Tiger's Slam - A Grand Achievement?

[CraiginKSA]

Opportunities, chances whatever you want to call them.  The Tiger slam is easier to achieve than an actual slam.

[CraiginKSA]

I tried to add to my post, but timed out.  Stupid work call.  Anyway:

My point, which may have been made earlier, but I didn't see it, is that if you don't win the Masters this year, you can still win it next year. So you have two chances to win the tournament and complete the slam.

Same way with the US Open. If you miss in both the Masters and US OPen this year, you can win them the next year and finish it off.

4 in a row starting with the Masters is harder than 4 in a row starting with any of the 4 tournaments.

[14ledo81]

I tried to add to my post, but timed out.  Stupid work call.  Anyway:

My point, which may have been made earlier, but I didn't see it, is that if you don't win the Masters this year, you can still win it next year. So you have two chances to win the tournament and complete the slam.

Same way with the US Open. If you miss in both the Masters and US OPen this year, you can win them the next year and finish it off.

4 in a row starting with the Masters is harder than 4 in a row starting with any of the 4 tournaments.

I would not really say harder.  You still have to win 4 in a row.

Statistically less probable maybe....

My stance is still to just state what was accomplished, "The Grand Slam" or "The Calendar Year Grand Slam".

[boogielicious]

I tried to add to my post, but timed out.  Stupid work call.  Anyway: My point, which may have been made earlier, but I didn't see it, is that if you don't win the Masters this year, you can still win it next year. So you have two chances to win the tournament and complete the slam. Same way with the US Open. If you miss in both the Masters and US OPen this year, you can win them the next year and finish it off. 4 in a row starting with the Masters is harder than 4 in a row starting with any of the 4 tournaments.

This was discussed earlier. If you pick any of the four to start with, four in a row are equally difficult mathematically.

[CraiginKSA]

This was discussed earlier. If you pick any of the four to start with, four in a row are equally difficult mathematically.

Agree if you pick a specific four in a row.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but which is harder:

Masters-US Open-Open-PGA or

Masters-US Open-Open-PGA-Masters and you have to win one Masters.

[boogielicious]

[QUOTE name="boogielicious" url="/t/83344/tigers-slam-a-grand-achievement/450#post_1196227"] This was discussed earlier. If you pick any of the four to start with, four in a row are equally difficult mathematically.[/QUOTE] Agree if you pick a specific four in a row. Not to put too fine a point on it, but which is harder: Masters-US Open-Open-PGA or Masters-US Open-Open-PGA-Masters and you have to win one Masters.

Winning any four in a row is a tremendously difficult task. It has only been done once with the current majors. I and others have argued that they are equally difficult. Only one is referred to as a Grand Slam and that definition was loosely created by media over the years. If Day wins the next three, it will be as great an achievement to me as if Spieth had one four starting with the Masters.

[turtleback]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CraiginKSA

It's not the same.

The Tiger slam or wraparound slam could be 1-2-3-4, or 2-3-4-1, or 3-4-1-2 or 4-1-2-3.  IOW 4 chances to achieve it.

The real slam can only be 1-2-3-4.  One chance.

The issue of "chances" was discussed earlier in some depth. It was seen as pointless among many/most as it has no real bearing on the athletic difficulty.

Scroll back through.

And there is the crux of the disagreement, IMO. You are just looking at difficulty, while ignoring likelihood. To many/most of us, both factors matter.  And generally we do not allow ourselves to be ruled purely by difficulty in how we look at things in golf.  For example, clearly it is more difficult to win the Players than it is to win the Masters, but we do not start calling the Players a major (except for Phil).

[iacas]

Opportunities, chances whatever you want to call them.  The Tiger slam is easier to achieve than an actual slam.

Easier but not athletically. It's like saying a pitcher who strikes out six batters in a row on 3-2 pitches dud something more difficult than someone who struck out six on any count. They both struck out six in a row. [quote name="turtleback" url="/t/83344/tigers-slam-a-grand-achievement/450#post_1196347"] And there is the crux of the disagreement, IMO. You are just looking at difficulty, while ignoring likelihood. To many/most of us, both factors matter.[/quote] Why? It has nothing to do with the athletic achievement. I'm not ignoring it. I think it's irrelevant.

[nevets88]

Ivan Lendl would call four in a row, not in a calendar year, a grand slam.

Quote:

"What happens if Rafa wins the Australian Open?" Ivan Lendl, a winner of eight major titles, asked recently. "I'd call it a Grand Slam."

And to repeat what @Calvin noted way back in this thread:

Quote:

Most traditionalists insist that the "Grand Slam" should refer only to winning all four titles in a calendar year, although the constitution of the International Tennis Federation, the sport's governing body, spells out that "players who hold all four of these titles at the same time achieve the Grand Slam".

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/nadal-this-will-be-my-only-shot-at-doing-the-grand-slam-2183008.html

I think tennis uses Calendar Year Slam because it's been done twice in the open era - Laver and Graf. And they are revered players. The Consecutive Slam was achieved by Graf in 94, Navratilova (6 in a row!), and Serena Williams, twice. And that's just the open era. But that doesn't make the CS in tennis any less difficult imho. I would love to find some articles arguing against the ITF's notion that CS=GS=CYS.

The fact that tennis differentiates between the two and thus golf should makes less sense to me because only one, just one person in golf, Woods, has achieved the CS and CYS/GS - zero, zilch, nada, nil. Tennis comparatively, for the CS, is a veritable party w/4 people, Navratilova, Laver, Graf(2X) and Williams (2X), the CS was accomplished 6 times in singles.

I also find it interesting that the CYS+CS has been achieved five times in women's tennis, but not once in women's golf. Sorenstam came close w/two wins and two top 5s and Webb, 2 wins, 1 top 5, 1 top 15.

tl;dr - CS = CYS = GS. Tennis and golf.

To add. I wonder if this notion of a CYS diminishes Navratilova's 6 in a row because it should not one iota. 6 in a row, that's insane. I bet there are people out there who would say well, Joe Golfer won 6 GS tournaments in a row (no 4 in one year), but it's not as good as a CYS.

[nevets88]

In light of today's recent events,

I think the ITA got it so right 30+ years ago. V iva l'Italia! Calendar Slam = Consecutive Slam

[iacas]

http://www.tigerwoods.com/news/2015/12/22/160240834/tiger-reflects-on-up-and-down-2015-and-looks-ahead-to-2016/

Quote

Several things stand out. Number one, you have to go back to my first major win, which was the Masters in 1997. How I did it, winning by 12 strokes, was so special. And then winning four-in-a-row and owning the Grand Slam, something no professional golfer has ever done. Third would probably be my 142-consecutive cuts-made streak. Consistency for a long period of time … there's a lot that goes into that. You have bad days, you have bad weeks, but to battle and endure and suck it up and get it done, I'm very proud of that one.

 

[PEZGolf]

On 7/19/2015 at 6:03 PM, iacas said:

 

I disagree that that's the "definition."

 

I define it as "winning all four majors in a row." The "calendar year" is an arbitrary, pointless thing.

 

Consider the definition of "career grand slam," which clearly doesn't have a silly limit like that. That just requires that you win four, in any order you want, over any period of time. Heck… Tiger won the "career grand slam" in four consecutive events!

First, we must be accurate here. THE Grand Slam is winning the two " Opens" (US and British) and the two oldest National Amateurs (again---US and British). Not only did Bob Jones win all 4 in one calendar year, I believe he is the ONLY golfer to do this great feat in his career!  I do not think either Jack or Tiger ever won the British Amateur!                                                                This thread is about the PROFESSIONAL Grand Slam!

[Abu3baid]

12 minutes ago, PEZGolf said:

First, we must be accurate here. THE Grand Slam is winning the two " Opens" (US and British) and the two oldest National Amateurs (again---US and British). Not only did Bob Jones win all 4 in one calendar year, I believe he is the ONLY golfer to do this great feat in his career!  I do not think either Jack or Tiger ever won the British Amateur!                                                                This thread is about the PROFESSIONAL Grand Slam!

I'm confused about what it is you are trying to say..  

[PEZGolf]

28 minutes ago, Abu3baid said:

I'm confused about what it is you are trying to say..  

I am a Publisher and Editor of " The Golf News". It is my STRONG belief that people should use proper English and correct terminology when they speak or write. This thread is NOT about the Grand Slam of Golf. It IS about the PROFESSIONAL Grand Slam of Golf.

---

By the way, the term "Grand Slam" originated in tennis, where it is still used to this date!

[Abu3baid]

2 minutes ago, PEZGolf said:

I am a Publisher and Editor of " The Golf News". It is my STRONG belief that people should use proper English and correct terminology when they speak or write. This thread is NOT about the Grand Slam of Golf. It IS about the PROFESSIONAL Grand Slam of Golf.

---

By the way, the term "Grand Slam" originated in tennis, where it is still used to this date!

I think it's silly to play these word semantics don't you?  The OP clearly stated what he wanted to discuss, and everyone in the 26+ pages of responses have discussed what the thread is about..  Is it a slow day? C'mon!

[mvmac]

17 minutes ago, PEZGolf said:

It is my STRONG belief that people should use proper English and correct terminology when they speak or write. This thread is NOT about the Grand Slam of Golf. It IS about the PROFESSIONAL Grand Slam of Golf.

Get off your high horse dude. @iacas is obviously talking about the modern Grand Slam (which he says in the OP). Nobody thought the thread was about Tiger holding the titles for the U.S. and British Opens and U.S. and British Amateurs at once.

[boogielicious]

5 hours ago, PEZGolf said:

I am a Publisher and Editor of " The Golf News". It is my STRONG belief that people should use proper English and correct terminology when they speak or write. This thread is NOT about the Grand Slam of Golf. It IS about the PROFESSIONAL Grand Slam of Golf.

---

By the way, the term "Grand Slam" originated in tennis, where it is still used to this date!

And yet you continue to ignore our requests for proper formatting of your posts. Please read and understand the OP and the thread posts before commenting. And please try to stay on topic.

[Ernest Jones]

9 hours ago, PEZGolf said:

I am a Publisher and Editor of " The Golf News". It is my STRONG belief that people should use proper English and correct terminology when they speak or write. This thread is NOT about the Grand Slam of Golf. It IS about the PROFESSIONAL Grand Slam of Golf.

---

By the way, the term "Grand Slam" originated in tennis, where it is still used to this date!

You're an editor???? Most of the time, I can barely read your posts.