Tiger's Slam - A Grand Achievement?

[InTheRough]

Except it isn't that. Winning the U.S. open thru PGA is not what I'd call being great at the end. That's great for the vast majority of the season.

I'll concede that it's great for the vast majority of the season but IMO its still not the perfect season--its being great for the vast majority of one season and the beginning of the next--its still not the perfect season and therefor (IMO) not a Grand Slam

[isukgolf]

I voted no and Wikipedia agrees. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(golf)

You do realize that even Wikipedia says it is not a credible resource ... [QUOTE]Wikipedia is not considered a credible source. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from freshman students to professors, as an easily accessible tertiary source for information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a credible or authoritative source[/QUOTE] [URL=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use[/URL]

[Mac62]

I believe it enough, because I understand how difficult it is to win a major. I understand that just because in one instance someone could win them in the same year, doing so doesn't make it special to the point it deserves it's own title. Just because the sports media decides it to be doesn't mean it's the correct way to think it as.

The flip side of that coin is that 4 wins across two seasons/calendar years doesn't make it special to the point that it deserves its own title (The "Tiger Slam").  If it was in fact a "Grand Slam", why was the term "Tiger Slam" ever coined?

Let's revisit the PGA's definition of the "Grand Slam", as set forth in their Golf Glossary: (emphasis added in the quote):

http://www.pga.com/golf-instruction/instruction-feature/fundamentals/golf-glossary-and-golf-terms

For all the people claiming that nobody has defined exactly what a "Grand Slam" is, it would appear to me that it has, in fact, been clearly defined above - by the largest association/sanctioning body in golf.  Surely the PGA (Professional Golfers Association of America) holds at least some credibility.  This isn't a definition created by the media or made up by some dude on a street corner - it's a definition from the PGA itself, set forth on their website along with many other golf terms and definitions.  Now, can we please move beyond the "There's no definitive definition" stuff?

[Gunther]

How about this one.  So you only get one shot to start the grand slam with the masters. Yet you still only get one shot a year to start a grand slam run with The US Open ;)  Just another twist on the logic there :-D

Isn't that what I said? If one were to try to duplicate the Tiger Slam, the odds of that would be the same as achieving a Grand Slam. However, your odds are 3 times as good to achieve a slam that isn't a Grand Slam or a Tiger Slam because you get 3 extra chances a year to get the 1st leg.

[mvmac]

The point I've made is that limiting to something as arbitrary as the calendar year - a thing which has no real bearing on the athletic requirements of achieving the stunt - is dumb in my opinion. Winning four majors in a row is really ****ing hard. Why should we - because of something arbitrary which has NO RELEVANCE ATHLETICALLY - award a "special" title to the calendar year achievement? Why?

If your argument is about probability, you've not made an argument that is going to sway me one mm. It's not about probability for me - it's about the difficulty of the achievement as an athletic achievement.

Right, well said.

i voted no.  For me the Grand slam is a player having the perfect season--not having a great end of one season and great beginning of the next season (FWIW I define the end of the "season" as the end of the Fedex Cup).  This is not to belittle what Tiger did because it was an absolutely phenomenal achievement that may not be replicated again but i still dont see it as a grand slam.

The "calendar year" is an arbitrary thing. @iacas makes tha t point above.

I'll concede that it's great for the vast majority of the season but IMO its still not the perfect season--its being great for the vast majority of one season and the beginning of the next--its still not the perfect season and therefor (IMO) not a Grand Slam

Well the perfect season would be winning every tournament you enter that year

I think the grand slam is holding all four titles at once.

[Gunther]

I think the bottom line is that the Tiger Slam is probably Tiger's greatest golf achievement and I expect it will be cited as such on his HoF plaque or bio or however they summarize a golfer's career in the World Golf HoF. It will be referred to as the Tiger Slam, not a Grand Slam. Whereas, if someone were to achieve the proper Grand Slam, his HoF plaque would say as much. People's personal feelings are great but how history records the achievement is really the true indicator.

[Silent]

I've been thinking about this thread a lot... Far too much actually. I started with the opinion, as many did, that the Grand Slam was all four majors in the calendar year, and therefore answered no in the poll. However, the OP essentially asks whether or not 4 majors won consecutively should count as a Grand Slam.

While I will agree with what @turtleback has posted about the relative lack of hype surrounding Rory at the Masters this year of Phil at the USO in '06, I've come to the conclusion that really shouldn't mean anything. Just because the majority of the media chose not to hype it doesn't change the accomplishment or the difficulty of it. Winning 4 majors in a row carries the same difficulty whether you start with the Masters, USO, BO, or PGA. If they have the same difficulty and the same result (holding the title to each at the same time), then they are the same.

I'm changing my opinion to say that the Tiger Slam is a Grand Slam. It may not be the way many in the media or others have thought about it, but it is the same achievement and should be counted as such.

True, but I don't think that's the 'issue' here. In the discussion we see a lot of arguments (it started with 'there is no official definition', but it looks like PGA does have a definition of The Grand Slam as @Mac62 pointed out) and I also read a lot basically what you said now: winning the Grand Slam is not more difficult then the Tiger Slam, it's still 4 majors in a row thus it should be called the same. I don't understand that argument, since I don't think anyone will argue that Tiger's accomplishment was easy or easier, and therefor we shouldn't call it a Grand Slam. What Tiger did was the biggest accomplishment we ever saw in modern golf, no doubt about that. But that doesn't mean we should change the definition of the Grand Slam (yes, change) since it wasn't a Grand Slam. That is in no way a disqualification or downsizing Tiger his achievment, it's... something else. Something at least equally impressive, but not a Grand Slam. I don't see why that should be a problem. For me the golf season does excist with a starting point and an end point, as for a lot of golfers also: I saw plenty of interviews stating they are excited about the new season, their goals for that season, players losing or winning the tour card for that season, starting at 0 at the money lists etc. The season might be not completely in sync with the calender year, yet it does have a beginning and an ending including 4 majors, starting with the Masters.

If you ask a player if he wants to win 4 majors in a row, the answer obviously will be yes. If you then ask him if he had the choice to in what order he wants to win them, I really believe most players will stay start with the Masters and win them in one season; because they know that way they have the true Grand Slam.

That being said, I'm surprised this discussion is still alive after 21 pages. And that's my fault too! ;)

[iacas]

The only reason the PGA has a definition is because they host the final major of the year AND the "Grand Slam of Golf" tournament. The PGA is not an "official" determiner of definitions. Even Merriam-Webster changes definitions from time to time… and the PGA reacts slower than most organizations. The page with their glossary is probably getting 10x more traffic this week than ever before. ;-) There is no set universally accepted definition. And as with anything, if YOU define it as "in a year" just because that's how you want to define it, cool. I have no problem with that. I don't put the "year" restriction on, though, because it doesn't change anything about the athletic achievement. If you're arguing that it's tougher to start with the Masters from a probability standpoint, though, I don't give a shit and think you've completely lost the plot. It's about athletic accomplishment, not probability.

[14ledo81]

I am not sure those arguing for the "year" are looking at it like a calendar year.  Rather that it occurred in the same golf "season" instead of spanning two different seasons.

[Phil McGleno]

In hockey you can get a hat trick. In baseball, you can hit for the cycle. If you do them in order-Or uninterrupted in hockey- they add the word natural to the front. Natural hat trick. Natural cycle. The act is the same but if you do it in a unique or less probable way they add the word natural to modify the base term. They also do not care if you get an out in the third inning, if you score the first through third or fifth through seventh goals.-They care only about what you did. So Tiger got a Grand Slam and Jordan was going for the third leg of the Natural Grand Slam.-Problem solved. Even aligns with other sports nicely. I voted yes and would have voted yes in 1995 too.-Take my word for it or do not-Will not affect my day today in least.

[iacas]

I am not sure those arguing for the "year" are looking at it like a calendar year.  Rather that it occurred in the same golf "season" instead of spanning two different seasons.

For the purposes of this discussion, they're the same thing. In an conversation that's already about semantics, let's not add too much pedantry, please.

[Yukari]

That's my dumb silly notation. First column is year one, second is year two. Trying to express all permutations of winning four in a row. Nothing to do with odds.

I understand perfectly and that is what I'm saying. Like Jamo says, it doesn't matter what grand slam you start with, the odd of winning four in a row should be the same - statistically speaking.

[Gunther]

In hockey you can get a hat trick. In baseball, you can hit for the cycle. If you do them in order-Or uninterrupted in hockey- they add the word natural to the front. Natural hat trick. Natural cycle. The act is the same but if you do it in a unique or less probable way they add the word natural to modify the base term. They also do not care if you get an out in the third inning, if you score the first through third or fifth through seventh goals.-They care only about what you did. So Tiger got a Grand Slam and Jordan was going for the third leg of the Natural Grand Slam.-Problem solved. Even aligns with other sports nicely. I voted yes and would have voted yes in 1995 too.-Take my word for it or do not-Will not affect my day today in least.

This actually makes sense and works for me. The problem is, it's not how history will record the achievement so it doesn't really matter what we all think.

[tristanhilton85]

This actually makes sense and works for me. The problem is, it's not how history will record the achievement so it doesn't really matter what we all think.

I disagree. As others have said, definitions change all the time.

On top of that, the current definition is not really what this thread is about.  It's about whether or not YOU think it is a Grand Slam, and why or why not. If you say no because it's not within the same calendar year, that's cool (that was my original thought). But your reasoning behind that should be more than "that's what it's always been" or "that's what the definition says." The argument of those who are in favor of calling it a Grand Slam are saying that it's the same athletic achievement and therefore is the same. Obviously, from a probability standpoint, one is more likely to start a Grand Slam from one of the other three vs. starting with the Masters, but so what? That isn't because it is easier to start with them, but just because there are greater opportunities.

Now, this is from Wikipedia (they did source it, however the source link is dead now), but in 1982 the International Tennis Federation changed their definition of a Grand Slam to mean winning four majors in a row, whether they be in one calendar year or spread over two. I see no reason why the same couldn't be done in golf. I know that @turtleback believes that all this is an attempt to fluff Tiger's record, but I don't see it that way. The Tiger Slam is equal in difficulty, and it's unfair for Tiger's accomplishment to be viewed as something lesser.

So, for you guys saying that it isn't a Grand Slam because that's what the definition says, answer this. If you were the ones writing the definition of "Grand Slam" what would it be? Would it include Tiger's achievement? If it has to be within the same season/calendar year, why?

[iacas]

This actually makes sense and works for me. The problem is, it's not how history will record the achievement so it doesn't really matter what we all think.

Then stop posting. ;-) In other words I disagree that it doesn't matter what we think. At one time the U.S. Amateur was a major. Obviously when Jones was playing. Then Nicklaus considered that he had 20 majors for awhile… The Western Open was huge awhile back. History changes. Not the events but how we consider them and what we call them. I don't agree one bit with the "probability" people but at least they're making an argument. All your posts boil down to is "it's the definition" or "it's already decided."

[Gunther]

Then stop posting. ;-) In other words I disagree that it doesn't matter what we think. At one time the U.S. Amateur was a major. Obviously when Jones was playing. Then Nicklaus considered that he had 20 majors for awhile… The Western Open was huge awhile back. History changes. Not the events but how we consider them and what we call them. I don't agree one bit with the "probability" people but at least they're making an argument. All your posts boil down to is "it's the definition" or "it's already decided."

Once I came to this realization yesterday, yes, I decided there was no need to post here further but it was a good thought Phil came up with so I decided to acknowledge it, with the caveat I added. The probability stuff really just brought us down a rabbit hole but it was initiated as a refutation of your justification early on that it was harder to complete a Tiger Slam than a Grand Slam. You are correct that none of that is pertinent to the discussion. Oh, and good luck changing the meaning of the term for posterity's sake. You have a year cuz Tiger's plaque will be in stone by then (if they actually do that like baseball).

[MSchott]

While I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other, there is more than a semantic difference. This may have been said in a previous post (I have not read all 21 pages) but there is added pressure in winning all 4 in one calendar year. It doesn't change the accomplishment which is earth shakingly amazing, but IMO it's not quite the same.

[Silent]

I disagree. As others have said, definitions change all the time.

On top of that, the current definition is not really what this thread is about.  It's about whether or not YOU think it is a Grand Slam, and why or why not. If you say no because it's not within the same calendar year, that's cool (that was my original thought). But your reasoning behind that should be more than "that's what it's always been" or "that's what the definition says." The argument of those who are in favor of calling it a Grand Slam are saying that it's the same athletic achievement and therefore is the same. Obviously, from a probability standpoint, one is more likely to start a Grand Slam from one of the other three vs. starting with the Masters, but so what? That isn't because it is easier to start with them, but just because there are greater opportunities.

Now, this is from Wikipedia (they did source it, however the source link is dead now), but in 1982 the International Tennis Federation changed their definition of a Grand Slam to mean winning four majors in a row, whether they be in one calendar year or spread over two. I see no reason why the same couldn't be done in golf. I know that @turtleback believes that all this is an attempt to fluff Tiger's record, but I don't see it that way. The Tiger Slam is equal in difficulty, and it's unfair for Tiger's accomplishment to be viewed as something lesser.

So, for you guys saying that it isn't a Grand Slam because that's what the definition says, answer this. If you were the ones writing the definition of "Grand Slam" what would it be? Would it include Tiger's achievement? If it has to be within the same season/calendar year, why?

Again, I don't think that's the case. Obviously I can't speak for others, but I don't think someone made that argument (and if someone did, I guess he's standing quite alone in it). It's merely semantics for me. What Tiger did is not lesser, easier or less of an accomplishmet, it's something else.

As for your last question I would right it down as win all for within the same season. Why? Maybe because I follow a lot of other sports as well, and all of them consist of a season where everybody starts at 0 again (the world ranking aside). A new season for me means new chances, new teams in competitions (as in golf: new players with a tour card while others lost theirs), new beginnings of the money lists, new records to be set, new goals to pursue, forgetting about the old season if it sucked for you or you favorite team / player etc. etc. And yes, that might be arbitrary but that's how I feel about it. Then within that season winning all four of the biggest tournaments is something special, and 'we' invented a name for that being The Grand Slam. I like it Tiger didn't do that. He did win 4 majors in a row though, and that's extremely impressive. But to see and have a (semantic) difference between those two (equelly impressive) accomplishments some other term came up (Tiger Slam). You can discuss if the terms should be Calender Slam and Non-calender Slam, or both the same, etc. I like it as it is, (Tiger Slam and Grand Slam). I have no more 'arguments' for that then the things that already have been said.

I am curious though, if you would ask 200 professional golf players the question 'What is the Grand Slam' what the answers will be. I'm guessing most of them would say 'win all the majors in 1 season' compared to '4 in a row'. That's just an assumption without prove obviously....what do you think?