Tiger's Slam - A Grand Achievement?

[tristanhilton85]

Again, I don't think that's the case. Obviously I can't speak for others, but I don't think someone made that argument (and if someone did, I guess he's standing quite alone in it). It's merely semantics for me. What Tiger did is not lesser, easier or less of an accomplishmet, it's something else.

That's the thing though... calling it something else implies that it IS something else. It isn't. It's the same achievement and should be labeled as such.

[Mac62]

...So, for you guys saying that it isn't a Grand Slam because that's what the definition says, answer this. If you were the ones writing the definition of "Grand Slam" what would it be? Would it include Tiger's achievement? If it has to be within the same season/calendar year, why?

If I was writing the definition, it would be exactly what the current definition is, as defined by the PGA - winning all four Majors in one season/calendar year.  It wouldn't include Woods' achievement because it's not (IMO) a Grand Slam.  It's a "Tiger Slam", for whatever that's worth.  My reasoning would be that it's the same as basically every other sport in the world - those types of titles are decided upon based upon one season of play, with clearly defined starting and ending points.  The FedEx Cup, tour cards, money winnings, etc. - those are all calculated based upon one "season" of golf, so why shouldn't the Grand Slam be the same?

If we're going to pander to athletes to prop up their records, let's go back and award Wayne Gretzky a whole bunch more hat tricks for when he scored three goals across two games.  He holds the NHL record with 50 hat tricks and no active player is anywhere near that, but heck, we can make that record darn near untouchable if we rewrite history and remove that silly ol' arbitrary definition that a "hat trick" is three goals within one game.  I mean, history clearly shows him as one of the greatest hockey players of all time, but that's not enough - let's really make him The King!  In fact, he'll probably have some long strings of consecutive hat tricks under our revised definition, so let's make up a new award and call it...oh, I don't know....how about the "Gretzky Slam"?  We shouldn't have to stick to NHL definitions...I mean, what do they know about hockey anyway?

[saevel25]

If I was writing the definition, it would be exactly what the current definition is, as defined by the PGA - winning all four Majors in one season/calendar year.  It wouldn't include Woods' achievement because it's not (IMO) a Grand Slam.  It's a "Tiger Slam", for whatever that's worth.

It's worth exactly the same as the Grand Slam. People are just making it about semantics instead of actually having substantially different about it.

[Silent]

That's the thing though... calling it something else implies that it IS something else. It isn't. It's the same achievement and should be labeled as such.

Let's agree to disagree

[iacas]

This may have been said in a previous post (I have not read all 21 pages) but there is added pressure in winning all 4 in one calendar year.

Totally disagree that there's more pressure to win your FOURTH major IN A ROW just because the calendar year is the same. If anything the layoff adds to the difficulty a bit. [quote name="Mac62" url="/t/83344/tigers-slam-a-grand-achievement/360#post_1174553"]If I was writing the definition, it would be exactly what the current definition is, as defined by the PGA - winning all four Majors in one season/calendar year.[/quote] I would not. We disagree there. No surprise. [quote name="Mac62" url="/t/83344/tigers-slam-a-grand-achievement/360#post_1174553"]My reasoning would be that it's the same as basically every other sport in the world - those types of titles are decided upon based upon one season of play, with clearly defined starting and ending points.[/quote] Are you reading the other posts? You trotted out a lot we've already discussed. Golf doesn't really have seasons. They pass out trophies at the end of every tournament. The "seasons" in golf are just for bookkeeping (for awards and exempt status and such). Heck qualifying for the Masters has a different "season" than for the British Open. The European Tour has different seasons than the Australian Tour or the PGA Tour. [quote name="Mac62" url="/t/83344/tigers-slam-a-grand-achievement/360#post_1174553"]The FedEx Cup, tour cards, money winnings, etc. - those are all calculated based upon one "season" of golf, so why shouldn't the Grand Slam be the same?[/quote] Answered several times above. They hand out a FedExCup trophy so they have to define an endpoint. The trophies for majors are at the end of the tournament . If the "grand slam" was a trophy given to someone who had the best cumulative scoring across all four of the majors, then I would be in complete agreement that it should be in a calendar year. It is not. [quote name="Mac62" url="/t/83344/tigers-slam-a-grand-achievement/360#post_1174553"]If we're going to pander to athletes to prop up their records, let's go back and award Wayne Gretzky a whole bunch more hat tricks for when he scored three goals across two games.[/quote] That's silly and ignores the scope of the things. You have 72 holes to win a major and 60 minutes to get a hat trick. The equivalent would be if someone shot low rounds in the last two of one major and the first two if the next. Nobody here is arguing that they should win anything based on those four rounds. It's also not pandering. It doesn't change the accomplishment one bit. We can disagree all we want. No need to "agree" to it. This entire thing comes down to how you define the term. I prefer to define equivalent athletic achievements equally. Some like the "calendar year" stipulation. Cool. That's it. The poll basically asks you how YOU define the term. There is almost no point in discussing it with others beyond sharing what and why you think the "year" bit is important or not. The only people I'll actively disagree with are those who keep pushing the "probability" stuff. :-)

[MyrtleBeachGolf]

As this poll continues, the NO votes are gaining on the yes. An early 75-25 has turned into a 60-40.

[Golfingdad]

In hockey you can get a hat trick. In baseball, you can hit for the cycle. If you do them in order-Or uninterrupted in hockey- they add the word natural to the front.

Natural hat trick.

Natural cycle.

The act is the same but if you do it in a unique or less probable way they add the word natural to modify the base term.

They also do not care if you get an out in the third inning, if you score the first through third or fifth through seventh goals.-They care only about what you did.

So Tiger got a Grand Slam and Jordan was going for the third leg of the Natural Grand Slam.-Problem solved. Even aligns with other sports nicely.

I voted yes and would have voted yes in 1995 too.-Take my word for it or do not-Will not affect my day today in least.

Love it.  Acknowledges that four in a row from any point is still a Grand Slam, but still keeps a special place for those who want to designate a calendar year slam a little differently.

Great idea.  How do we get this made official?

[Calvin]

Love it.  Acknowledges that four in a row from any point is still a Grand Slam, but still keeps a special place for those who want to designate a calendar year slam a little differently.

Great idea.  How do we get this made official?

Well, before you push for this, consider that it does imply that Tiger had an Unnatural Grand Slam.   :)

[Golfingdad]

Well, before you push for this, consider that it does imply that Tiger had an Unnatural Grand Slam.   :)

LOL ... hey that's a good compromise, right?  The "yay" votes above are happy because "Grand" is in the title and the "nays" are happy because there is a qualifier identifying it as something different from a Natural Grand Slam.

P.S.  Welcome to the site!

[turtleback]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mvmac

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.

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.

Oh, and one last minor point ... had Spieth won last week, and then pulled off the slam next month, I would actually give him a little more credit than Tiger; but not because they occurred in the same calendar year, but rather because they would have been his FIRST four majors.  That's really cool.

Alas, it wasn't to be.

Nice theory.  Except  in 2005 Phil was going for the third leg of the "Grand Slam" but there wasn't any career slam talk to overshadow the Grand Slam.  Phil was just as close as Jordan and there was nothing "extra: to overshadow anthing, as there was with Rory.  Yet, no GS hype at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgreen85

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.

I apologize for any incivility.  But not for my position.

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

...

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"?

As to the first, Phil was in exactly the same position as Jordan was.  No career grand slam to take precedence.  Hey, I just realized there was another one, Padraig won the last 2 in 2008 and went into the 2009 Masters with 2 legs, just like Phil, Rory, and Jordan.  Yet only one of the 4 caused hype and talk in the media and here about a Grand Slam.  Is there something special about a calendar version that makes it hypeable after 2 legs, while the non-calendar version requires 3 legs to start the talk?  And I'm talking about the whole golf world, not just the media.

There was a lot of talk here and in the media and throughout the golf world about Phil going for the third leg, but none of it linked to the GS the way Jordan's attempt did.  Did going for the three majors in a row overshadow talk of a third leg of a Grand Slam?

And my argument is not that you should agree with the media it is that people are saying one thing while their actions say something completely different.  And I have always thought that what a person does is more indicative of their true thinking than what they say.  That is why the "show me the post".  If someone says it is a Grand Slam now, then show me how you treated them the same when the same opportunity arose in the past.

Lots of people have said that they think it is a Grand Slam.  Yet when the possibility arose with Rory (yeah I know the career slam overshadow theory, but it falls apart because there was nothing to overshadow Phil or Paddy's attempts at the third leg) and it wasn't even noticed, as such, the way Jordan's was noticed and hyped.   Why in Jordan's case is winning 2 legs enough to start the talk and hype (and not just in the media here on TST) about a GS but in Phil's case he would have to win the third to start up GS talk?  And not just in the media, throughout the golf world including here.

So, when people say 2 things are the same, but act wildly different about them, then I don't think they really believe they are the same.

Spieth wins 2 calendar legs the crowd goes wild with Grand Slam fever.  Phil, Padraig, and Rory win 2 non-calendar legs, crickets about a Grand Slam.  Actions speak a lot louder than words, IMO.

You can argue that a non-calendar slam should be viewed the same as a grand slam and that is fine.  What I will NOT accept is that that is what the golf world has meant by a grand slam all along.  And I will also not ignore the fact that the golf world treats an attempt at a calendar slam a lot differently than it does an attempt at a non-calendar slam, as evidenced by the last 4 attempts.

"Show me the posts" just means I have to wonder why none of the folks who say it is a Grand Slam seemed to have been excited enough about the prospect of Rory, Phil, or Paddy going for the third leg of a Grand Slam to have said something about it, the way so many people posted comments on Jordan's bid to get the third leg.  You can say they are the same but no one seems to actually TREAT them as if they are the same.  Actions speak louder than words.

[iacas]

LOL ... hey that's a good compromise, right?  The "yay" votes above are happy because "Grand" is in the title and the "nays" are happy because there is a qualifier identifying it as something different from a Natural Grand Slam. P.S.  Welcome to the site!  :beer:

Good by me too. Welcome as well.

[MSchott]

[QUOTE name="iacas" url="/t/83344/tigers-slam-a-grand-achievement/378#post_1174560"] Totally disagree that there's more pressure to win your FOURTH major IN A ROW just because the calendar year is the same. If anything the layoff adds to the difficulty a bit.  [/QUOTE] I just see it differently Erik. I do think that it's very well established that the term Grand Slam refers to the calendar year. What Tiger did is one of the most phenomenal feats in golf's history but it's just not as memorable as doing it in a calendar year. You can argue forever about the origin of the term and whether it's an "official" term but in modern golf lexicon, Grand Slam means in order: The Masters, the US Open, the British Open and the PGA. It's just my opinion by the way so lets leave it at that.

[iacas]

I just see it differently Erik.

You get to. If you want to use your definition, fine. I will disagree that one is quite a bit easier or more difficult athletically. [quote name="MSchott" url="/t/83344/tigers-slam-a-grand-achievement/360#post_1174607"]It's just my opinion by the way so lets leave it at that.  [/quote] As I've said now a few times that's fine. Just don't try to pass off that one is significantly easier. Because then I'll disagree and discuss it. To anyone: if your "no" is strictly because you like the "year" definition, cool. I disagree but there's no point in discussing it (to me). If you argue some other reason though like it being easier, I'm gonna disagree. Which is still fine, but you might get a response. :-D

[Mac62]

I can see the logic in the argument that it's easier from an odds perspective because the run can start at any one of the four Majors by the looser "no calendar year" hypothesis.  I see no logic in arguing that it's easier from an athletic/talent perspective, though - you still have to play well enough and consistently enough to win four Majors in a row, which is no easy task no matter what.

I'm no Eldrick fan (quite the opposite, in fact), but I don't discount his legitimate accomplishments.  I am a Spieth fan and if he won the PGA this year, then came back next year and won the Masters, U.S. Open and British Open but didn't get the PGA, I'd still say it wasn't a Grand Slam.  Damn close, but no cigar (IMO, of course).  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by mvmac

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.

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.

Oh, and one last minor point ... had Spieth won last week, and then pulled off the slam next month, I would actually give him a little more credit than Tiger; but not because they occurred in the same calendar year, but rather because they would have been his FIRST four majors.  That's really cool.

Alas, it wasn't to be.

Nice theory.  Except  in 2005 Phil was going for the third leg of the "Grand Slam" but there wasn't any career slam talk to overshadow the Grand Slam.  Phil was just as close as Jordan and there was nothing "extra: to overshadow anthing, as there was with Rory.  Yet, no GS hype at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgreen85

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.

I apologize for any incivility.  But not for my position.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

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

...

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"?

As to the first, Phil was in exactly the same position as Jordan was.  No career grand slam to take precedence.  Hey, I just realized there was another one, Padraig won the last 2 in 2008 and went into the 2009 Masters with 2 legs, just like Phil, Rory, and Jordan.  Yet only one of the 4 caused hype and talk in the media and here about a Grand Slam.  Is there something special about a calendar version that makes it hypeable after 2 legs, while the non-calendar version requires 3 legs to start the talk?  And I'm talking about the whole golf world, not just the media.

There was a lot of talk here and in the media and throughout the golf world about Phil going for the third leg, but none of it linked to the GS the way Jordan's attempt did.  Did going for the three majors in a row overshadow talk of a third leg of a Grand Slam?

And my argument is not that you should agree with the media it is that people are saying one thing while their actions say something completely different.  And I have always thought that what a person does is more indicative of their true thinking than what they say.  That is why the "show me the post".  If someone says it is a Grand Slam now, then show me how you treated them the same when the same opportunity arose in the past.

Lots of people have said that they think it is a Grand Slam.  Yet when the possibility arose with Rory (yeah I know the career slam overshadow theory, but it falls apart because there was nothing to overshadow Phil or Paddy's attempts at the third leg) and it wasn't even noticed, as such, the way Jordan's was noticed and hyped.   Why in Jordan's case is winning 2 legs enough to start the talk and hype (and not just in the media here on TST) about a GS but in Phil's case he would have to win the third to start up GS talk?  And not just in the media, throughout the golf world including here.

So, when people say 2 things are the same, but act wildly different about them, then I don't think they really believe they are the same.

Spieth wins 2 calendar legs the crowd goes wild with Grand Slam fever.  Phil, Padraig, and Rory win 2 non-calendar legs, crickets about a Grand Slam.  Actions speak a lot louder than words, IMO.

You can argue that a non-calendar slam should be viewed the same as a grand slam and that is fine.  What I will NOT accept is that that is what the golf world has meant by a grand slam all along.  And I will also not ignore the fact that the golf world treats an attempt at a calendar slam a lot differently than it does an attempt at a non-calendar slam, as evidenced by the last 4 attempts.

"Show me the posts" just means I have to wonder why none of the folks who say it is a Grand Slam seemed to have been excited enough about the prospect of Rory, Phil, or Paddy going for the third leg of a Grand Slam to have said something about it, the way so many people posted comments on Jordan's bid to get the third leg.  You can say they are the same but no one seems to actually TREAT them as if they are the same.  Actions speak louder than words.

You do not have to accept it. But you can at least respect that we are entitled to our opinion, which by the tone of your posts, you do not.

Since we are discussing semantics, definition and public opinion, I will bring up an analogy that is not sports related and a bit off topic, but it demonstrates definitions vs. media and public opinion. It illustrates how definitions can change, public opinion influences definition and a general lack of math understanding in the populace.

Virtually everyone thought the 20th century ended on December 31, 1999 and the 21st began on January 1, 2000. The beloved media, many average persons especially party planners were all excited about it. The  Y2K marketing hype also contributed.  But mathematically, the 20th century ended on December 31, 2000 because the first year was year 1, not year 0. No one cared to listen.  People like me, who would bring up the point, would get shut down.

The term Grand Slam is similar and we are debating the definition, start date, etc. What we should not debate is the difficulty of winning four majors in a row as being difficult know matter what your start major is.  Some posters are eluding to that.

The next time someone wins three in a row, the debate of the X-slam will come up again regardless of start major.

[tristanhilton85]

If I was writing the definition, it would be exactly what the current definition is, as defined by the PGA - winning all four Majors in one season/calendar year.  It wouldn't include Woods' achievement because it's not (IMO) a Grand Slam.  It's a "Tiger Slam", for whatever that's worth.  My reasoning would be that it's the same as basically every other sport in the world - those types of titles are decided upon based upon one season of play, with clearly defined starting and ending points.  The FedEx Cup, tour cards, money winnings, etc. - those are all calculated based upon one "season" of golf, so why shouldn't the Grand Slam be the same?

If we're going to pander to athletes to prop up their records, let's go back and award Wayne Gretzky a whole bunch more hat tricks for when he scored three goals across two games.  He holds the NHL record with 50 hat tricks and no active player is anywhere near that, but heck, we can make that record darn near untouchable if we rewrite history and remove that silly ol' arbitrary definition that a "hat trick" is three goals within one game.  I mean, history clearly shows him as one of the greatest hockey players of all time, but that's not enough - let's really make him The King!  In fact, he'll probably have some long strings of consecutive hat tricks under our revised definition, so let's make up a new award and call it...oh, I don't know....how about the "Gretzky Slam"?  We shouldn't have to stick to NHL definitions...I mean, what do they know about hockey anyway?

That's not really true... from what I've found, the International Tennis Federation says that winning four consecutive majors IS as Grand Slam regardless of if they are in the same calendar year or not.

The hockey analogy you provided is ridiculous; but I think you knew that already. They aren't even close to the same thing. I'm comparing winning four majors in a row to winning four majors in a row.

It's fine that you think that it should be in a calendar year. My question is why? What about it makes it any different? Saying "that's just how it is," or "that's just how other sports do it," really isn't an a reason to do it that way, especially when you've been shown another example in another sport that does not do it that way.

Nice theory.  Except  in 2005 Phil was going for the third leg of the "Grand Slam" but there wasn't any career slam talk to overshadow the Grand Slam.  Phil was just as close as Jordan and there was nothing "extra: to overshadow anthing, as there was with Rory.  Yet, no GS hype at all.

I apologize for any incivility.  But not for my position.

As to the first, Phil was in exactly the same position as Jordan was.  No career grand slam to take precedence.  Hey, I just realized there was another one, Padraig won the last 2 in 2008 and went into the 2009 Masters with 2 legs, just like Phil, Rory, and Jordan.  Yet only one of the 4 caused hype and talk in the media and here about a Grand Slam.  Is there something special about a calendar version that makes it hypeable after 2 legs, while the non-calendar version requires 3 legs to start the talk?  And I'm talking about the whole golf world, not just the media.

There was a lot of talk here and in the media and throughout the golf world about Phil going for the third leg, but none of it linked to the GS the way Jordan's attempt did.  Did going for the three majors in a row overshadow talk of a third leg of a Grand Slam?

And my argument is not that you should agree with the media it is that people are saying one thing while their actions say something completely different.  And I have always thought that what a person does is more indicative of their true thinking than what they say.  That is why the "show me the post".  If someone says it is a Grand Slam now, then show me how you treated them the same when the same opportunity arose in the past.

Lots of people have said that they think it is a Grand Slam.  Yet when the possibility arose with Rory (yeah I know the career slam overshadow theory, but it falls apart because there was nothing to overshadow Phil or Paddy's attempts at the third leg) and it wasn't even noticed, as such, the way Jordan's was noticed and hyped.   Why in Jordan's case is winning 2 legs enough to start the talk and hype (and not just in the media here on TST) about a GS but in Phil's case he would have to win the third to start up GS talk?  And not just in the media, throughout the golf world including here.

So, when people say 2 things are the same, but act wildly different about them, then I don't think they really believe they are the same.

Spieth wins 2 calendar legs the crowd goes wild with Grand Slam fever.  Phil, Padraig, and Rory win 2 non-calendar legs, crickets about a Grand Slam.  Actions speak a lot louder than words, IMO.

You can argue that a non-calendar slam should be viewed the same as a grand slam and that is fine.  What I will NOT accept is that that is what the golf world has meant by a grand slam all along.  And I will also not ignore the fact that the golf world treats an attempt at a calendar slam a lot differently than it does an attempt at a non-calendar slam, as evidenced by the last 4 attempts.

"Show me the posts" just means I have to wonder why none of the folks who say it is a Grand Slam seemed to have been excited enough about the prospect of Rory, Phil, or Paddy going for the third leg of a Grand Slam to have said something about it, the way so many people posted comments on Jordan's bid to get the third leg.  You can say they are the same but no one seems to actually TREAT them as if they are the same.  Actions speak louder than words.

I understand what you're saying about they hype surrounding/not surrounding players. You had me on your side for a while; I originally voted no. But, humor me for just a second and answer this; besides starting with the USO, what is any different about Tigers accomplishment? It certainly wasn't easier, and the case could be made that it was harder. Considering that the difficulty is pretty much the same, the result is the same (holding all four major titles), and was accomplished the same way (winning four majors in a row), how is it any different? I'd ask that you respond to that without any reference to hype. Like I said, I understand where you are coming from with that, but that doesn't really answer the question of should Tiger's Slam be counted as a Grand Slam. If you were going to define the term "Grand Slam" would you not include Tiger's accomplishment? If no, is it simply because people didn't get hyped about it (or because people weren't hyped about others having a chance to accomplish a similar feat)?

[mvmac]

Nice theory.  Except  in 2005 Phil was going for the third leg of the "Grand Slam" but there wasn't any career slam talk to overshadow the Grand Slam.  Phil was just as close as Jordan and there was nothing "extra: to overshadow anthing, as there was with Rory.  Yet, no GS hype at all.

Spieth wins 2 calendar legs the crowd goes wild with Grand Slam fever.  Phil, Padraig, and Rory win 2 non-calendar legs, crickets about a Grand Slam.  Actions speak a lot louder than words, IMO.

Did you mean 2006? Phil coming into Winged Foot?

Just because there wasn't a lot of talk or hype (I don't remember if there was) with Phil or Padraig doesn't mean it's "wrong" for our take that a grand slam in golf is four majors in a row. The amount of talk or hype from the media doesn't make your opinion more valid than ours. The majority of the media probably still considers Tiger to be the second greatest player of all time.

I do think if Phil had won the '06 U.S. Open or Padraig had won the '09 Masters, there would have been some kind of slam discussion/debate going into the next major.

[Infamous 273]

That's not really true... from what I've found, the International Tennis Federation says that winning four consecutive majors IS as Grand Slam regardless of if they are in the same calendar year or not. The hockey analogy you provided is ridiculous; but I think you knew that already. They aren't even close to the same thing. I'm comparing winning four majors in a row to winning four majors in a row. It's fine that you think that it should be in a calendar year. My question is why? What about it makes it any different? Saying "that's just how it is," or "that's just how other sports do it," really isn't an a reason to do it that way, especially when you've been shown another example in another sport that does not do it that way. I understand what you're saying about they hype surrounding/not surrounding players. You had me on your side for a while; I originally voted no. But, humor me for just a second and answer this; besides starting with the USO, what is any different about Tigers accomplishment? It certainly wasn't easier, and the case could be made that it was harder. Considering that the difficulty is pretty much the same, the result is the same (holding all four major titles), and was accomplished the same way (winning four majors in a row), how is it any different? I'd ask that you respond to that without any reference to hype. Like I said, I understand where you are coming from with that, but that doesn't really answer the question of should Tiger's Slam be counted as a Grand Slam. If you were going to define the term "Grand Slam" would you not include Tiger's accomplishment? If no, is it simply because people didn't get hyped about it (or because people weren't hyped about others having a chance to accomplish a similar feat)?

And somehow, there's a major disconnect: http://www.si.com/tennis/2015/06/26/daily-data-viz-serena-williams-serena-slam-wimbledon http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/tennis/serena-williams-isnt-stopping-to-enjoy-the-serena-slam/2015/07/11/dc9c5f94-2806-11e5-aae2-6c4f59b050aa_story.html http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-DFB-23211 http://m.tennis.com/pro-game/2015/07/serena-williams-in-easy-win-over-bonaventure-in-swedish-open/55633/#.VbKeIaa9LCQ Aaaaaaannnnd straight from the horses mouth: http://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/news/articles/2015-07-12/stars_celebrate_the_serena_slam.html