Tiger's Slam - A Grand Achievement?

[saevel25]

  Abu3baid said:

There is a reason they are calling it the "third" leg of the Grand Slam because it starts with a win at the Masters, while for Rory they acknowledge that he is trying to be only the 6th player to win a career Grand Slam.

That is only because Spieth happen to just win the first two majors of the year ;)

A third leg of the grand slam could be trying to win any third major in a row :p

[Elmer]

  iacas said:

I contend that if you hold the title of all four majors you've won the grand slam. The calendar year is irrelevant and arbitrary.

Tiger won the modern day Grand Slam already. Heck I could make the case it was tougher. He won it over 10 months not just 5.

I would contend that it is an enormous achievement and worthy of praise and honor.

However I don’t think it is an official Grand Slam, since it is not during the same calendar year. The PGA does not even recognize this achievement as official. I would also point out that if the Rule book does not call for it, it does not count, which seems to be the way with golf.

Tennis would call this a Non-Calendar Year Grand Slam .

I feel this is the same when a baseball player ends the season on a hit streak and then starts the next season on a streak. The announcers will tell you he is on a 30 game hitting streak. However there was nearly 5 months in between.

If someone were to beat Joe DiMaggio’s 56 game hitting streak using 2 separate seasons should that be recognized over hitting in 56 consecutive games during spring & summer of 1941?

I don’t think so.

[Abu3baid]

  saevel25 said:

That is only because Spieth happen to just win the first two majors of the year ;) A third leg of the grand slam could be trying to win any third major in a row :p

Yes, for the new terminology that you are actively trying to convince everyone of accepting. However, as has been mentioned it is not the accepted terminology and I gave you evidence from the PGA website that you didn't attempt to refute. :)

[Gunther]

  nevets88 said:

I'm sure there will be as many mentions of the last major winner going for his second consecutive major, which while not acknowledging a calendar slam, is acknowledging the difficulty and rarity of winning two in a row.

Well sure, perhaps. But you've helped confirm the argument. No one will refer to Zach going for the 2nd leg of the Grand Slam, rather, 2 Majors in a row. It's a seasonal achievement, similar to the Vardon trophy, Fed Ex trophy, etc.

[saevel25]

  David in FL said:

Not at all. The relative difficulty of each Major isn't the issue, it's the simple statistical likelihood of the accomplishment given the number of attempts.

Every time a player tees it up in a Major, he's beginning another opportunity to win 4 in a row. Every time a player wins a major, he's a quarter of the way there. Without factoring in qualifying for the individual Majors themselves, a player with a 20 year career on the PGA tour, may have as many as 80 opportunities to win that first in the series of 4, and thus an opportunity to win them all. On a calendar year basis, he has at most 20 chances.

Still, there is nothing different between winning from the US Open to the Masters versus The Masters to the PGA Championship.

They are the same results. You need to win the four same tournaments in a row. Just because getting it in one order makes it occur in the calendar year doesn't make it more special than the other ways. They are all the same.

Each time you tee it up at a major you have a shot at starting the grand slam, just like every time someone who wins a major and lost a major as now lost the chance at continuing the grand slam.

  Abu3baid said:

Yes, for the new Correct terminology that you are actively trying to convince everyone of accepting.

There fixed it for ya ;)

  What would be wrong with a professional Grand Slam involving the Masters, both  said:

“I explained what I was thinking. ‘What would be wrong with a professional Grand Slam involving the Masters, both Open championships, and the PGA Championship?’”

“He chewed on that for a few seconds, then sipped his drink and snorted. Usually, a Drum snort meant he thought your idea was so utterly ridiculous he sometimes wondered why he wasted his time sharing oxygen space with you. This time his snort meant he thought, ‘Well, kid, maybe you’ve got something there.’”

A bit more about the story involving Arnold. Arnold never once mentioned the term's "Calendar Year" or any variation of it. He just thought their should be four majors in professional golf. A primary reason why he started playing The Open and trying to bring it back into popularity as a major.

[Fourputt]

  David in FL said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25

You ignore the fact that all of those 4 opportunities are more or less nearly equally likely to happen.

It's equally hard to win Masters to PGA as it is to win The Open to the US Open. They are four majors you have to win in a row. There are four chances for them to happen. To choose one of those chances and claim it is special is absurd.

Not at all. The relative difficulty of each Major isn't the issue, it's the simple statistical likelihood of the accomplishment given the number of attempts.

Every time a player tees it up in a Major, he's beginning another opportunity to win 4 in a row. Every time a player wins a major, he's a quarter of the way there. Without factoring in qualifying for the individual Majors themselves, a player with a 20 year career on the PGA tour, may have as many as 80 opportunities to win that first in the series of 4, and thus an opportunity to win them all. On a calendar year basis, he has at most 20 chances.

Give me 80 shots to try to hole out a 100 yard pitch and I'll have a much better chance of doing so, than if I only have 20 shots. Doesn't mean it's going to happen, but it's much more likely.

And yet with all of those opportunities over the last 75 years, only one player has managed even the non calendar slam which, as you say, is 3 times more likely to happen.  That should mean that we only need to wait another 250 years for what you feel is a "true" grand slam.  That's assuming that a players of Tiger's stature appears every 20 years or so, and that the competition doesn't continue to become even more balanced than it is now.

And by then we will probably have flying pigs .

  Gunther said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by nevets88

I'm sure there will be as many mentions of the last major winner going for his second consecutive major, which while not acknowledging a calendar slam, is acknowledging the difficulty and rarity of winning two in a row.

Well sure, perhaps. But you've helped confirm the argument. No one will refer to Zach going for the 2nd leg of the Grand Slam, rather, 2 Majors in a row. It's a seasonal achievement, similar to the Vardon trophy, Fed Ex trophy, etc.

Those trophies all have documented criteria to qualify.  The Grand Slam is a media invention which has no official standing in any way.  There is no trophy or award given for it.  You are once again comparing apples and oranges.

[David in FL]

  saevel25 said:

Still, there is nothing different between winning from the US Open to the Masters versus The Masters to the PGA Championship.

What makes it special is the difference in statistical probability of doing it in the first place because of the additional attempts.  Just as it's more difficult to win the same tournament back-to-back than it is to just win 2 different tournaments in the same time frame.

  Fourputt said:

And yet with all of those opportunities over the last 75 years, only one player has managed even the non calendar slam which, as you say, is 3 times more likely to happen.  That should mean that we only need to wait another 250 years for what you feel is a "true" grand slam.  That's assuming that a players of Tiger's stature appears every 20 years or so, and that the competition doesn't continue to become even more balanced than it is now.

And by then we will probably have flying pigs .

We've never had a 58 posted on Tour.  Will we?

People accomplish something for the very first time, whether in sport or life, all the time.  Records get broken.  New thresholds are set.  Just because we don't think a certain thing will be accomplished doesn't mean we redefine what that thing is, just to ensure that it will be....

[saevel25]

  David in FL said:

What makes it special is the difference in statistical probability of doing it in the first place because of the additional attempts.  Just as it's more difficult to win the same tournament back-to-back than it is to just win 2 different tournaments in the same time frame.

They are statistically the same. It is just nit picking because one just happens to occur in one order and happens to fall with in a calendar year.

It is no harder to start with the Masters and go to the PGA than it is to go The Open to the US Open. You still have to win four tournaments in a row.

Lets say each tournament Tiger has a 25% chance of winning. I believe he was close to a 25% winning percentage in the early 2000's.

Masters, US Open, The Open, PGA Prob = 0.25 * 0.25 * 0.25 * 0.25 = 0.391% chance

US Open, The Open, PGA, The Masters Prob = 0.25 * 0.25 * 0.25 * 0.25 = 0.391% chance

The Open, PGA, The Master, US Open Prob = 0.25 * 0.25 * 0.25 * 0.25 = 0.391% chance

PGA, The Masters, US Open, The Open Prob = 0.25 * 0.25 * 0.25 * 0.25 = 0.391% chance

They all have the same probability. They are equal. It is just coincidental that one happens to fall in a calendar year.

[David in FL]

  saevel25 said:

They are statistically the same. It is just nit picking because one just happens to occur in one order and happens to fall with in a calendar year.

It is no harder to start with the Masters and go to the PGA than it is to go The Open to the US Open. You still have to win four tournaments in a row.

Lets say each tournament Tiger has a 25% chance of winning. I believe he was close to a 25% winning percentage in the early 2000's.

Masters, US Open, The Open, PGA Prob = 0.25 * 0.25 * 0.25 * 0.25 = 0.391% chance

US Open, The Open, PGA, The Masters Prob = 0.25 * 0.25 * 0.25 * 0.25 = 0.391% chance

The Open, PGA, The Master, US Open Prob = 0.25 * 0.25 * 0.25 * 0.25 = 0.391% chance

PGA, The Masters, US Open, The Open Prob = 0.25 * 0.25 * 0.25 * 0.25 = 0.391% chance

They all have the same probability. They are equal. It is just coincidental that one happens to fall in a calendar year.

Any single occurrence has the same probability as any other single occurrence.  The probability that either is accomplished at all is vastly different because of the number of opportunities.

Flip a coin.  The chances are exactly 50/50 for heads/tails on ever flip.  Which is more likely.....getting at least one "heads" on just one flip, or getting at least one if you flip it 20 times?

[boogielicious]

  David in FL said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25

They are statistically the same. It is just nit picking because one just happens to occur in one order and happens to fall with in a calendar year.

It is no harder to start with the Masters and go to the PGA than it is to go The Open to the US Open. You still have to win four tournaments in a row.

Lets say each tournament Tiger has a 25% chance of winning. I believe he was close to a 25% winning percentage in the early 2000's.

Masters, US Open, The Open, PGA Prob = 0.25 * 0.25 * 0.25 * 0.25 = 0.391% chance

US Open, The Open, PGA, The Masters Prob = 0.25 * 0.25 * 0.25 * 0.25 = 0.391% chance

The Open, PGA, The Master, US Open Prob = 0.25 * 0.25 * 0.25 * 0.25 = 0.391% chance

PGA, The Masters, US Open, The Open Prob = 0.25 * 0.25 * 0.25 * 0.25 = 0.391% chance

They all have the same probability. They are equal. It is just coincidental that one happens to fall in a calendar year.

Any single occurrence has the same probability as any other single occurrence.  The probability that either is accomplished at all is vastly different because of the number of opportunities.

Flip a coin.  The chances are exactly 50/50 for heads/tails on ever flip.  Which is more likely.....getting at least one "heads" on just one flip, or getting at least one if you flip it 20 times?

You have the same number of opportunities no matter which starting point you pick, Masters, US Open, Open Champ., PGA. You just have a different starting point.

[David in FL]

  boogielicious said:

You have the same number of opportunities no matter which starting point you pick, Masters, US Open, Open Champ., PGA. You just have a different starting point.

The difference is that with the Grand Slam, you only have one "starting point" every year, period.  It starts with the Masters.  Don't win that, and you're done until the next year.  Over a 20 year career, you'll only have a maximum of 20 opportunities to win the GS.

Conversely, with the "Tiger Slam",  you have 4 "starting" points every year.  Don't win the Masters, and you still "start" again with the U.S. Open.  Don't win that, and move on to the British Open, and then to the PGA.  Over that same 20 year career, someone can have up to 80 "starting" points. The chances of winning any one set of 4, when compared to any other single set of 4 is the same.  The chances of winning them in the specific order, with the Masters being the first, is much lower than the chances of winning 4 without regard to order.

Again, think of it this way.  Which gives you the higher chance of sinking a wedge from 100 yards.....having 20 tries, or 80?  The odds of making each individual shot are the same.  The odds of it actually happening throughout the entire attempt (career), increase dramatically with the large bucket.

[saevel25]

  David in FL said:

Again, think of it this way.  Which gives you the higher chance of sinking a wedge from 100 yards.....having 20 tries, or 80?  The odds of making each individual shot are the same.  The odds of it actually happening throughout the entire attempt (career), increase dramatically with the large bucket.

What's the odds of sinking a wedge 4 times in a row? It doesn't matter when you start, once you miss you start over from the next shot.

[Gunther]

  saevel25 said:

What's the odds of sinking a wedge 4 times in a row? It doesn't matter when you start, once you miss you start over from the next shot.

True, but what if you couldn't start over from the next shot, you had to wait until the 1st shot of the next group of 4? That cuts the odds significantly, no?

[boogielicious]

  David in FL said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious

You have the same number of opportunities no matter which starting point you pick, Masters, US Open, Open Champ., PGA. You just have a different starting point.

The difference is that with the Grand Slam, you only have one "starting point" every year, period.  It starts with the Masters.  Don't win that, and you're done until the next year.  Over a 20 year career, you'll only have a maximum of 20 opportunities to win the GS.

Conversely, with the "Tiger Slam",  you have 4 "starting" points every year.  Don't win the Masters, and you still "start" again with the U.S. Open.  Don't win that, and move on to the British Open, and then to the PGA.  Over that same 20 year career, someone can have up to 80 "starting" points. The chances of winning any one set of 4, when compared to any other single set of 4 is the same.  The chances of winning them in the specific order, with the Masters being the first, is much lower than the chances of winning 4 without regard to order.

Again, think of it this way.  Which gives you the higher chance of sinking a wedge from 100 yards.....having 20 tries, or 80?  The odds of making each individual shot are the same.  The odds of it actually happening throughout the entire attempt (career), increase dramatically with the large bucket.

You only have 20 times from each starting point. So the odds are the same from each starting point. Or restated, the odd of winning four in a row are the same regardless of starting point.

[David in FL]

  saevel25 said:

What's the odds of sinking a wedge 4 times in a row? It doesn't matter when you start, once you miss you start over from the next shot.

Not an accurate comparison.

What would be is to ask, Which are you more likely to do, sink 4 wedge shots in a row with your first attempt, or 4 wedge shots in a row if you're given 4 different attempts instead of just one?

[turtleback]

  Fourputt said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback

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.

So a calendar year Grand Slam is so impossible that we should redefine the term t mean something else?  And regardless of whether you think it SHOULD, the fact is it DIDN'T because NO ONE really thought Rory as going for a Grand Slam at the time.  Not even here on TST where the majority in the poll says something that is inconsistent with how they acted when Rory had 2 and was going for 3.

  saevel25 said:

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.

None of my statements were incorrect.  I never said Jack would have won 4 in a row, I said he would have held all 4 at the same time.  And the purpose of the point was to demonstrate that @iacas's comment about something that could never happen actually came damn close to happening, And to refute his statement that winning 4 consecutively and holding all four trophies did not necessarily ALWAYS mean the same thing.

  Golfingdad said:

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.

That makes no sense.  There as all this hype about Jordan winning the GS because he had won the first 2.  You would then expect similar hype any time someone wins the first 2 leg of a GS.

Yet, I gave 4 or 5 instances where guys won the first 2 of a non-calendar slam.and there was not only NO hype, there was't even a mention of going for a GS.  Hell, Phil did it in 2005 in the post-2000 era and no one hyped his attempt as a GS attempt.  Guy wins the Masters and US Open, lots of GS talk..  Guy wins 2 other majors in a row?  Crickets, about  GS.

  jgreen85 said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by misty_mountainhop

Just because you can't see a pure GS being achieved isn't a strong point is it? I'm pretty sure you would have said, before Woods arrived on the scene with such a bang, that simply holding all 4 at one time was also impossible.....and yet he did it.

and some in this thread have argued the Tiger Slam is even harder than the Grand Slam.

Yeah that one is funny.  As if some theoretical added pressure outweighs a 3-1 probability advantage.

  iacas said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback

And too many people on the yes side ignore the fact that prior to 2000 NO ONE considered anything other than a calendar slam a Grand Slam. At least no one did it in serious writing.

Because it had barely ever been approached. The guys who went to the British Open didn't win it. Hogan being the exception, but technically the PGA finished up before the British Open, so he didn't even win three consecutive majors.  (I'm not looking that up - they said it on "Live From" one night.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback

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.

In his peak, 1997 through 2008, Tiger had 11 chances to win the Grand Slam (cannot count 2008).  In the same time period he had 27 chances to win a consecutive slam.  Clearly one has a lower chance of happening.

Why? It's winning four majors in a row, and it's just as difficult (to within a fairly small degree, possibly more difficult but again a very small amount) as doing them in the calendar year athletically (not probability)… so let's just use the term we've already got.

Definitions can and do change.  Literally!*

On the first point it was approached just as closely as Spieth approached it if they really are the same thing.  I gave all of the instances where someone won 2 majors in a row.  So yes, people got just as close to it as Tiger did in 2002 and Phil in 2005 and Rory on 2014, and Trevino in 1971.  And yes, there wasn't as much media, but in what there was NO ONE talked about these as GS attempts.

As to the second point, are you seriously arguing that the slight hypothetical added difficulty of winning over a longer time period could possibly outweigh the fact that you have 4 times as many opportunities?

As to your last, yes, literally, because that is exactly what you and the others are doing right now.  And if people would admit that they have changed the definition I would not argue nearly as vehemently.  Then I would be arguing about why it is foolish to change the definition.  And how they really DON't believe what they claim or they would have been hyping Rory's Grand Slam bid the way Jordan's was.  I look at how people act, not just what they say.

  mvmac said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

As others said, you could win six majors in a row but if you didn't start with the Masters, you don't get a "Grand Slam"? That's not because you lacked the athletic results to get it done, it's just because you happened to start winning four to six majors in a row at the wrong time? That's dumb.

I know some were swayed by the probability point but I hope they consider the above.

Now you guys are being just silly.  Winning 6 majors in a row is a tremendous achievement, better than a Grand Slam.  But is ISN'T a Grand Slam in the sense the word was universally used prior to 2000 (other than @iacas's college remembrances).  Hell, in 1971 Jack had a chance to win 6 in a row ('71 Masters, '71 USO. '71 BO, '72 Masters, '72 US, '72 BO) that wouldn't have even met YOUR weakened definition of a Grand Slam.  Since it would have been a more impressive  achievement than ANY recognized definition of a Grand Slam would you call it a Grand Slam??

As to the probability point, do a little thought (or actual) experiment.  Flip a penny 100 times in sets of 4.  How many times did a set have all four heads?  How many times, ignoring the grouping into sets, did you get 4 heads in a row overall.  The second number should be in the vicinity of four times as much as the first number, approximately.  You just simulated 25 years of major opportunities.  And the results speak for themselves.

How is it that we (at least the sensible among us) recognize that a player's record in the majors can be strongly affected by the number of opportunities he had to play in majors.  If one player played in 50 majors and won 8 and another player played in 150 majors and won 8 would you say, all else being equal,  those were comparable achievements?  Yet when you have, e.g., 15 chances to do something it is the same as if you had 60 such opportunities?  That is just crazy.

  David in FL said:

Give me 80 shots to try to hole out a 100 yard pitch and I'll have a much better chance of doing so, than if I only have 20 shots. Doesn't mean it's going to happen, but it's much more likely.

Yeah, this is so simple it is astounding that people do not get it.  I blame it on some of my my former math teacher colleagues who seem to have done a bad job.  All else being equal, something you have 4 times as many opportunities to do has a way higher probability of occurring.  We can frame it in many ways but it is indisputable that it is true.  Your pitch shot example, and my coin experiment are pretty conclusive, but people have gotten themselves so dug in that most do not even listen to or consider the arguments.

Quote:

  saevel25 said:

They are statistically the same. It is just nit picking because one just happens to occur in one order and happens to fall with in a calendar year.

No, they aren't.  Do the coin experiment.  The number of opportunities cannot be ignored.  Your statement is statistical and probabilistic nonsense.

My final conclusion:  IF Tiger's achievement is to be considered as a Grand Slam at least be honest about it and acknowledge that it is a different Grand Slam than the one every one was talking about between 1960 and 2000.  Because no one has come up with a scintilla of objective evidence that ANYONE considered that kind of achievement a Grand Slam.

We should remember the Sherlock Holmes story about the case he solved because the dog didn't bark when it should have.  If you guys were right and a non-calendar slam was considered as a Grand Slam, then on the occasions I've listed where players won 2 majors in a row that were not the Masters and USO the Grand Slam dogs should have been barking the way they did when Tiger went for the GS in 2002 and when Spieth went for it last week.  But, THE DOGS DIDN'T BARK.  Because NO ONE thought that those guys were going for a Grand Slam.

Whether any of you will admit it or not the evidence is pretty damn clear that you have redefined the term Grand Slam to mean something it never meant from the time it was resurrected in 1960 to 2000.  AND, really beyond, because even now, the golf world does not get excited about 2 majors in row leading to a Grand Slam unless they are the first 2.  We have 2 post-2000 examples of each and the evidence of how people were talking about these things is there to see,  2002 Tiger and 2015 Jordan?  Lots of GS excitement.  Phil in 2005 and Rory in 2014?  Not so much.  I would argue that while you can privately believe that it was a GS, the evidence is clear that the golf world overall does not agree.

Again, all the actual evidence is there to see.  I also still think the best evidence has to be the pre-2000 stuff because Tiger is such a polarizing figure that I think a lot of people's opinions on the GS question are based more on their opinion of Tiger than anything else.  But the reality is, if people REALLY believed a non-calendar slam was a Grand Slam they somehow somewhere would have mentioned it the other times it came up.  Yet in the last 15 years it has come up 4 times as a possibility and look and judge the golf world's reaction for yourself.

And the REALLY funny thing is, if someone DOES win a calendar slam, the golf world will enshrine that as the greatest achievement ever in golf, ABOVE Tiger's slam.  As it should, if it ever happens.

And I challenge every person who voted it IS a Grand Slam to show me anywhere on TST where you spoke of the 2015 Masters as Rory's opportunity to get the 3rd leg of a Grand Slam.  Because I know I saw a hell of a lot of messages talking about Jordan going for the 3rd leg of a Grand Slam, so it seems like going for the third leg of a Grand Slam is a pretty exciting event evoking lots of comments.  Yet when Rory was ostensibly going for the third leg of a Grand Slam no one hardy even noticed.  Or said much of anything about it.

[saevel25]

  turtleback said:

And the REALLY funny thing is, if someone DOES win a calendar slam, the golf world will enshrine that as the greatest achievement ever in golf, ABOVE Tiger's slam.  As it should Shouldn't, if it ever happens.

There fixed it for you. Because even if someone wins it in a calendar year they still won the same four tournaments, in consecutive order. It is the same achievement. Just because someone started at the Masters doesn't make it a greater achievement.

There are FOUR opportunities to win a Grand Slam. Just because someone happens to start at the Masters is just coincidental that it occurs in the same calendar year. Besides that insignificant coincidence there it is no greater feat than how anyone else wins four majors in consecutive order.

Let's say Spieth won the Masters thru the PGA. We are going to say, "Oh his achievement is much more impressive"

HE WON THE SAME FOUR TOURNAMENTS. The achievement is the same. It's absolutely idiotic to rank it higher just because The Masters happens to be the first major of the calendar year.

It's like saying you are on a par 3 course, and you hit a hole in one on the first four holes. Yet I hit a hole in one on holes 2 thru 5 and your achievement is labeled greater because you happened to start your's on the first hole. We both hit four hole in ones in a row. They are equally impressive.

[Elmer]

  David in FL said:

Not an accurate comparison.

What would be is to ask, Which are you more likely to do, sink 4 wedge shots in a row with your first attempt, or 4 wedge shots in a row if you're given 4 different attempts instead of just one?

So i sink 4 consecutive wedge shots while playing golf.

Actually 3 were on 16,17 & 18 when I played monday

Then friday I sank my wedge on #1.

Is it still sink 4 consecutive wedge shots?

or

My last round of the year on course X I shot a 40 on the front.

My 1st round of the year on course X I shot a 35 on the back.

that is my best round ever on that course 75.

However I did play a bunch of other rounds in between.

Does that count?

I still say it is an achievement, but not a real grand slam.

otherwise they would not call it a Tiger Slam!