Tiger's Slam - A Grand Achievement?

[Gunther]

Nope. And just because you say so doesn't make it so. The calendar year is an irrelevant and arbitrary thing.

Your 2nd sentence is your argument, however incorrect it may be. My point was using the fact that the make-up of the grand slam has changed over the years has no bearing on your argument relative to the timeline.

[MyrtleBeachGolf]

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!

I didn't make up the definition. But many authorities agree it needs to occur in the same calendar year.

[iacas]

Your 2nd sentence is your argument, however incorrect it may be.

It's an opinion. It's not a fact. It cannot be "incorrect."

My point was using the fact that the make-up of of the grand slam has changed over the years has no bearing on your argument relative to the timeline.

I don't really care about that. Tiger won all four majors consecutively. That's a Grand Slam in my book. It's not in yours. Cool. Good for you.

@MyrtleBeachGolf , I disagree with those who say you must win it in the calendar year. Simple as that. The early voters appear to disagree as well.

[MyrtleBeachGolf]

I don't understand why you guys feel the need to change the definition of what it is. It's quite clear that completing the Grand Slam is winning all 4 majors in the same calendar year. Everyone knows this. It's a truth. If it wasn't fact, this wouldn't even be a debate. The only reason this is even a question is because every one knows the grand slam must be completed in the same season, and it's well known it hasn't been done. It's not my definition. It's the definition. You are free to disagree with it. But it's not going to make it so. No matter what you "feel" the record books aren't going to start considering the Tiger Slam a Grand Slam. They even had to name it something different because it wasn't a Grand Slam. **Edit** to clarify that I do believe what Tiger Accomplished was amazing. And may have been more difficult than doing it in the same calendar year.

[iacas]

I don't understand why you guys feel the need to change the definition of what it is. It's quite clear that completing the Grand Slam is winning all 4 majors in the same calendar year. Everyone knows this. It's a truth. If it wasn't fact, this wouldn't even be a debate. The only reason this is even a question is because every one knows the grand slam must be completed in the same season, and it's well known it hasn't been done.

It's not my definition, and definitions change over time. It may be "quite clear" to you but you're assuming everyone applies the same definition. Clearly "Everyone" does not.

And it has been done in the same year. Bobby Jones did it. It has been within "a year" too when Tiger did it: June to April is less than "a year." :)

[Gunther]

What is more important, the actual tournaments or just winning four of any tournament they haphazardly name as important? The majors are not the majors without the tournaments. If the tournaments considered to be the majors have shifted over the years then they shouldn't consider a grand slam to be strictly within a calendar year.  If you want to say, "Oh hey he won the grand slam in the same golfing season." That is fine. A Grand Slam should be winning any four majors in consecutive order.  Absolutely. Is Spieth just riding a tremendous hot streak. What if he won the US Open, The Open, the PGA championship then just flopped next year at the Master's because he had a big layoff?

I actually thought you were kidding there because obviously those majors didn't exist then. I think you were trying to indicate that because the make-up of the majors has changed, then why not change the very definition relative to timeline. I answered that above. Apologies for the snark.

[ChrisP]

I'm traditional and the Grand Slam to me is winning them all in the same calendar year. It's not taking anything away from Tiger....to me that's just as impressive, but it's not the true grand Slam IN MY EYES. Everyone's eyes are different and I respect that. I always thought Tiger would get the Calendar Slam and when he couldn't do it in his prime I said we will never see anyone in our lifetime ever do it. The fact Spieth is going into the final round of the British Open in the thick of winning a third one is something I thought I'd never see...not with the competition the way it is today. What he's doing is absolutely incredible. We haven't seen a player play this kind of golf since Tiger. Just unreal. I'm not expecting him to win tomorrow just because it's hard to win a third straight, but I'll be pulling for him.

[MyrtleBeachGolf]

What if a horse wins the Preakness then the Belmont, then the following year wins the Derby. Did he win the Triple Crown? No. Because it needs to be done in the same calendar year.

[Phil McGleno]

What if a horse wins the Preakness then the Belmont, then the following year wins the Derby. Did he win the Triple Crown? No. Because it needs to be done in the same calendar year.

That is your opinion. If that happened in horse racing I would call it a Triple Crown.-Holds all three of the titles at once. Because of how horses age or whatever it is simply less likely to happen. Horses retire after their year on the big stage no?

[Mulligan Jeff]

Needs to be done in same calendar year. Tiger's was not done that way, that's why they call it Tiger Slam.

[MyrtleBeachGolf]

That is your opinion. If that happened in horse racing I would call it a Triple Crown.-Holds all three of the titles at once. Because of how horses age or whatever it is simply less likely to happen. Horses retire after their year on the big stage no?

No they don't retire. But those 3 races are only open to 3 year olds. So technically it's not possible to race in the Derby the year after you win the Belmont and Preakness.

[Phil McGleno]

No they don't retire. But those 3 races are only open to 3 year olds. So technically it's not possible to race in the Derby the year after you win the Belmont and Preakness.

So then if a horse turned 3 between two of the races and won three consecutive in his third year I would call it a Triple Crown. Or maybe that does not happen and they like horses who are at the upper end of being 3 years old so they try to birth them shortly after the events are over-I dunno I never really cared about horse racing. Tiger had all four titles at one time. Grand Slam in my book. Case closed-To me.

[MyrtleBeachGolf]

Needs to be done in same calendar year. Tiger's was not done that way, that's why they call it Tiger Slam.

This is exactly my point. No one was calling it a Grand Slam when it happened. That's why they came up with a name for "whatever it was". I'm not downplaying the accomplishment. It's just not the Grand Slam, by definition.

[iacas]

No one was calling it a Grand Slam when it happened.

I was. And there was debate at the time about whether it was a "Grand Slam" or not. I voted "yes" then and I voted "yes" now.

I consider it a Grand Slam. Thus, I've already seen it in my lifetime.

After winning three, remember how long we anticipated the Masters the following spring?

[Gunther]

This is exactly my point. No one was calling it a Grand Slam when it happened. That's why they came up with a name for "whatever it was". I'm not downplaying the accomplishment. It's just not the Grand Slam, by definition.

Concur and it's not an opinion, it is stated fact as defined by Websters and adhered to by every relevant ruling body to include the PGA, R&A;, USGA, US Tennis Assoc., Churchill Downs, etc. The thought that the definition of Grand Slam should be changed is an opinion.

[MyrtleBeachGolf]

What does Brandel Chamblee call it?

[Phil McGleno]

What does Brandel Chamblee call it?

Ask him. Otherwise who cares? You are losing.

[mvmac]

I voted yes but don't care that strongly one way or another. There is no official definition so if someone holds all the titles at once, I say they've won the grand slam. The idea that it has to be in the calendar year was probably a media creation anyway.