Tiger's Slam - A Grand Achievement?

[Calvin]

That's not really true... from what I've found, the International Tennis Federation says that winning four consecutive majors IS as Grand Slam regardless of if they are in the same calendar year or not.

According to the now-maligned Wiki, this is not quite the full story:

"The term Grand Slam also, and originally, refers to the achievement of winning all four major championships in a single calendar year within one of the five events: men's and women's singles; men's, women's, and mixed doubles. In doubles, one team may accomplish a Grand Slam playing together or one player may achieve it with different partners. The term "Grand Slam" without qualification refers to winning the four majors in a single calendar year.

Winning the four majors in consecutive tournaments but not in the same year is known as a Non-Calendar Year Grand Slam, while winning all four majors at any point during the course of a career is known as a Career Grand Slam.

In 1982 the International Tennis Federation (ITF) broadened the definition of the Grand Slam as meaning any four consecutive major victories, including the ones spanning two calendar years. As defined in the constitution of the ITF: "The Grand Slam titles are the championships of Australia, France, the United States of America and Wimbledon. Players who hold all four of these titles at the same time achieve the Grand Slam" . As this definition differs from the original definition of the Grand Slam as restricted to a single calendar year, there has been some controversy towards this redefinition in the tennis world. Subsequently, the ITF has distanced itself from the 1982 decision, reverting to the traditional calendar-year definition (when Martina Navratilova won the 1984 French Open to become the reigning champion of all four women's singles, the ITF awarded her $1 million Grand Slam bonus in recognition of her achievement. However subsequently, the ITF abandoned recognizing non-calendar year grand slams."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(tennis)#Non-calendar_year_Grand_Slam

There are lots of other sources showing tennis' ongoing ambivalence, such as:

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/nadal-this-will-be-my-only-shot-at-doing-the-grand-slam-2183008.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/tennis/serena-williams-i-dont-need-a-grand-slam-to-define-my-career/2015/06/24/0ec1f1b6-19c3-11e5-93b7-5eddc056ad8a_story.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/rafaelnadal/8248276/Rafael-Nadal-Grand-Slam-Australian-Open-is-just-the-beginning-says-Rod-Laver.html

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tristanhilton85

...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?

If I was writing the definition, it would be exactly what the current definition is, as defined by the PGA - winning all four Majors in one season/calendar year.  It wouldn't include Woods' achievement because it's not (IMO) a Grand Slam.  It's a "Tiger Slam", for whatever that's worth.  My reasoning would be that it's the same as basically every other sport in the world - those types of titles are decided upon based upon one season of play, with clearly defined starting and ending points.  The FedEx Cup, tour cards, money winnings, etc. - those are all calculated based upon one "season" of golf, so why shouldn't the Grand Slam be the same?

Each of those accolades is a Tour endorsed seasonal achievement.  None of the majors is run by any Tour.  Applying seasonal attributes to them based on a Tour season is a purely arbitrary condition - and unnecessary and unwarranted.  As Erik said, if someone wants to offer a trophy or medal for the grand slam, then they can specify the conditions that apply.  I think any such trophy would collect a lot of dust before ever being awarded - a testimony to someones misplaced optimism.

[isukgolf]

Each of those accolades is a Tour endorsed seasonal achievement.  None of the majors is run by any Tour.  Applying seasonal attributes to them based on a Tour season is a purely arbitrary condition - and unnecessary and unwarranted.  As Erik said, if someone wants to offer a trophy or medal for the grand slam, then they can specify the conditions that apply.  I think any such trophy would collect a lot of dust before ever being awarded - a testimony to someones misplaced optimism. ;-)

Well said ... I believe the opens are just that, opens ... you do not have to have a your card, be part of the of the Fed Ex cup, and anything tour related ... just survive the qualifying rounds prior to the event. Just don't see how can you tie the majors to an US tour season. Seems narrow minded to me.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Each of those accolades is a Tour endorsed seasonal achievement.  None of the majors is run by any Tour.  Applying seasonal attributes to them based on a Tour season is a purely arbitrary condition - and unnecessary and unwarranted.  As Erik said, if someone wants to offer a trophy or medal for the grand slam, then they can specify the conditions that apply.  I think any such trophy would collect a lot of dust before ever being awarded - a testimony to someones misplaced optimism.

Well said ... I believe the opens are just that, opens ... you do not have to have a your card, be part of the of the Fed Ex cup, and anything tour related ... just survive the qualifying rounds prior to the event.

Just don't see how can you tie the majors to an US tour season. Seems narrow minded to me.

Especially considering that there are several Tours to be considered, even if the PGA and European Tours may have more standing from our point of view.  That point of view isn't necessarily shared worldwide.

[Aflighter]

Does anyone even think this whole discussion would even exist if it was someone else other than tiger (hack) woods?

[Mac62]

Does anyone even think this whole discussion would even exist if it was someone else other than tiger woods?

No, I don't.  I feel it's nothing more than an effort by his admirers to add another jewel to his crown, deserved or not.

Gary Player recently said "Golf needs a black champion", and that (discriminatory, IMO) line of thought is what leads to things like this.  Because of his race, many people feel the need to prop him up to the maximum extent possible.  His accomplishments speak for themselves whether you're a fan of his or not - he doesn't need false accolades piled on top of them (although I'm sure his ego doesn't mind it one bit).

Champions shouldn't need and don't deserve "affirmative action" because of somebody's white guilt.  Golf doesn't "need" a black champion anymore than the NFL "needs" an MVP Samoan quarterback, or NASCAR "needs" an Asian champion.  A champion is the person who performs best at his/her sport, and that is what it is. The NBA hasn't had a white MVP since 2006, yet I don't see anybody bleating that the NBA "needs a white champion".  As far as I can see, there's never been a Hispanic NBA MVP - where's the outcry over that?

[Vinsk]

A discussion emerged as to whether or not Tiger completed a "Grand Slam." Although the title of the thread may have insinuated that with its use of the word "Grand" the actual question asks if it's a grand achievement. I'm not sure how anyone could possibly argue that winning 4 majors in a row isn't a grand achievement. Really? It's an amazing accomplishment just to win any tournament on the PGA tour. Personally I agree with Iacas regarding the Grand Slam topic. What Tiger did was fantastic and I bet it will be a long time before it's repeated.

[Mac62]

A discussion emerged as to whether or not Tiger completed a "Grand Slam." Although the title of the thread may have insinuated that with its use of the word "Grand" the actual question asks if it's a grand achievement. I'm not sure how anyone could possibly argue that winning 4 majors in a row isn't a grand achievement. Really? It's an amazing accomplishment just to win any tournament on the PGA tour. Personally I agree with Iacas regarding the Grand Slam topic. What Tiger did was fantastic and I bet it will be a long time before it's repeated.

That's the title, but did you actually read the OP?  Iacas' contention is that Woods completed the Grand Slam and that the calendar year is irrelevant and arbitrary.  That's where the entire discussion stems from.

[Vinsk]

Yes and I addressed that as well.

[jbishop15]

Does anyone even think this whole discussion would even exist if it was someone else other than tiger (hack) woods?

Yes

[newtogolf]

Does anyone even think this whole discussion would even exist if it was someone else other than tiger (hack) woods?

Yes

If Jack had done what Tiger did, there would be people making the same argument on Jacks behalf.  The name of the golfer shouldn't even be brought into the discussion, it's either a Grand Slam or it's not.

[boogielicious]

Does anyone even think this whole discussion would even exist if it was someone else other than tiger (hack) woods?

Hack? You obviously mean GOAT. If Nicklaus had done this, the conversation would be the same.

[iacas]

No, I don't.  I feel it's nothing more than an effort by his admirers to add another jewel to his crown, deserved or not.

As I've already said, it doesn't "add a jewel." The dude won four majors in a row whether you call it a "Grand Slam" or a "Tiger Slam" or a freaking "Kerbooble Janooey". Whatever you call it, he won four majors in a row (and 3 U.S. Ams in a row, and 14 or 17 majors…).

Gary Player recently said "Golf needs a black champion", and that (discriminatory, IMO) line of thought is what leads to things like this. Because of his race, many people feel the need to prop him up to the maximum extent possible.

Uhhhhh… no.

His accomplishments speak for themselves whether you're a fan of his or not - he doesn't need false accolades piled on top of them (although I'm sure his ego doesn't mind it one bit).

They're false accolades to you given your definition .

Champions shouldn't need and don't deserve "affirmative action" because of somebody's white guilt.  Golf doesn't "need" a black champion anymore than the NFL "needs" an MVP Samoan quarterback, or NASCAR "needs" an Asian champion.  A champion is the person who performs best at his/her sport, and that is what it is. The NBA hasn't had a white MVP since 2006, yet I don't see anybody bleating that the NBA "needs a white champion".  As far as I can see, there's never been a Hispanic NBA MVP - where's the outcry over that?

Race is not playing a role in this discussion (until you brought it up… and you've previously mentioned you don't like Tiger, so…???).

And now race ends its short time playing a role in this discussion, please.

[Vinsk]

As I've already said, it doesn't "add a jewel." The dude won four majors in a row whether you call it a "Grand Slam" or a "Tiger Slam" or a freaking "Kerbooble Janooey". Whatever you call it, he won four majors in a row (and 3 U.S. Ams in a row, and 14 or 17 majors…). Uhhhhh… no.   They're false accolades to you given your definition .   Race is not playing a role in this discussion (until you brought it up… and you've previously mentioned you don't like Tiger, so…???). And now race ends its short time playing a role in this discussion, please.

Criminey....thank you Erik..

[jbishop15]

No, I don't.  I feel it's nothing more than an effort by his admirers to add another jewel to his crown, deserved or not. Gary Player recently said "Golf needs a black champion", and that (discriminatory, IMO) line of thought is what leads to things like this.  Because of his race, many people feel the need to prop him up to the maximum extent possible.  His accomplishments speak for themselves whether you're a fan of his or not - he doesn't need false accolades piled on top of them (although I'm sure his ego doesn't mind it one bit).  Champions shouldn't need and don't deserve "affirmative action" because of somebody's white guilt.  Golf doesn't "need" a black champion anymore than the NFL "needs" an MVP Samoan quarterback, or NASCAR "needs" an Asian champion.  A champion is the person who performs best at his/her sport, and that is what it is. The NBA hasn't had a white MVP since 2006, yet I don't see anybody bleating that the NBA "needs a white champion".  As far as I can see, there's never been a Hispanic NBA MVP - where's the outcry over that?

A tip: don't talk about shit you don't understand, like racial and sociological politics. It makes you look like a jerk. Also, I find it hilarious that you are so convinced this is a ploy to bolster Tiger's resumé; not to spoil it for you, but he doesn't need help in that department.

[Aflighter]

Hack? You obviously mean GOAT. If Nicklaus had done this, the conversation would be the same.

[quote name="Mac62" url="/t/83344/tigers-slam-a-grand-achievement/390#post_1174773"]No, I don't.  I feel it's nothing more than an effort by his admirers to add another jewel to his crown, deserved or not. Gary Player recently said "Golf needs a black champion", and that (discriminatory, IMO) line of thought is what leads to things like this.  Because of his race, many people feel the need to prop him up to the maximum extent possible.  His accomplishments speak for themselves whether you're a fan of his or not - he doesn't need false accolades piled on top of them (although I'm sure his ego doesn't mind it one bit). [/quote]Well hes a hack now and GOHE but not GOAT.

[RH31]

Probably not. The Tiger lovers need some "Great Tiger" stuff to talk about, and there just hasn't been any of that for quite some time. Tiger missed another cut, played horrible again, and wasn't even hardly discussed. He's playing so bad they don't even talk about that( his poor play) much anymore. It's got to be disheartening for his following, so they delve back into history for some Tiger love.

[iacas]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aflighter

Does anyone even think this whole discussion would even exist if it was someone else other than tiger (hack) woods?

Probably not. The Tiger lovers need some "Great Tiger" stuff to talk about, and there just hasn't been any of that for quite some time. Tiger missed another cut, played horrible again, and wasn't even hardly discussed. He's playing so bad they don't even talk about that( his poor play) much anymore. It's got to be disheartening for his following, so they delve back into history for some Tiger love.

Or… the Jordan Spieth stuff brought up the topic of what a "Grand Slam" is to people. As the thread starter, I can tell you it was that.