Tiger's Slam - A Grand Achievement?

[turtleback]

Exactly.  If someone wins three majors in a row there is going to be talk of a slam and maybe even if it is a Grand Slam.  And THAT is the difference.  When it was a real Grand Slam it only took 2 legs to ignite the slam talk.  You may say that if Phil had won a third there would have been slam talk.  And I say, if that slam and a calendar slam are REALLY the same to the golf world, then why would it take winning the third to ignite the slam talk, whereas in Jordan's case winning the 2nd was enough.

This is just another example of people SAYING they are the same but not ACTING as if they are the same.

I'm using hype as a way of saying the reaction of the golf world.  You can make all of the athletic difficulty arguments you want but they are inapt when addressed to me because that is not what I am arguing.  Even the probability argument is not about athletic difficulty it is about # of opportunities.  No can argue that it is not easier to achieve something if you have 40 chances at it than if you have 10 chances at it (pretty much the same argument as to why Jack's use of majors as the fairest way of comparing players was so UNfair - big difference in # of opportunities). But the athletic difficulty argument is different.  It was far harder, athletically, for the Patriots to get their 22 game winning streak because they had to go through a whole off-season retooling of the team without missing a beat - and for the second half of the streak they had the SB Champs target painted on their chests.   But no one talks about it in the same terms as the Dolphins 17-0.  Athletic difficulty is not the sole determiner of the impressiveness of events.  Context and circumstance matter as well.

But the real point is that there is a tremendous disconnect between the arguments being made here and people talking about what they think it should be and how they actually reacted to the situations.

You bet it is a big deal when the golf world reacts completely differently to 2 ostensibly same events,  No one has yet explained what Jordan's attempt got so many people talking, in the media, in the golf world at large, and right here on TST, about a grand slam when Rory, Phil and Paddy's attempts barely got anyone talking about ANY kind of slam, other than Rory's shot at a career slam.

Also, I find it hilarious that you are so convinced this is a ploy to bolster Tiger's resumé; not to spoil it for you, but he doesn't need help in that department.

The really funny thing is that I am simultaneously one of Tiger's biggest (or at least most vocal)  fans, and a strong defenders and supporters of his record, and one of the strongest (or, at least most vocal) advocates against it being called a Grand Slam, on the board.

[saevel25]

Exactly.  If someone wins three majors in a row there is going to be talk of a slam and maybe even if it is a Grand Slam.  And THAT is the difference.  When it was a real Grand Slam it only took 2 legs to ignite the slam talk.  You may say that if Phil had won a third there would have been slam talk.  And I say, if that slam and a calendar slam are REALLY the same to the golf world, then why would it take winning the third to ignite the slam talk, whereas in Jordan's case winning the 2nd was enough.

You know what they say, "Talk is cheap". So is talk about just considering The Masters to the PGA as the "real" grand slam. In the end, it's winning four tournaments in the row and the action of doing so is the same.

Your definition of a real grand slam is superficial and unimportant.

[Vinsk]

Exactly.  If someone wins three majors in a row there is going to be talk of a slam and maybe even if it is a Grand Slam.  And THAT is the difference.  When it was a real Grand Slam it only took 2 legs to ignite the slam talk.  You may say that if Phil had won a third there would have been slam talk.  And I say, if that slam and a calendar slam are REALLY the same to the golf world, then why would it take winning the third to ignite the slam talk, whereas in Jordan's case winning the 2nd was enough.   This is just another example of people SAYING they are the same but not ACTING as if they are the same. I'm using hype as a way of saying the reaction of the golf world.  You can make all of the athletic difficulty arguments you want but they are inapt when addressed to me because that is not what I am arguing.  Even the probability argument is not about athletic difficulty it is about # of opportunities.  No can argue that it is not easier to achieve something if you have 40 chances at it than if you have 10 chances at it (pretty much the same argument as to why Jack's use of majors as the fairest way of comparing players was so UNfair - big difference in # of opportunities). But the athletic difficulty argument is different.  It was far harder, athletically, for the Patriots to get their 22 game winning streak because they had to go through a whole off-season retooling of the team without missing a beat - and for the second half of the streak they had the SB Champs target painted on their chests.   But no one talks about it in the same terms as the Dolphins 17-0.  Athletic difficulty is not the sole determiner of the impressiveness of events.  Context and circumstance matter as well. But the real point is that there is a tremendous disconnect between the arguments being made here and people talking about what they think it should be and how they actually reacted to the situations. You bet it is a big deal when the golf world reacts completely differently to 2 ostensibly same events,  No one has yet explained what Jordan's attempt got so many people talking, in the media, in the golf world at large, and right here on TST, about a grand slam when Rory, Phil and Paddy's attempts barely got anyone talking about ANY kind of slam, other than Rory's shot at a career slam. The really funny thing is that I am simultaneously one of Tiger's biggest (or at least most vocal)  fans, and a strong defenders and supporters of his record, and one of the strongest (or, at least most vocal) advocates against it being called a Grand Slam, on the board.

Again Turtleback you act as though your interpretation of how much hype there was is the authority. Maybe YOU didn't perceive as much hype with Phil as there was for Jordan. You keep saying "people" weren't acting as they are saying. What people? I was hyped, my family and friends...you are not an authority on media traffic. You may have felt it was less hyped and that's fine. Maybe media "awareness" has grown exponentially since Phil's situation, many Americans have been wondering if we'll get someone new to do what Tiger did for golf so when a young guy who's shown amazing potential wins two majors in a row the public got excited? Your assumption that there was less hype and that it was contributed to one being a "Grand Slam" and the other not is 100% opinion, not factual by any means.

[Hatchman]

Exactly.  If someone wins three majors in a row there is going to be talk of a slam and maybe even if it is a Grand Slam.  And THAT is the difference.  When it was a real Grand Slam it only took 2 legs to ignite the slam talk.  You may say that if Phil had won a third there would have been slam talk.  And I say, if that slam and a calendar slam are REALLY the same to the golf world, then why would it take winning the third to ignite the slam talk, whereas in Jordan's case winning the 2nd was enough.   This is just another example of people SAYING they are the same but not ACTING as if they are the same.

IMO you raise valid points. Using "real" as possibly deserving prompts my attention but not far reaching. A great achievement to own just one major, I don't think one cannot help but think of the grand as successive and in the same year. Sorry. Other sports or events have similar precedence; * Kentucky Derby's Triple Crown * MLB Triple Crown ** Name Others

[Chewie03]

I voted No.

To me, the Grand Slam means natural grand slam, and the Tiger Slam means four in a row.  One is more rare than the other, and I want to keep that rarer definition.

[turtleback]

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback

Exactly.  If someone wins three majors in a row there is going to be talk of a slam and maybe even if it is a Grand Slam.  And THAT is the difference.  When it was a real Grand Slam it only took 2 legs to ignite the slam talk.  You may say that if Phil had won a third there would have been slam talk.  And I say, if that slam and a calendar slam are REALLY the same to the golf world, then why would it take winning the third to ignite the slam talk, whereas in Jordan's case winning the 2nd was enough.

You know what they say, "Talk is cheap". So is talk about just considering The Masters to the PGA as the "real" grand slam. In the end, it's winning four tournaments in the row and the action of doing so is the same.

Your definition of a real grand slam is superficial and unimportant.

a) thanks for making my point that talk is cheap.  Actions speak louder than words.

b) and they say *I* am uncivil.  At least when I make an argument it is an actual argument with facts and reasoning, not just hand waving and empty assertions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback

Exactly.  If someone wins three majors in a row there is going to be talk of a slam and maybe even if it is a Grand Slam.  And THAT is the difference.  When it was a real Grand Slam it only took 2 legs to ignite the slam talk.  You may say that if Phil had won a third there would have been slam talk.  And I say, if that slam and a calendar slam are REALLY the same to the golf world, then why would it take winning the third to ignite the slam talk, whereas in Jordan's case winning the 2nd was enough.

This is just another example of people SAYING they are the same but not ACTING as if they are the same.

I'm using hype as a way of saying the reaction of the golf world.  You can make all of the athletic difficulty arguments you want but they are inapt when addressed to me because that is not what I am arguing.  Even the probability argument is not about athletic difficulty it is about # of opportunities.  No can argue that it is not easier to achieve something if you have 40 chances at it than if you have 10 chances at it (pretty much the same argument as to why Jack's use of majors as the fairest way of comparing players was so UNfair - big difference in # of opportunities).  But the athletic difficulty argument is different.  It was far harder, athletically, for the Patriots to get their 22 game winning streak because they had to go through a whole off-season retooling of the team without missing a beat - and for the second half of the streak they had the SB Champs target painted on their chests.   But no one talks about it in the same terms as the Dolphins 17-0.  Athletic difficulty is not the sole determiner of the impressiveness of events.  Context and circumstance matter as well.

But the real point is that there is a tremendous disconnect between the arguments being made here and people talking about what they think it should be and how they actually reacted to the situations.

You bet it is a big deal when the golf world reacts completely differently to 2 ostensibly same events,  No one has yet explained what Jordan's attempt got so many people talking, in the media, in the golf world at large, and right here on TST, about a grand slam when Rory, Phil and Paddy's attempts barely got anyone talking about ANY kind of slam, other than Rory's shot at a career slam.

The really funny thing is that I am simultaneously one of Tiger's biggest (or at least most vocal)  fans, and a strong defenders and supporters of his record, and one of the strongest (or, at least most vocal) advocates against it being called a Grand Slam, on the board.

Again Turtleback you act as though your interpretation of how much hype there was is the authority. Maybe YOU didn't perceive as much hype with Phil as there was for Jordan. You keep saying "people" weren't acting as they are saying. What people? I was hyped, my family and friends...you are not an authority on media traffic. You may have felt it was less hyped and that's fine. Maybe media "awareness" has grown exponentially since Phil's situation, many Americans have been wondering if we'll get someone new to do what Tiger did for golf so when a young guy who's shown amazing potential wins two majors in a row the public got excited?

Your assumption that there was less hype and that it was contributed to one being a "Grand Slam" and the other not is 100% opinion, not factual by any means.

Well, all I can say is that if all that was happening among you, your family and friends, and the golf world at large, for Phil, Paddy, and Rory, y'all kept it a pretty damned good secret.

[Vinsk]

a) thanks for making my point that talk is cheap.  Actions speak louder than words. b) and they say *I* am uncivil.  At least when I make an argument it is an actual argument with facts and reasoning, not just hand waving and empty assertions.   Well, all I can say is that if all that was happening among you, your family and friends, and the golf world at large, for Phil, Paddy, and Rory, y'all kept it a pretty damned good secret.

So YOU didn't sense there was as much hype? Oh...well that's certainly concrete and fact based right? I have co workers who have never heard of Jordan Spieth. So would they be correct to jump on a forum and ask why Jordan Spieth gets so much hype as they've never heard of him. Furthermore to disassemble your opinionated argument, you have shown zero, ZERO proof, facts, evidence that the reason for your perceived less hype was due to people not considering whether a "Grand Slam" was being pursued or not.

[Abu3baid]

So YOU didn't sense there was as much hype? Oh...well that's certainly concrete and fact based right? I have co workers who have never heard of Jordan Spieth. So would they be correct to jump on a forum and ask why Jordan Spieth gets so much hype as they've never heard of him. Furthermore to disassemble your opinionated argument, you have shown zero, ZERO proof, facts, evidence that the reason for your perceived less hype was due to people not considering whether a "Grand Slam" was being pursued or not.

You have evidence right here on TST.. Look at the thread for the 2015 British open and look at how many people posted that they would like to see Jordan win because it gives him a chance to go for the "grand slam".. Now compare that to the thread of the 2015 Masters.. I couldn't find one person who posted about Rory going for the "Grand Slam".. There is talk about him going for the Career Slam, but not the infamous "Grand Slam".. If the two situations are similar why would they not get the same "hype"? I don't find his arguments opinionated at all.

[Vinsk]

You have evidence right here on TST.. Look at the thread for the 2015 British open and look at how many people posted that they would like to see Jordan win because it gives him a chance to go for the "grand slam".. Now compare that to the thread of the 2015 Masters.. I couldn't find one person who posted about Rory going for the "Grand Slam".. There is talk about him going for the Career Slam, but not the infamous "Grand Slam".. If the two situations are similar why would they not get the same "hype"? I don't find his arguments opinionated at all.

So Google "Rory goes for grand slam" it's all over the place. Again, as Iacas as said...different OPINIONS exist as to what constitutes a Grand Slam. You can't prove one way or the other and turtlebacks efforts are futile. I think a better discussion is which is more "difficult".....4 in a row or 4 in a row in one calendar year.

[Abu3baid]

So Google "Rory goes for grand slam" it's all over the place. Again, as Iacas as said...different OPINIONS exist as to what constitutes a Grand Slam. You can't prove one way or the other and turtlebacks efforts are futile. I think a better discussion is which is more "difficult".....4 in a row or 4 in a row in one calendar year.

No it's not.. Show me the media reports about Rory going for a grand slam? There are some about him going for the "Career Grand Slam", and then compare them to the articles written about spieth and how he is going for the 3rd leg of the Grand Slam.. It could have been real easy for the media to say Rory is going for two things, the career slam and the third leg of the grand slam and why they didn't is what needs to be answered.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback

Exactly.  If someone wins three majors in a row there is going to be talk of a slam and maybe even if it is a Grand Slam.  And THAT is the difference.  When it was a real Grand Slam it only took 2 legs to ignite the slam talk.  You may say that if Phil had won a third there would have been slam talk.  And I say, if that slam and a calendar slam are REALLY the same to the golf world, then why would it take winning the third to ignite the slam talk, whereas in Jordan's case winning the 2nd was enough.

You know what they say, "Talk is cheap". So is talk about just considering The Masters to the PGA as the "real" grand slam. In the end, it's winning four tournaments in the row and the action of doing so is the same.

Your definition of a real grand slam is superficial and unimportant.

a) thanks for making my point that talk is cheap.  Actions speak louder than words.

b) and they say *I* am uncivil.  At least when I make an argument it is an actual argument with facts and reasoning, not just hand waving and empty assertions.

So those who disagree with you are "just hand waving" and making "empty assertions"?  Wow!  And I thought I was making cogent and carefully constructed comments expressing a reasonable, albeit opposing point of view.  I guess Erik and I and a couple of others will just have to bow out now and leave this thread to you since you espouse the only possible correct definition.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by turtleback

This is just another example of people SAYING they are the same but not ACTING as if they are the same.

Getting too general. Probably with a dash of confirmation bias thrown in.

I think that if someone else won the first two legs of the grand slam this year there would have likely been LESS hype than if it was Jordan Spieth. The kid is hyped when he wins a little tournament, or loses a playoff. He's a young fresh face that's doing really well. The hype is magnified for him.

Furthermore, again, @turtleback , I don't care what the media chooses to hype. It doesn't really affect my decisions or my definitions. I define "grand slam" differently than you or the majority of the "media." It's really that simple.

You can make all of the athletic difficulty arguments you want but they are inapt when addressed to me because that is not what I am arguing. Even the probability argument is not about athletic difficulty it is about # of opportunities.

Oh brother. Rich, please stop with the probability stuff.

As I said above, in a comment you seem to have missed, we get the probability stuff, we just think it's completely irrelevant . Pretty sure we all passed fifth grade math.

Go look up my Awesome Slam comments. Probability of being VERY difficult to achieve… but so what? This is a matter of athletic achievement, not random luck of the draw.

But the real point is that there is a tremendous disconnect between the arguments being made here and people talking about what they think it should be and how they actually reacted to the situations.

… in your perception of things. You don't know how I reacted to Tiger in early 2001. And two in a row is impressive, but I suspect if it wasn't Jordan Spieth, we'd be talking a lot less about a guy winning the Masters and the U.S. Open.

No one has yet explained what Jordan's attempt got so many people talking, in the media, in the golf world at large, and right here on TST…

Uhm, again, because it was Jordan Spieth. The guy sneezes and it gets hyped. He's one of the top five most hyped guys out there right now.

Rory was talked about as the career grand slam because, again, he could actually COMPLETE that then, he wasn't going for the "spans-a-season grand slam" then. Just the third leg of it. Had he won that, after they marveled at him winning the career slam, they'd talk about how he was going to rival tiger in completing a "slam" of some kind. Some would call it grand (just as some in the media and on the PGA Tour, etc. called Tiger's slam a Grand Slam), some would argue that it was a "Tiger Slam."

You define it differently than me or the other "yes" voters. That's it.

I'll put my hand down now.

[natureboy]

I found it kinda stupid they say calendar year, yet the PGA Tour recently changed that the golfing season doesn't follow the calendar year. I believe now PGA Tour season starts in October.

I agree with Erik, that definition is silly. There is no significant change in the overall meaningfulness of having all four majors in your possession at one time just by considering it during a calendar year or not. The fact is you have to win 4 majors in a row and Tiger did that.

That's a good point. I hadn't thought of the PGA calendar.

While I agree the 'technical' definition is within one calendar year, it's a pointless distinction in golf. I voted yes. The career grand slam is a very rare and HOF-defining achievement. Doing it in the span of 12 months is huge. Depending on how you define a major it's been done by Tiger alone or Tiger / Jones (but possibly others if you count the Western open as a major prior to the Masters).

It seems the reason the technical definition has any weight / impact is because the 'by-the-definition' grand slam has happened several times in tennis so the 'calendar year' distinction makes it a slightly less frequent occurrence and therefore a more exclusive club. Winning open championships in tennis is hard, but I think doing it in golf is harder statistically.

[iacas]

And even now the event with arguably the best, and inarguably one of the top 4 strongest fields, isn't a major at all - the Players.  So no, strength of field has not, historically been the criteria.  But of course in these days where we change the criteria to fit the achievement . . .

@turtleback , you don't need to keep posting these slights in other threads. It's not like those who voted "yes" changed the criteria from 4 in a row to 4 out of 6, or three in a row with the fourth one coming two playings of the event later.

The old criteria was "four in a row" and "four in a year." Tiger Woods won four consecutive majors in a span of less than a year. The calendar year stuff is arbitrary - it's not like the Vardon Trophy or something where they have to define a start and end point.

Tiger Woods won four consecutive majors in a year. If you want to call the calendar-year Grand Slam something, there it is: the Calendar-Year Grand Slam.

But anyway, let's not take some mildly passive aggressive swipes at people in OTHER threads, please. I'm perfectly content and it doesn't bother me in the least that you believe (your opinion) that the calendar year thing is a "requirement," or to discuss it all you want… in this thread right here.

[Slice of Life]

I'd have to agree...4 in a row, is 4 in a row.

[cristphoto]

It has to be based on a calendar year. To win the slam your need to win the first major of the year. Otherwise four different major winners could be in contention for the slam. If a football team went 0-8 win the first half of a season 8-0 the second half and then went 8-0 the first half of the next year they wouldn't be considered to have gone unbeaten. Calendar year only.

[Slice of Life]

It has to be based on a calendar year. To win the slam your need to win the first major of the year. Otherwise four different major winners could be in contention for the slam. If a football team went 0-8 win the first half of a season 8-0 the second half and then went 8-0 the first half of the next year they wouldn't be considered to have gone unbeaten. Calendar year only.

Completely different argument.

[MyrtleBeachGolf]

It has to be based on a calendar year. To win the slam your need to win the first major of the year. Otherwise four different major winners could be in contention for the slam. If a football team went 0-8 win the first half of a season 8-0 the second half and then went 8-0 the first half of the next year they wouldn't be considered to have gone unbeaten. Calendar year only.

[quote name="Slice of Life" url="/t/83344/tigers-slam-a-grand-achievement/420#post_1187139"] Completely different argument.  [/quote] Not to mention a football season doesn't take place in a calendar year either.