Tiger's Slam - A Grand Achievement?

[turtleback]

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback

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 WOULD HAVE 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.

You are really being obnoxious.  This is the second time you have pulled this "fixed it for you".  That is not an argument.  Make your own arguments and leave what I said and what others say alone.

You are also not very good at devising analogies, as your par 3 example is inapt, off-point, and nonsense.

Where are your posts from earlier in the year talking about Rory going for the third leg of a Grand Slam?  Show me that you really believed it THEN and maybe I will accept that you really believe it NOW.

[rkim291968]

Voted no.

Grand slam = achieved in the same golf season

Tiger slam = achieved in the overlapping seasons a la Tiger.

Happy to have both definitions coexist.   Tiger slam does not lessen his achievement vs Grand slam.

[saevel25]

You are also not very good at devising analogies, as your par 3 example is inapt, off-point, and nonsense.

Where are your posts from earlier in the year talking about Rory going for the third leg of a Grand Slam?  Show me that you really believed it THEN and maybe I will accept that you really believe it NOW.

Analogies prove that basing something on just when it occurs, in this case, isn't nearly significant enough to label how the others are achieved any differently. Just because one way to win four consecutive majors happens to be in a calendar year, that in itself isn't hugely different from the other ways.

There will be no posts, and you wont find posts of me talking about Spieth going for his 3rd leg either. The reason being I just don't care much about it. The only reason I am not is because of this discussion on the insignificant difference between what you call a Grand Slam compared to a Tiger Slam.

[Aflighter]

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.

Exactly.Thats why its harder to win calender grand slam because of less chances.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback

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 WOULD HAVE 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.

You are really being obnoxious.  This is the second time you have pulled this "fixed it for you".  That is not an argument.  Make your own arguments and leave what I said and what others say alone.

You are also not very good at devising analogies, as your par 3 example is inapt, off-point, and nonsense.

Where are your posts from earlier in the year talking about Rory going for the third leg of a Grand Slam?  Show me that you really believed it THEN and maybe I will accept that you really believe it NOW.

Others have stated that if Rory had completed the cycle, they would have considered it the same achievement, myself included. By selectively saying the calendar year is the "only slam", we are insinuating that it is harder. Others are arguing, including me, that the cycle is equally as hard no matter what starting point you begin at.

1. The Grand Masters Slam
2. The Grand US Open Slam
3. The Grand Open Championship Slam
4. The Grand PGA Slam

They are all equally as difficult. Only two have been completed and #1 was with different tournaments. I am not adding the winter layoff into this analysis, but others, @iacas , have stated it may be a tiny bit harder do to the length of time between the PGA and Masters.

[jgreen85]

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.

Game. Set. Match. Turtleback (and jgreen85).

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback

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.

Game. Set. Match. Turtleback (and jgreen85).

He is incorrect as are you.  There was a lot of buzz about Rory going for three in a row as there was for Jordan.

[Gunther]

He is incorrect as are you.  There was a lot of buzz about Rory going for three in a row as there was for Jordan.

There was much more buzz about his career grand slam and some buzz about 3 in a row, but absolutely no buzz about a 3rd leg of the Grand Slam. None.

[Abu3baid]

He is incorrect as are you.  There was a lot of buzz about Rory going for three in a row as there was for Jordan.

Yeah there was a lot of buzz about Rory going for it and giving him a chance at the "career grand slam" as opposed to JS where the buzz was about him going for the 3rd leg of the "grand slam".. Two different things. Even on TST I looked up both threads and not one person mentioned grand slam with Rory vs. a lot of discussion about it with JS.. Having a buzz for winning 3 in a row is not really the discussion point as everyone concedes that point. edit: @Gunther beat me to it.

[Fourputt]

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.

You won't find any such discussion because 2 in a row isn't really close enough to be worthy of significant discussion in terms of a grand slam.  I never got involved in any of the talk about Spieth, because I've felt all a long that the high expectations for him were a bit premature, and it turns out I was right. Had he won at St. Andrews, then it would have warranted serious consideration.

I admit that I rarely get involved in any pre-tournament predictions, and I never wager on any of it.  The only time I wager on golf is when I'm playing and have some vague semblance of control over the outcome.  If the competition itself isn't enough to hold my interest, then I find something else to do.

[saevel25]

Exactly.Thats why its harder to win calender grand slam because of less chances.

You are saying if Spieth won the Masters first then he would have a harder time winning the next three tournaments? So if you want to win consecutive majors you need to skip the Masters and just focus on starting with the other three?

It isn't harder to win, it just occurs lest often. People want to make this way of winning the same four tournaments more special when it isn't.

What if by some slim chance the PGA decides to make The Masters the last tournament in the season. Lets say the golfing season starts March 1st. Tiger's Slam becomes a Grand Slam. See how arbitrary it is to define a Grand Slam by a time frame.

Now suddenly Tiger's Slam becomes more important?

Others are arguing, including me, that the cycle is equally as hard no matter what starting point you begin at.

The Grand Masters Slam

The Grand US Open Slam

The Grand Open Championship Slam

The Grand PGA Slam

They are all equally as difficult. Only two have been completed and #1 was with different tournaments. I am not adding the winter layoff into this analysis, but others, @iacas, have stated it may be a tiny bit harder do to the length of time between the PGA and Masters.

I like it :)

[jamo]

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're starting with the assertion that a Slam starting with the Masters is inherently different, and then trying to prove it through statistics. The only thing that separates a Slam starting with the Masters is the face that someone, somewhere, sometime decided that January 1st would mark a new calendar year. You can't clump a Slam starting with the U.S. Open with a PGA slam as if they're the same thing. They're not.

[turtleback]

Others have stated that if Rory had completed the cycle, they would have considered it the same achievement, myself included. By selectively saying the calendar year is the "only slam", we are insinuating that it is harder. Others are arguing, including me, that the cycle is equally as hard no matter what starting point you begin at.

The Grand Masters Slam

The Grand US Open Slam

The Grand Open Championship Slam

The Grand PGA Slam

They are all equally as difficult. Only two have been completed and #1 was with different tournaments. I am not adding the winter layoff into this analysis, but others, @iacas, have stated it may be a tiny bit harder do to the length of time between the PGA and Masters.

Then it should be easy for you to link to your post where you talked about Rory going for the third leg of a GRAND SLAM!

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgreen85

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback

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.

Game. Set. Match. Turtleback (and jgreen85).

He is incorrect as are you.  There was a lot of buzz about Rory going for three in a row as there was for Jordan.

Nonsense. Show me the link .  We are not just talking about three in a row we are talking about going for the third leg of a Grand Slam.  If, as you and others claim, Rory and Jordan were going for the same accomplishment, how do you account for all of the Grand Slam hype in Jordan's case but virtually NO Grand Slam hype in Rory's?  The #2 player in the world goes for the third leg of a Grand Slam and the golf world is consumed with hype.  The #1 player in the word goes for the third leg of an ostensible Grand Slam and no one comments on it as an attempt at a Grand Slam?

How do you account for that?  Unless of course you can show me the post where you talked about Rory going for the third leg of the Grand Slam .

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback

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.

You won't find any such discussion because 2 in a row isn't really close enough to be worthy of significant discussion in terms of a grand slam.  I never got involved in any of the talk about Spieth, because I've felt all a long that the high expectations for him were a bit premature, and it turns out I was right. Had he won at St. Andrews, then it would have warranted serious consideration.

I admit that I rarely get involved in any pre-tournament predictions, and I never wager on any of it.  The only time I wager on golf is when I'm playing and have some vague semblance of control over the outcome.  If the competition itself isn't enough to hold my interest, then I find something else to do.

Huh?  There wasn't enough interest when Jordan won two in a row to bring up talk of a Grand Slam?  Where were you between the USP and the BO, because I assure you that there was all kinds of hype and talk about it, even if you did not participate.  Because he WAS going for a Grand Slam.  There was no such talk or hype in Rory's case because the golf world did not really believe he was going for a Grand Slam.  We aren't just talking about what you did, we are talking about the whole golf world.  And even here on TST where a majority say they think the Tiger slam is a Grand Slam, none of them, so far, has been able to produce any indication that at the time they thought Rory was going for the third leg of a grand Slam.  It is like everyone wearing blue, but checking the box that red is their favorite color.  They say one thing in the poll, but the Grand Slam dog never barked for Rory.

I look beyond what people say now and check it against how they acted previously.  No one has been able to show (yet?) that they previously said that Rory was going for the third leg of a Grand Slam.

[tristanhilton85]

He is incorrect as are you.  There was a lot of buzz about Rory going for three in a row as there was for Jordan.

The buzz I remember about Rory was about him completing his career grand slam... I don't remember anybody saying anything about him being on the third leg of a Grand Slam.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious

He is incorrect as are you.  There was a lot of buzz about Rory going for three in a row as there was for Jordan.

The buzz I remember about Rory was about him completing his career grand slam... I don't remember anybody saying anything about him being on the third leg of a Grand Slam.

If he had won three in a row, there would have been talk of the Rory/Tiger/Grand Slam. There was excitement about him winning three in a row. The career slam for him, was the missing Masters.

[tristanhilton85]

If he had won three in a row, there would have been talk of the Rory/Tiger/Grand Slam. There was excitement about him winning three in a row. The career slam for him, was the missing Masters.

Maybe part of it is that he was going for a Career Grand Slam at the Masters, but I don't remember a single comment about him winning the third leg of a Grand Slam. Not one. Sure, people were talking about three in a row, but I just don't remember anybody specifically saying anything about a Grand Slam (excluding the Career Grand Slam talk, obviously). Maybe if it wasn't for the distraction of it being his chance to complete his Career Grand Slam there would have been, but I doubt it. I mean, Phil won the PGA in '05 and then the Masters in '06, and I don't remember people talking about him possibly winning the third leg of the Grand Slam with a win at the USO. That wasn't the case for Spieth... I remember some of us saying something to the effect of "cue the Grand Slam talk" when he won at Chambers, I'm pretty sure none of us said it when Rory won the PGA.

I'm not saying that the lack of hype or whatever you want to call it "proves" that 4 consecutive majors doesn't equal a Grand Slam, I'm just saying that it at least goes to show that beyond the votes in this thread, many people believe that the calendar year stipulation is part of the definition.

[turtleback]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tristanhilton85

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious

He is incorrect as are you.  There was a lot of buzz about Rory going for three in a row as there was for Jordan.

The buzz I remember about Rory was about him completing his career grand slam... I don't remember anybody saying anything about him being on the third leg of a Grand Slam.

If he had won three in a row, there would have been talk of the Rory/Tiger/Grand Slam. There was excitement about him winning three in a row. The career slam for him, was the missing Masters.

But there was Grand Slam buzz for Jordan even though he hadn't won the third one yet.  If they are the same, why was there so much talk about Jordan's possible GS bid and none for Rory's??  Why does Rory need to win the third leg to get the kind of buzz that Jordan got by winning the second leg?   What would have been more natural than to say that if he wins the Masters Rory completes a career slam and gets three legs of a Grand Slam?  And yet what did we hear about the Grand Slam?  Crickets.

That is the thing you guys have not and probably cannot explain.  If a slam starting with the BO is the same as one starting with the Masters, why was there so much GS hype for Jordan and no GS hype for Rory (and none for Phil in 2005).  Twist and turn all you want.  But unless and until you can convincingly explain it, I will continue to believe that most of the people who voted yes in the poll do not really believe it enough that it made them really think Rory was going for a possible Grand Slam bid at this years Masters.  (I mean, maybe they did think that, but it is strange to think that someone would think that Rory was going for a Grand Slam but never bother mentioning it. - again, contrast the hype leading up to this year's BO)  And is the result, IMO, of a misguided and unneeded attempt to puff Tiger's record.  And I say this as a committed fanboy of Tiger's.

[Silent]

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.

This is just basic math actually. If a player wins 4 majors in a row (i.e. is good enough to do so), there is a 25% probability it will be a 'true' Grand Slam and a 75% chance it will be a Tigerish Slam. Winning it in one order or the order is not more difficult or 'easier', but it is a statistical fact that it being a Grand Slam as in starting with the Masters is a smaller chance opposed to a starting point with a other major.