Tiger's Slam - A Grand Achievement?

[Infamous 273]

I voted no. The clock starts at 0:00:00 once the season begins. No one considers the 2003-2004 Patriots 21 game winning streak as anything other than damn impressive - the undefeated '72 Dolphins are the benchmark. Four majors in one season, from April to August; not June to April.

[Golfingdad]

Grand Slam is a baseball term.

It's not.  It's origin is card games "whist" and bridge in the early to mid 1800's.

Next it was applied to golf in 1930, then used in tennis in 1938, and it entered the baseball lexicon in 1940.

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/118/  (Maybe not the best source, but it's the most concise and the others I found echo portions of this)

[jgreen85]

fair enough; even the card game says all tricks in "one hand" - nothing about in a row. I think that adds to my point. It's about the most possible; nothing to do with in a row.

[jamo]

Is that eating all at Denny's or can you take it hope to finish it later? I think if you take part of that home and eat it later you would still have completed the grand slam ;)

That's called the [URL=http://www.sbnation.com/2013/7/25/4556202/supperjumpin-inventing-the-worst-saddest-sport-in-the-history-of-the]SupperJump[/URL].

[Golfingdad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

It's not.  It's origin is card games "whist" and bridge in the early to mid 1800's.

Next it was applied to golf in 1930, then used in tennis in 1938, and it entered the baseball lexicon in 1940.

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/118/  (Maybe not the best source, but it's the most concise and the others I found echo portions of this)

fair enough; even the card game says all tricks in "one hand" - nothing about in a row. I think that adds to my point. It's about the most possible; nothing to do with in a row.

You're getting a little too technical in trying to marry the golf definition to the bridge definition (safe bet that Keller didn't spend hours analyzing EXACTLY how they compare when he thought of it) but just for fun ... how, exactly, could one win all of the tricks in a hand if they didn't do it all in a row?

[jgreen85]

You're getting a little too technical in trying to marry the golf definition to the bridge definition (safe bet that Keller didn't spend hours analyzing EXACTLY how they compare when he thought of it) but just for fun ... how, exactly, could one win all of the tricks in a hand if they didn't do it all in a row?

the better question is, what makes 13 in a row special?

and what's the name of winning the last 7 tricks in hand #1 and the first 6 tricks in hand #2?

[mvmac]

So some journalist arbitrarily defines something a real long time ago, with a completely different set of tournaments and we are supposed to stick with that? It is like Pluto being demoted from planet to dwarf planet (I'm still mad at Neil deGrass Tyson about that one!).

Right, things change in golf. Rules, majors, equipment, courses, when the season starts, all those have gone through big changes. The U.S. Open used to finish with 36 holes on the same day, the PGA Championship was match play, that was the "tradition" at the time until someone changed it.

FWIW, no, of course it wasn't a grand slam. By the accepted norm of the definition.

Going by the votes, it doesn't seem that your definition is the accepted norm.

Here's a thought and just as a "what if...?". What would people's opinions on this be if it was, say, Colin Montgomerie or Sergio Garcia who'd done as TW did in '00-'01?

Then I say (as most people who voted in the thread do) that they would have won the Grand Slam.

Most of the time you are all berating the news media for the self-important puffed up, politically correct airheads that they tend to be, yet now you defend the grand slam invention of theirs as if it came down off the mountain with Moses.

It was Old Tom Morris actually. He wrote it down on a napkin at the Jigger Inn.

[Rip24]

Whether or not it is a grandslam? Maybe, maybe not...whatever. What it is and what's not up for debate is that it's the most impressive and improbable thing that happened in sports since DiMaggios hitting streak

[krupa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

You're getting a little too technical in trying to marry the golf definition to the bridge definition (safe bet that Keller didn't spend hours analyzing EXACTLY how they compare when he thought of it) but just for fun ... how, exactly, could one win all of the tricks in a hand if they didn't do it all in a row?

the better question is, what makes 13 in a row special?

and what's the name of winning the last 7 tricks in hand #1 and the first 6 tricks in hand #2?

There are 13 tricks in one hand of bridge.  To get a Grand Slam, you and your partner must bid for the contract using a very reduced vocabulary (1 Heart, 3 clubs, 4 spades..).  If you bid for and take all the tricks, you got a Grand Slam.  It does not happen often and is very hard to achieve because one poorly played card loses the contract.

Winning 7 tricks in one hand is nothing much and winning 6 in the next is losing the hand... you must win the majority of the tricks (i.e., 7 at least) to win the hand.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgreen85

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

You're getting a little too technical in trying to marry the golf definition to the bridge definition (safe bet that Keller didn't spend hours analyzing EXACTLY how they compare when he thought of it) but just for fun ... how, exactly, could one win all of the tricks in a hand if they didn't do it all in a row?

the better question is, what makes 13 in a row special?

and what's the name of winning the last 7 tricks in hand #1 and the first 6 tricks in hand #2?

There are 13 tricks in one hand of bridge.  To get a Grand Slam, you and your partner must bid for the contract using a very reduced vocabulary (1 Heart, 3 clubs, 4 spades..).  If you bid for and take all the tricks, you got a Grand Slam.  It does not happen often and is very hard to achieve because one poorly played card loses the contract.

Winning 7 tricks in one hand is nothing much and winning 6 in the next is losing the hand... you must win the majority of the tricks (i.e., 7 at least) to win the hand.

Off topic. Please steer back to the OP topic.

[Wally Fairway]

Whether or not it is a grandslam? Maybe, maybe not...whatever. What it is and what's not up for debate is that it's the most impressive and improbable thing that happened in sports since DiMaggios hitting streak

The most impressive thing is that DiMaggio did not win the batting title that year, as it was the same year that Ted Williams hit .406; after winning the batting title in 1939 and 1940 Joltin' Joe "only" hit .357 in 1941 and Williams took the title.

[mmoan2]

It's not.  It's origin is card games "whist" and bridge in the early to mid 1800's.

Next it was applied to golf in 1930, then used in tennis in 1938, and it entered the baseball lexicon in 1940.

http://theboard.byu.edu/questions/118/  (Maybe not the best source, but it's the most concise and the others I found echo portions of this)

I thought it was the $3.99 breakfast at Denny's ?!?!?!

[pumaAttack]

Yes, he held all four major titles at once.

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

[14ledo81]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krupa

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgreen85

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

You're getting a little too technical in trying to marry the golf definition to the bridge definition (safe bet that Keller didn't spend hours analyzing EXACTLY how they compare when he thought of it) but just for fun ... how, exactly, could one win all of the tricks in a hand if they didn't do it all in a row?

the better question is, what makes 13 in a row special?

and what's the name of winning the last 7 tricks in hand #1 and the first 6 tricks in hand #2?

There are 13 tricks in one hand of bridge.  To get a Grand Slam, you and your partner must bid for the contract using a very reduced vocabulary (1 Heart, 3 clubs, 4 spades..).  If you bid for and take all the tricks, you got a Grand Slam.  It does not happen often and is very hard to achieve because one poorly played card loses the contract.

Winning 7 tricks in one hand is nothing much and winning 6 in the next is losing the hand... you must win the majority of the tricks (i.e., 7 at least) to win the hand.

Off topic. Please steer back to the OP topic.

????

Hasn't there been quite a few analogies made?  Why is this one deemed off-topic?

[Hatchman]

"I think it's a slam," PGA Tour Commissioner Tim Finchem said Sunday, warding off any dispute about whether what Woods has done deserves the highest praise. "It's a different kind of slam than we grew up with, but different is OK."

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious

Quote:

Originally Posted by krupa

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgreen85

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

You're getting a little too technical in trying to marry the golf definition to the bridge definition (safe bet that Keller didn't spend hours analyzing EXACTLY how they compare when he thought of it) but just for fun ... how, exactly, could one win all of the tricks in a hand if they didn't do it all in a row?

the better question is, what makes 13 in a row special?

and what's the name of winning the last 7 tricks in hand #1 and the first 6 tricks in hand #2?

There are 13 tricks in one hand of bridge.  To get a Grand Slam, you and your partner must bid for the contract using a very reduced vocabulary (1 Heart, 3 clubs, 4 spades..).  If you bid for and take all the tricks, you got a Grand Slam.  It does not happen often and is very hard to achieve because one poorly played card loses the contract.

Winning 7 tricks in one hand is nothing much and winning 6 in the next is losing the hand... you must win the majority of the tricks (i.e., 7 at least) to win the hand.

Off topic. Please steer back to the OP topic.

????

Hasn't there been quite a few analogies made?  Why is this one deemed off-topic?

Because you are discussing the game Bridge and not the golf definition. If you just added a line about how this equates to the golf term, then it is not off topic. Or you could use the spoiler function. The others were also off topic, especially all food related ones by @Golfingdad !  Drew is a bad influence!

[Fourputt]

I voted no. The clock starts at 0:00:00 once the season begins. No one considers the 2003-2004 Patriots 21 game winning streak as anything other than damn impressive - the undefeated '72 Dolphins are the benchmark. Four majors in one season, from April to August; not June to April.

Again, not comparable.  An undefeated season is by name, a seasonal achievement.  Grand slam has been applied to so many pursuits that any attempt at coming up with a definitive meaning is doomed to failure, or at best to confusion.  As a term, its meaning has been effectively diluted by overuse.

[Golfingdad]

????

Hasn't there been quite a few analogies made?  Why is this one deemed off-topic?

Because discussing the rules of bridge makes Scott's brain hurt so much that he has the urge to throw on his tuxedo and race to the nearest Denny's!!

(Seriously though, it was the fact that we weren't analogizing anymore, we were wandering and just talking about bridge.  What are we?  65 year old Jewish women??)

"I think it's a slam," PGA Tour Commissioner Tim Finchem said Sunday, warding off any dispute about whether what Woods has done deserves the highest praise. "It's a different kind of slam than we grew up with, but different is OK."

This sounds funny to me unless he means its different because it includes the Masters and the PGA in place of the 2 amateurs.  Because that was the ONLY slam that ever occurred prior to Tiger so "the one he grew up with" couldn't have meant anything else.