Tiger's Slam - A Grand Achievement?

[David in FL]

Four Slams. You've got a 25% chance of winning any one of them. Masters -> U.S. Open -> British -> PGA U.S. Open -> British -> PGA -> Masters British -> PGA -> Masters -> U.S. Open PGA -> Masters -> U.S. Open -> British The only reason you're grouping the last three is because of the calendar. So you're not "proving" anything with these probabilities, you're just taking your baseline opinion (that there's something "special" about a Slam that starts with the Masters) and manipulating the percentages to back that baseline up. If you don't start with the mindset that a Slam beginning with the Masters means anything special, then the probabilities don't bear out that there's anything special about a Slam that begins with the Masters.

Now you're forgetting the entire topic of the OP! The real ;-) Grand Slam compared to holding all 4 titles at once, but achieved in any order. The math doesn't care about the mindset.

[Golfingdad]

I'm with turtleback "We have now reached the point where reasonability has gone out the window and there is no point in continuing."

As has civility.  I expect it from some people, not from @turtleback though.

"OK, well not everybody agrees with everything I wrote today - so I guess I should just call them unreasonable, silly, and their posts nonsense."

Seems fair.  I'll chalk it up to an off day for Turtle and move on.

[jamo]

Now you're forgetting the entire topic of the OP! The real ;-) Grand Slam compared to holding all 4 titles at once, but achieved in any order. The math doesn't care about the mindset.

[quote name="iacas" url="/t/83344/tigers-slam-a-grand-achievement/0_30#post_1171834"]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. [/quote] Nope. Not forgetting anything.

[David in FL]

Nope. Not forgetting anything.

Sigh. When an engineer won't acknowledge math this simple, we're not going to get anywhere.

[Yukari]

So if Spieth wins all four this year, which is more impressive. Spieth's 4 in a row or Woods's 4 in a row? Order in degree of difficulty: Career Grand Slam Grand Slam:   4:0 Consecutive Slam Consecutive Slam:    3:1 Consecutive Slam   2:2 Consecutive Slam   1:3 Consecutive Slam

Isn't 3:1 and 1:3 same odds? Similar to throwing dice 2:5 or 5:2?

[jamo]

Sigh. When an engineer won't acknowledge math this simple, we're not going to get anywhere.

The OP, as I've quoted it in its entirety, does not group the other three Slams together. This has nothing to do with math. We could get a hippo with a calculator to bang out the percentages. If you want to argue that there's something special about starting a Slam with the Masters, go for it, but to think that there's some statistical argument is bullshit.

[David in FL]

The OP, as I've quoted it in its entirety, does not group the other three Slams together. This has nothing to do with math. We could get a hippo with a calculator to bang out the percentages. If you want to argue that there's something special about starting a Slam with the Masters, go for it, but to think that there's some statistical argument is bullshit.

And yet, some are struggling with it. ;-) Let's ask @iacas . Is the OP only referring to Tiger's specific slam beginning with the US Open, or would the the same contention be made for 4 Major titles held, regardless of which was the first in the series?

[nevets88]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nevets88

So if Spieth wins all four this year, which is more impressive. Spieth's 4 in a row or Woods's 4 in a row?

Order in degree of difficulty:

Career Grand Slam

Grand Slam:

4:0 Consecutive Slam

Consecutive Slam:

3:1 Consecutive Slam

2:2 Consecutive Slam

1:3 Consecutive Slam

Isn't 3:1 and 1:3 same odds? Similar to throwing dice 2:5 or 5:2?

That's my dumb silly notation. First column is year one, second is year two. Trying to express all permutations of winning four in a row. Nothing to do with odds.

[Gunther]

That's my dumb silly notation. First column is year one, second is year two. Trying to express all permutations of winning four in a row. Nothing to do with odds.

It would be equally difficult to accomplish the Tiger Slam (1st being the US Open) as completing the Grand Slam (1st being the Master's) because one only gets one opportunity per year to get the 1st leg.

[tristanhilton85]

I've been thinking about this thread a lot... Far too much actually. I started with the opinion, as many did, that the Grand Slam was all four majors in the calendar year, and therefore answered no in the poll. However, the OP essentially asks whether or not 4 majors won consecutively should count as a Grand Slam.

While I will agree with what @turtleback t the relative lack of hype surrounding Rory at the Masters this year of Phil at the USO in '06, I've come to the conclusion that really shouldn't mean anything. Just because the majority of the media chose not to hype it doesn't change the accomplishment or the difficulty of it. Winning 4 majors in a row carries the same difficulty whether you start with the Masters, USO, BO, or PGA. If they have the same difficulty and the same result (holding the title to each at the same time), then they are the same.

I'm changing my opinion to say that the Tiger Slam is a Grand Slam. It may not be the way many in the media or others have thought about it, but it is the same achievement and should be counted as such.

[saevel25]

It would be equally difficult to accomplish the Tiger Slam (1st being the US Open) as completing the Grand Slam (1st being the Master's) because one only gets one opportunity per year to get the 1st leg.

How about this one.

So you only get one shot to start the grand slam with the masters. Yet you still only get one shot a year to start a grand slam run with The US Open ;)

Just another twist on the logic there

[jamo]

How about this one.  So you only get one shot to start the grand slam with the masters. Yet you still only get one shot a year to start a grand slam run with The US Open ;)  Just another twist on the logic there :-D

That's what I've been saying all day.

[iacas]

And regardless of whether you think it SHOULD, the fact is it DIDN'T because NO ONE really thought Rory as going for a Grand Slam at the time.

He wasn't going for a Grand Slam. He was going for the third leg of it, and the career grand slam took precedent.

And the purpose of the point was to demonstrate that @iacas's comment about something that could never happen actually came damn close to happening, And to refute his statement that winning 4 consecutively and holding all four trophies did not necessarily ALWAYS mean the same thing.

I also said that this was under normal conditions. Obviously should something else happen to mess with the schedule, I'd get to exercise some common sense and change the thing. And since nobody won four consecutive events or held all four trophies then, it does still mean the same thing - every time a golfer has done one of those things, he's done the other too. Both times…

Hell, Phil did it in 2005 in the post-2000 era and no one hyped his attempt as a GS attempt.

There was a lot of talk of Phil going for his third major. Had he won it, I think there would have been a lot of talk about whether the Tiger Slam or the "Phil Slam" was a true Grand Slam.

Here's the thing @turtleback - a good bit of your argument rests upon the notion that we all have to agree with the media . You keep saying "show me the post" or "give me a link." Do the opinions of journalists only count, or do us regular people get to have our own opinions of what constitutes a "grand slam"?

Yeah that one is funny.  As if some theoretical added pressure outweighs a 3-1 probability advantage.

What I find funny is that you think a probability advantage matters in the context of an athletic endeavor. We're not talking about someone getting a straight flush here, Rich.

As to the second point, are you seriously arguing that the slight hypothetical added difficulty of winning over a longer time period could possibly outweigh the fact that you have 4 times as many opportunities?

No. We get that you are, though I don't understand why you think that argument should hold the least bit of water with me. Again, we can do the math. It's not exactly high end theoretical calculus or whatever you're talking about.

We just think it's irrelevant. Arbitrary. Pointless.

So take the stupid coin-flipping examples, or holing out from a yardage examples, and just stop.

But, THE DOGS DIDN'T BARK.  Because NO ONE thought that those guys were going for a Grand Slam.

Yeah, I'm getting tired of thinking for myself. Let's just have a few people in the MEDIA do it for me! What could go wrong?!?!

And the REALLY funny thing is, if someone DOES win a calendar slam, the golf world will enshrine that as the greatest achievement ever in golf, ABOVE Tiger's slam.  As it should, if it ever happens.

WHY?!?!??!

Rich, c'mon… why? Because they had the luck of starting their run of four straight with a tournament that is hosted first in the year? Because of an arbitrary thing? I've already made a case for the fact that winning four straight over a much longer period of time is more difficult (barely, but still more difficult), and yet you say "As it should"?

On what grounds is an athletic achievement that may be ever so slightly easier to achieve "the greatest achievement ever" over another one that's basically the same except for a stupid arbitrary thing like which came first in a sequence?

But there was Grand Slam buzz for Jordan even though he hadn't won the third one yet.  If they are the same, why was there so much talk about Jordan's possible GS bid and none for Rory's??

Uhm, because the talk then was about something he could actually achieve in that very event ?

That is the thing you guys have not and probably cannot explain.  If a slam starting with the BO is the same as one starting with the Masters, why was there so much GS hype for Jordan and no GS hype for Rory (and none for Phil in 2005).

Which is athletically the more difficult endeavor?

I'm not talking probability. Let's assume you ask Dustin Johnson which is more difficult and he knows NOTHING about probability, statistics, etc. Which is more difficult, as an athletic achievement, to earn?

The third leg of a potential "Rory Slam" also wasn't covered by the media. Rory had to win the Masters to complete his career slam, so that would have been the bigger story.

Agree with what @Golfingdad just said in trying to prove a negative.

Yup.

Right.  All that the "talk" then being about a career slam proves is that the career slam is a really, really big deal.  It doesn't mean that a grand slam or a "rory slam" or whatever is less of a big deal, but the career slam is huge.  And the most important distinction there is that he was already only one win away from said career slam, and he was only halfway to the grand or "grand" slam.

Rest assured, had Rory won the Masters, the hype for him going for 4 in a row (regardless of what you want to call it) coming into the US Open would have been through the roof.

Yup.

Wow, career grand slam is a bigger story than the grand slam; wow; that's, that's, that's.....sigh.

He… wouldn't have won the fourth event if he had won the Masters. He WOULD have completed the career grand slam in that event.

Let's ask @iacas. Is the OP only referring to Tiger's specific slam beginning with the US Open, or would the the same contention be made for 4 Major titles held, regardless of which was the first in the series?

We're talking about any four majors won in a row. Tiger's is just the only example we have to discuss.

To those of you stating that one is less probable and getting snooty about it, NO SHIT we get that. DUH. Seriously, you have to think we're complete morons or something if you think we don't "get" that.

The point I've made is that limiting to something as arbitrary as the calendar year - a thing which has no real bearing on the athletic requirements of achieving the stunt - is dumb in my opinion. Winning four majors in a row is really ****ing hard. Why should we - because of something arbitrary which has NO RELEVANCE ATHLETICALLY - award a "special" title to the calendar year achievement? Why?

Like I said before, it's almost like requiring that the third-round of every major won has the player shooting 66. It's completely irrelevant to the athletic achievement itself - it's an arbitrary limiter put on that does nothing to change the achievement, yet by awarding it the name we elevate the achievement slightly.

Tell you what. I'm officially inventing the phrase "The Awesome Slam" and say that an "Awesome Slam" is achieved when a player shoots 63, 64, 65, and 66 - in that order - in winning the U.S. Open. It does not apply to other majors; just the U.S. Open.

Since it's statistically less likely to happen (it never has, after all), then I will declare this Awesome Slam to be even more impressive a feat than the Grand Slam, which has been achieved at least once (Bobby Jones) nearly all will agree.

Then, if someone shoots 65, 66, 63, 65 and wins the U.S. Open, or shoots 63, 64, 65, 66 in winning another major, we can debate whether that was actually an Awesome Slam or not. Never mind that none of those things are likely to happen because that's a score of about -22 at least (and that's on a par 70)… but because it's statistically even less likely to happen than a Grand Slam or Tiger Slam, we'll just pretend that's a more impressive feat.

In other words, I prefer to define things by the athletic achievement. Not the "probability" of limiting yourself to 20 chances versus about 77 chances (you can't get a grand slam in your last three events if you play 80 majors).

I've been thinking about this thread a lot... Far too much actually. I started with the opinion, as many did, that the Grand Slam was all four majors in the calendar year, and therefore answered no in the poll. However, the OP essentially asks whether or not 4 majors won consecutively should count as a Grand Slam.

While I will agree with what @turtleback has posted about the relative lack of hype surrounding Rory at the Masters this year of Phil at the USO in '06, I've come to the conclusion that really shouldn't mean anything. Just because the majority of the media chose not to hype it doesn't change the accomplishment or the difficulty of it. Winning 4 majors in a row carries the same difficulty whether you start with the Masters, USO, BO, or PGA. If they have the same difficulty and the same result (holding the title to each at the same time), then they are the same.

I'm changing my opinion to say that the Tiger Slam is a Grand Slam. It may not be the way many in the media or others have thought about it, but it is the same achievement and should be counted as such.

Posted while I was typing my response… and exactly why I feel the way I do.

If your argument is about probability, you've not made an argument that is going to sway me one mm. It's not about probability for me - it's about the difficulty of the achievement as an athletic achievement.

[InTheRough]

i voted no.  For me the Grand slam is a player having the perfect season--not having a great end of one season and great beginning of the next season (FWIW I define the end of the "season" as the end of the Fedex Cup).  This is not to belittle what Tiger did because it was an absolutely phenomenal achievement that may not be replicated again but i still dont see it as a grand slam.

[Natural Patrick]

i voted no.  For me the Grand slam is a player having the perfect season--not having a great end of one season and great beginning of the next season (FWIW I define the end of the "season" as the end of the Fedex Cup).  This is not to belittle what Tiger did because it was an absolutely phenomenal achievement that may not be replicated again but i still dont see it as a grand slam.

This pretty much sums it up for me!

[tmac20]

I voted no and Wikipedia agrees. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(golf)

[jbishop15]

i voted no.  For me the Grand slam is a player having the perfect season--not having a great end of one season and great beginning of the next season (FWIW I define the end of the "season" as the end of the Fedex Cup).  This is not to belittle what Tiger did because it was an absolutely phenomenal achievement that may not be replicated again but i still dont see it as a grand slam.

Except it isn't that. Winning the U.S. open thru PGA is not what I'd call being great at the end. That's great for the vast majority of the season.

[tristanhilton85]

I voted no and Wikipedia agrees.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(golf)

Kind of... If you continue reading the article, it goes on to say how there was much talk before Tiger won the Masters whether or not it should count and that it's hard to come to an answer because there is "no definitive definition."