anyone calling a consecutive slam a Grand Slam prior to 2000.  THIS is why this is revisionism.

What you also can't find from 1960 (actually, scratch that, from the dawn of time) through 2000 is somebody actually owning the Masters, US Open, Open Championship, and PGA Championship trophies all at the same time.

It's like that old saying:  If a tree doesn't fall in a forest while everybody is around to listen for it ... does it matter if they think it would have made a sound or not?

[Hatchman]

Couldn't cut and paste for some reason but see description: under: Grand Slam at PGA.com under Golf Glossary and Golf Terms

[misty_mountainhop]

....

And everyone is STILL IGNORING the FACT that players have 3 times as many opportunities to win a consecutive slam than they do to win a calendar slam.  To win a consecutive slam there is added pressure only on 3 of the majors, since there is no added pressure for the first one - lose it and start over at the next major.  But for a Grand Slam there is added pressure on all four majors, because lose the Masters and you have to wait a whole year for your next chance.

In his peak, 1997 through 2008, Tiger had 11 chances to win the Grand Slam (cannot count 2008).  In the same time period he had 27 chances to win a consecutive slam.  Clearly one has a lower chance of happening.

IMO:

Grand Slam > Tiger Slam > Bobby Jones' Slam.

Ah. Now you've gone and ruined it. Great point. Thus, the end of this thread arrived.