Tiger's Slam - A Grand Achievement?

[Fourputt]

I think that the biggest issue I have with this whole subject is trying to simply discuss golf's Grand Slam as a single entity.  If you call what Bobby Jones did a Grand Slam, then you need a different appellation for the Modern Slam, and if you believe that it's required to be done in a calendar year, then you need a third name for Tiger's slam.  If you insist on a different definition for each, then there needs to be a different tag for each.  Bobby Jones accomplishment was the Historic Grand Slam, and not nearly the achievement that Tiger's Small Slam (yet another bridge term for bidding and making one less than all of the tricks) was.

Nobody has, or in my opinion ever will, achieve the Calendar Year Grand Slam.  If Hogan, Snead, Palmer, Nicklaus couldn't do it playing against varying degrees of relatively weaker fields, then it's simply not going to happen.  It seems rather stupid to me to have a name for some fanciful feat that is unlikely to ever be accomplished.  More exciting to me to have a new run at a Grand Slam begin each time a major is won by a different player from the previous one.  It would be good for the game if Zach was to win the PGA Championship and we had the ensuing 8 months to get worked up for the Masters, where Zach would then be going for the third leg of the Grand Slam.  In my opinion, that would be better for the game than reserving the name for some unattainable pie in the sky goal.

[turtleback]

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback

Look you can call the definition anything you like, but what you cannot do is find anyone calling a consecutive slam a Grand Slam prior to 2000.  THIS is why this is revisionism.

What you also can't find from 1960 (actually, scratch that, from the dawn of time) through 2000 is somebody actually owning the Masters, US Open, Open Championship, and PGA Championship trophies all at the same time.

It's like that old saying:  If a tree doesn't fall in a forest while everybody is around to listen for it ... does it matter if they think it would have made a sound or not?

What in the world does that have to do with anything?  Something does not need to be accomplished in order to be contemplated and called something.  The fact is that prior to 2000 no one called anything other than a calendar year slam a Grand Slam.  You can dodge and twist all you want, but until this statement is contradicted there is no case for this NOT being a redefinition.

Look you can call it anything you want.  But it is nonsense to try to argue that this is what everyone meant by Grand Slam all along.  Look at the hype for Spieth.  Now look at the incredible LACK of hype every time someone had won the first 2 legs of a non-calendar slam (listed in prior post).  If you want to think that the golf world thought those guys were going for the 3rd leg fine,  But you cannot find anyone AT THE TIME saying that.  So define it any way you want, but please do not insult our intelligence by trying to argue that calling it a Grand Slam does not involve a change in the understanding of what that term means.

Hell, find me a contemporaneous retrospective on Tiger's win at Medinah, talking about how he now has a shot at the Grand Slam and I'll concede and go away.  This is strictly either a re-definition of the term or a complete rewriting of history.

I think that the biggest issue I have with this whole subject is trying to simply discuss golf's Grand Slam as a single entity.  If you call what Bobby Jones did a Grand Slam, then you need a different appellation for the Modern Slam, and if you believe that it's required to be done in a calendar year, then you need a third name for Tiger's slam.  If you insist on a different definition for each, then there needs to be a different tag for each.  Bobby Jones accomplishment was the Historic Grand Slam, and not nearly the achievement that Tiger's Small Slam (yet another bridge term for bidding and making one less than all of the tricks) was.

Nobody has, or in my opinion ever will, achieve the Calendar Year Grand Slam.  If Hogan, Snead, Palmer, Nicklaus couldn't do it playing against varying degrees of relatively weaker fields, then it's simply not going to happen.  It seems rather stupid to me to have a name for some fanciful feat that is unlikely to ever be accomplished.  More exciting to me to have a new run at a Grand Slam begin each time a major is won by a different player from the previous one.  It would be good for the game if Zach was to win the PGA Championship and we had the ensuing 8 months to get worked up for the Masters, where Zach would then be going for the third leg of the Grand Slam.  In my opinion, that would be better for the game than reserving the name for some unattainable pie in the sky goal.

Yet NONE of that has EVER happened when someone has won 2 consecutive majors.  No one talked about Rory's (who did exactly what you are hoping for Zach to do) Grand Slam try at this year's Masters.  No one talked about Trevino's Grand Slam try in '72.  Or Phil's Grand Slam try in '05.  If what you are saying represents the true feelings of the golf world why didn't those things happen?

[saevel25]

And everyone is STILL IGNORING the FACT that players have 3 times as many opportunities to win a consecutive slam than they do to win a calendar slam.  To win a consecutive slam there is added pressure only on 3 of the majors, since there is no added pressure for the first one - lose it and start over at the next major.  But for a Grand Slam there is added pressure on all four majors, because lose the Masters and you have to wait a whole year for your next chance.

Winning a major is winning a major. Owning all four majors is still a grand slam. Throwing the words, "Calendar year", or "Golfing Season" next to them doesn't do anything to make it more important.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I think that the biggest issue I have with this whole subject is trying to simply discuss golf's Grand Slam as a single entity.  If you call what Bobby Jones did a Grand Slam, then you need a different appellation for the Modern Slam, and if you believe that it's required to be done in a calendar year, then you need a third name for Tiger's slam.  If you insist on a different definition for each, then there needs to be a different tag for each.  Bobby Jones accomplishment was the Historic Grand Slam, and not nearly the achievement that Tiger's Small Slam (yet another bridge term for bidding and making one less than all of the tricks) was.

Nobody has, or in my opinion ever will, achieve the Calendar Year Grand Slam.  If Hogan, Snead, Palmer, Nicklaus couldn't do it playing against varying degrees of relatively weaker fields, then it's simply not going to happen.  It seems rather stupid to me to have a name for some fanciful feat that is unlikely to ever be accomplished.  More exciting to me to have a new run at a Grand Slam begin each time a major is won by a different player from the previous one.  It would be good for the game if Zach was to win the PGA Championship and we had the ensuing 8 months to get worked up for the Masters, where Zach would then be going for the third leg of the Grand Slam.  In my opinion, that would be better for the game than reserving the name for some unattainable pie in the sky goal.

Yet NONE of that has EVER happened when someone has won 2 consecutive majors.  No one talked about Rory's (who did exactly what you are hoping for Zach to do) Grand Slam try at this year's Masters.  No one talked about Trevino's Grand Slam try in '72.  Or Phil's Grand Slam try in '05.  If what you are saying represents the true feelings of the golf world why didn't those things happen?

I didn't say it had - I'm saying that it SHOULD.  As long as we have people like you who refuse to revise their archaic thinking, we will be stuck with this impossible goal in the game, and what should be the game's biggest honor will never, ever be won by anyone.  That isn't a goal, it's a fantasy.

[misty_mountainhop]

Winning a major is winning a major. Owning all four majors is still a grand slam. Throwing the words, "Calendar year", or "Golfing Season" next to them doesn't do anything to make it more important.

Didn't like @turtleback 's point? Thought it was pretty convincing myself. Owning all Majors at a single point in time is indeed impressive. However, unless you're re-defining/revising/ cheapening the commonly accepted norm for what the golfing GS is, Woods' pretty awesome achievement in '00-'01 is not the Grand Slam.

I understand now - we're attempting to re-define, as a lesser target, the golf Grand Slam. If that's what people want to do, they're welcome to it.

[misty_mountainhop]

I didn't say it had - I'm saying that it SHOULD.  As long as we have people like you who refuse to revise their archaic thinking, we will be stuck with this impossible goal in the game, and what should be the game's biggest honor will never, ever be won by anyone.  That isn't a goal, it's a fantasy.

That is precisely why it holds such an amazing cachet. Why shouldn't there be such a lofty goal? Simply because you want to say you've witnessed the era in which it was achieved? As far as anyone ever doing it, never say never and all that but I'm afraid TW can't tick this box off on his impressive CV.

Spieth was a gnat's chuff (i.e. very close) away from holding the first 3 Majors of 2015. OK, he would still have had to win the PGA but I'm sure I wouldn't have been the only one thinking him finishing the Slam was entirely realistic - had he simply 2-putted the 8th at St. Andrews in the final round.

[Hatchman]

Couldn't cut and paste for some reason but see description: under: Grand Slam at PGA.com under Golf Glossary and Golf Terms

Got it from PGA.COM as noted above. Cut and paste worked. As defined by the PGA. "Grand Slam: The Modern (or Professional) Grand Slam describes winning the four professional Major Championships -- the PGA Championship, the Masters and the United States and British Opens -- in a calendar year. The Career Grand Slam describes winning each of these events once in a career. Only Gene Sarazen, Ben Hogan, Gary Player, Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods have accomplished this. No one has ever won the Modern Grand Slam. In 1930, Bobby Jones won the U.S and British Amateurs and Opens, a feat which was termed the Grand Slam and has never been duplicated. The 28-year old Jones retired from competitive golf that year. In addition, The PGA of America's Grand Slam of Golf is a late-season event that features the winners of that year's four Professional Major championships."

[Abu3baid]

Wow.. Some convincing arguments put fourth by @turtleback , I'm changing my opinion from my previously posted comment that he achieved it.. I am now in the camp that one would certainly need to win all majors in the same season to be considered winning the grand slam! It is not easy for me to change my opinion so you definitely said some good stuff Rich!

[14ledo81]

Wow.. Some convincing arguments put fourth by @turtleback , I'm changing my opinion from my previously posted comment that he achieved it.. I am now in the camp that one would certainly need to win all majors in the same season to be considered winning the grand slam!

It is not easy for me to change my opinion so you definitely said some good stuff Rich!

Me too.  Nice work @turtleback .

[Gunther]

I didn't say it had - I'm saying that it SHOULD.  As long as we have people like you who refuse to revise their archaic thinking, we will be stuck with this impossible goal in the game, and what should be the game's biggest honor will never, ever be won by anyone.  That isn't a goal, it's a fantasy.

Thanks for your candor with this post. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe you are acknowledging what a true Grand Slam is, but it's simply too hard to achieve. As such, the definition should be adjusted so as to be more fair and if we on the other side don't agree, well, we're just archaic meanies. This is honestly how I have interpreted this in very simplistic terms, granted. No disrespect intended, honestly.

[saevel25]

Didn't like @turtleback's point? Thought it was pretty convincing myself. Owning all Majors at a single point in time is indeed impressive. However, unless you're re-defining/revising/cheapening the commonly accepted norm for what the golfing GS is, Woods' pretty awesome achievement in '00-'01 is not the Grand Slam.

I understand now - we're attempting to re-define, as a lesser target, the golf Grand Slam. If that's what people want to do, they're welcome to it.

The problem is does that single year even add to the significance of owning all four at once.

I find it a bit demeaning to the act of winning all four majors in consecutive order by stating, "Oh you winning those four majors isn't even close to being as good as winning all four of them in the same year".

Come one, only two times in the Master's Era history has someone won three consecutive majors at any time. Jack didn't do it in 1971 because the PGA Championship was held before the Masters that year. So @turtleback statement on Jack was incorrect. He wouldn't had won all four in a row if he won the 1972 Open.

You are telling me that because Hogan happen to win the first three, that his three Majors wins are more impressive than Tiger's 3 major wins in 2000? That is just absurd. Adding a time frame to it is a cheap trick. It's like ESPN trying to drive a story line so they can get more people to watch.

[phan52]

I didn't say it had - I'm saying that it SHOULD.  As long as we have people like you who refuse to revise their archaic thinking, we will be stuck with this impossible goal in the game, and what should be the game's biggest honor will never, ever be won by anyone.  That isn't a goal, it's a fantasy.

I would suggest that Jordan Spieth feels otherwise. And the next Masters winner, particularly if he is a top player, will dispute that as well. I would wager that Tiger thought of it every time he won the Masters, and definitely after he won that AND the US Open in 2002. Why shouldn't it be a goal?

[Golfingdad]

Actually it is a bridge term.  And if we want to go back to origins, if you take the last 6 tricks of one had and the first 7 tricks of the next hand no one would call that a Grand Slam in the bridge world.  Which is bout as relevant assume of the other stuff put forth on this thread.

I agree that nobody would call that a grand slam in Bridge, but "hands" in bridge are defined in stone.  Golf is just a loose collective of a bunch of separate tournaments.

Not so much a theoretical.  In 1971, for ridiculous reasons, the PGA was held as the first major of the year in February.  Jack won it.  In 1972, Jack won the Masters and the US Open.  At this point he was holding 3 of the 4 major trophies.  No one thought he was going for a Grand Slam at the British Open in 1972, even though, had he won, he would have owned all 4 major trophies at once.  Of course the counter to that is that they were not consecutive, since the '71 Masters, US, and British Opens intervened between his '71 PGA and his '72 Masters.  But it is kind of like your scenario and noone though he was going for a GS at the '72 British.

Overall, great post, BTW.  Regarding the above, it's fascinating because I did not know this, however, as you already aluded to, it wouldn't really qualify as Grand Slam even in the "revisionists" book, I'm guessing, because they weren't all 4 in a row.

Still, very interesting fact. :)

What in the world does that have to do with anything?  Something does not need to be accomplished in order to be contemplated and called something.  The fact is that prior to 2000 no one called anything other than a calendar year slam a Grand Slam.  You can dodge and twist all you want, but until this statement is contradicted there is no case for this NOT being a redefinition.

Look you can call it anything you want.  But it is nonsense to try to argue that this is what everyone meant by Grand Slam all along.  Look at the hype for Spieth.  Now look at the incredible LACK of hype every time someone had won the first 2 legs of a non-calendar slam (listed in prior post).  If you want to think that the golf world thought those guys were going for the 3rd leg fine,  But you cannot find anyone AT THE TIME saying that.  So define it any way you want, but please do not insult our intelligence by trying to argue that calling it a Grand Slam does not involve a change in the understanding of what that term means.

I'm not really trying for a redefinition.  I honestly don't care.  I just figure that since it was something that was never even close to happening that there was probably never talk at all about it, and thus nothing there to really "strengthen" or drive on the usage of the term put forth in 1930 by Keeler.

Come one, only two times in the Master's Era history has someone won three consecutive majors at any time. Jack didn't do it in 1971 because the PGA Championship was held before the Masters that year. So @turtleback statement on Jack was incorrect. He wouldn't had won all four in a row if he won the 1972 Open.

I don't believe @turtleback actually said that.  He just said he would have owned all of the titles at the same time had he won the British, and that would have been accurate.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I didn't say it had - I'm saying that it SHOULD.  As long as we have people like you who refuse to revise their archaic thinking, we will be stuck with this impossible goal in the game, and what should be the game's biggest honor will never, ever be won by anyone.  That isn't a goal, it's a fantasy.

That is precisely why it holds such an amazing cachet. Why shouldn't there be such a lofty goal? Simply because you want to say you've witnessed the era in which it was achieved? As far as anyone ever doing it, never say never and all that but I'm afraid TW can't tick this box off on his impressive CV.

Spieth was a gnat's chuff (i.e. very close) away from holding the first 3 Majors of 2015. OK, he would still have had to win the PGA but I'm sure I wouldn't have been the only one thinking him finishing the Slam was entirely realistic - had he simply 2-putted the 8th at St. Andrews in the final round.

If he manages that 2 putt then maybe something else happens to derail him.  As long as we are talking about things that didn't happen, we can speculate both positive and negative.  Monday morning quarterbacking is fun, but essentially meaningless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I didn't say it had - I'm saying that it SHOULD.  As long as we have people like you who refuse to revise their archaic thinking, we will be stuck with this impossible goal in the game, and what should be the game's biggest honor will never, ever be won by anyone.  That isn't a goal, it's a fantasy.

Thanks for your candor with this post. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe you are acknowledging what a true Grand Slam is, but it's simply too hard to achieve. As such, the definition should be adjusted so as to be more fair and if we on the other side don't agree, well, we're just archaic meanies. This is honestly how I have interpreted this in very simplistic terms, granted. No disrespect intended, honestly.

It's not a "lofty goal".  It's not simply hard to achieve, it's like standing on top of Mt. Everest and thinking you can hit the moon with a BB gun.  In the more than 75 years that the feat has been possible, nobody has won more than 3 of the 4 majors in a calendar year.  With the dilution of opportunity due to relative parity in the upper 25% of golf rankings, it is markedly less likely that anyone would win all 4 in a calendar year now than it has ever been, and it's obviously never been very likely, since it's never been done.

Hanging a carrot out of reach of a donkey to make it pull a cart may have been a stroke of genius for the cartman, but then a donkey is really not that bright.  Are golfers that stupid too?  Or are they just that egotistical (a trait which can manifest itself as stupidity) to think that they have a better chance than the Hall of Fame greats who have tried and failed for the last 75+ years?

We at least do know that holding all 4 titles at one time is possible because it has been done.  Talking about holding them all in one season is still in the realm of science fiction.

[jgreen85]

hmm, I feel like I put forth the same arguments as tutleback, but he got all of the credit. meh, w/e. Glad to see some are seeing the light. The Mcilroy example is perfect and I'm annoyed I didn't see it. I do follow golf now as opposed to during Tiger's attempts and the other historical examples turtleback provided, which certainly added significant heft to OUR argument :). I don't recall anyone claiming Rory was going for the "Grand Slam;" only that he had the opportunity to complete the career grand slam at a very young age. Whereas everyone was exclaiming Jordan had the opportunity to get the 3rd.

[Gunther]

If he manages that 2 putt then maybe something else happens to derail him.  As long as we are talking about things that didn't happen, we can speculate both positive and negative.  Monday morning quarterbacking is fun, but essentially meaningless. It's not a "lofty goal".  It's not simply hard to achieve, it's like standing on top of Mt. Everest and thinking you can hit the moon with a BB gun.  In the more than 75 years that the feat has been possible, nobody has won more than 3 of the 4 majors in a calendar year.  With the dilution of opportunity due to relative parity in the upper 25% of golf rankings, it is markedly less likely that anyone would win all 4 in a calendar year now than it has ever been, and it's obviously never been very likely, since it's never been done.   Hanging a carrot out of reach of a donkey to make it pull a cart may have been a stroke of genius for the cartman, but then a donkey is really not that bright.  Are golfers that stupid too?  Or are they just that egotistical (a trait which can manifest itself as stupidity) to think that they have a better chance than the Hall of Fame greats who have tried and failed for the last 75+ years? We at least do know that holding all 4 titles at one time is possible because it has been done.  Talking about holding them all in one season is still in the realm of science fiction.

I agree it's difficult although I don't agree it'll never happen. But this argument really is not germain to the central point, a Grand Slam must occur within the same calendar year (at least from my point of view). Tiger's didn't so diminishing the meaning of the term doesn't help Tiger's legacy in any way. If no one ever achieves it, so be it.

[Abu3baid]

hmm, I feel like I put forth the same arguments as tutleback, but he got all of the credit. meh, w/e. Glad to see some are seeing the light. The Mcilroy example is perfect and I'm annoyed I didn't see it. I do follow golf now as opposed to during Tiger's attempts and the other historical examples turtleback provided, which certainly added significant heft to OUR argument :). I don't recall anyone claiming Rory was going for the "Grand Slam;" only that he had the opportunity to complete the career grand slam at a very young age. Whereas everyone was exclaiming Jordan had the opportunity to get the 3rd.

lol.. No hard feelings.. The strongest part of the argument for me was really that no one was talking fm about how Rory could complete the slam the same way they were with Jordan this past Monday.. So, there is definitely some differentiation between the two in terms of what they would achieve..

[nevets88]

Some more opinions from the golf world. To answer the author's last question in the quote below, Woods would think he won the GS twice.

Tiger's slam bid is a grand illusion

Tiger Woods enters this week's Masters as hot favourite to win an unprecedented fourth consecutive major - but not, say golf's greats, the ultimate prize. David Davies reports

But even among the moderns the "nos" outnumber the "yeas". Lee Westwood dealt very briefly with the question: "It has to be in a calendar year. Full stop." And Annika Sorenstam, who by winning the Nabisco Championship two weeks ago is the only woman with a chance of the grand slam this year, was equally dismissive. "I think it has to be the same year. It's tough but that's the way I look at it."

And so it is - tough. But that is the way it was meant to be, golf's loftiest goal. And here is a thought for Woods. Should he win at Augusta and call his achievement a grand slam, what does he call it when, if ever he does, he wins all four in a calendar year?

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/story/0,3604,466916,00.html