Tiger's Slam - A Grand Achievement?

[MyrtleBeachGolf]

Ask him. Otherwise who cares? You are losing.

A) I didn't know there was a winning or losing. B) Considering the entire golfing and sports world considers Tigers accomplishment just the "Tiger Slam" and not the "Grand Slam of Golf", I'm not sure I'm losing anything. It's strange, I watch and read quite a bit of sports news and reporting, and I haven't heard anyone change the definition of the Grand Slam to include what Tiger did to include it. There are a handful of guys on this board who have an opinion, and that's great, that's what we are here for. But your opinion isn't going to change the definition or the record books.

[Phil McGleno]

A) I didn't know there was a winning or losing.

The poll. [quote name="MyrtleBeachGolf" url="/t/83344/tigers-slam-a-grand-achievement/36#post_1171914"]B) Considering the entire golfing and sports world considers Tigers accomplishment just the "Tiger Slam" and not the "Grand Slam of Golf", I'm not sure I'm losing anything.[/quote] Not true. See @mvmac post above.

[newtogolf]

I voted "No" because I  feel they all have to be done in the same calendar year.  The reason they call it the "Tiger Slam" is because most don't consider it true a "Grand Slam".  It's still an amazing achievement and as close as one can get to a Grand Slam, but if someone wins all 4 in the same calendar year I believe it's even a greater accomplishment.

[Phil McGleno]

I voted "No" because I  feel they all have to be done in the same calendar year.  The reason they call it the "Tiger Slam" is because most don't consider it true a "Grand Slam".  It's still an amazing achievement and as close as one can get to a Grand Slam, but if someone wins all 4 in the same calendar year I believe it's even a greater accomplishment.

How is winning four over four or five months greater than winning four over eight months? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(golf) [QUOTE]The Grand Slam in men's golf is an unofficial concept, having changed over time. In the modern era, the Grand Slam is generally considered to be winning all four of golf's major championships in the same calendar year.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Tiger Woods has come closest to meeting the modern definition of golf's Grand Slam by holding all four modern major championships simultaneously — the U.S. Open, The Open Championship and the PGA Championship in 2000 and the 2001 Masters — although not in the same calendar year. This has been referred to as a Consecutive Grand Slam or, after the only player to achieve it, a Tiger Slam.[2] In fact, even before Woods accomplished this, there was much debate over the definition of "Grand Slam." Fred Couples said, "I don't know how I can put it more simply . . . if he wins all four, it's a Slam." As noted above, however, because there is no official definition, there is no definitive answer. [/QUOTE] http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93613 [QUOTE]"To win four consecutive majors, if you look at my career, I don't think I have ever accomplished anything this great," Woods said Sunday after finishing the Masters at 16-under-par 272. That put him two strokes ahead of David Duval and three strokes ahead of Phil Mickelson, for his 27th PGA Tour victory. "I think it's a slam," PGA Tour Commissioner Tim Finchem said Sunday, warding off any dispute about whether what Woods has done deserves the highest praise. "It's a different kind of slam than we grew up with, but different is OK." Sportswriters have tried to come up with other words for it — a Tiger Slam, a Straight Slam. Forget it. Arguments about whether what Woods has done is a true Grand Slam — something no one in golf has achieved, with the possible exception of Bobby Jones, who won the four biggest tournaments of his era in 1931 — are beside the point.[/QUOTE]

[newtogolf]

How is winning four over four or five months greater than winning four over eight months?

Because it doesn't account for the grind of the season.  A guy who does it in four or five months has to be playing his top golf consistently over that period, despite nicks and minor injuries.  Tiger had a few months to practice, rest and heal before he won the Masters in 2001

[isukgolf]

Oddly I feel it was a made up name by the press to start with ... they labeled it several things back in the day ... I believe if Bobby had won them on the same time frame as Tiger, it would have been label a grand slam then ... Conversely if Bobby won the same events he won in todays game, it would not be a slam. I consider it a grand slam, since in my opinion there is not a big deal made around a "golf season" However, I am also good with a Tiger Slam, a title that will last many many years to come. My opinion, and 88 cents will get you a Gatorade at my local Walmart ...

[Phil McGleno]

Because it doesn't account for the grind of the season.  A guy who does it in four or five months has to be playing his top golf consistently over that period, despite nicks and minor injuries.  Tiger had a few months to practice, rest and heal before he won the Masters in 2001

So did everyone else. Tiger had eight months to consider the weight of what he was trying to do too. And for his hot streak to end. Longer streaks are tougher than shorter streaks.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MyrtleBeachGolf

By definition, you must win all 4 in the same calendar year. If the PGA Tour doesn't consider the Tiger Slam an official Grand Slam, then neither do I.

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 agree, particularly in view of the fact that both major tour seasons don't even observe the calendar year.

[newtogolf]

So did everyone else. Tiger had eight months to consider the weight of what he was trying to do too. And for his hot streak to end.

Longer streaks are tougher than shorter streaks.

In 2000 they had more of an off season, he might have had more time to consider the weight of what he was trying to do but he went into the Majors healthy and fresh.  You're also discounting the mental fatigue of having to perform at an elite level over 4-5 months and the huge pressure of having won 3 legs and going for the 4th in the same season.

The streak is 4 wins in Majors tournaments, there's nothing about the added time to rest and prepare that adds difficulty to the task imo.

[Phil McGleno]

The streak is 4 wins in Majors tournaments, there's nothing about the added time to rest and prepare that adds difficulty to the task imo.

I do not agree. It is tougher for an NFL or NHL or NBA team to be a dynasty than it is to win a single championship. It is almost always tougher to maintain a high level of play for a longer period of time.

[newtogolf]

I do not agree. It is tougher for an NFL or NHL or NBA team to be a dynasty than it is to win a single championship. It is almost always tougher to maintain a high level of play for a longer period of time.

We don't have to agree, but the fact that neither Tiger nor anyone else could do it in the same calendar year would seem to indicate it's more difficult, no?

[Phil McGleno]

We don't have to agree, but the fact that neither Tiger nor anyone else could do it in the same calendar year would seem to indicate it's more difficult, no?

No.-Small sample sizes. Like...... one sample. If you are going to win four in a row there is a 25% chance you will win them in the calendar year. Probability is not difficulty.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil McGleno

So did everyone else. Tiger had eight months to consider the weight of what he was trying to do too. And for his hot streak to end.

Longer streaks are tougher than shorter streaks.

In 2000 they had more of an off season, he might have had more time to consider the weight of what he was trying to do but he went into the Majors healthy and fresh.  You're also discounting the mental fatigue of having to perform at an elite level over 4-5 months and the huge pressure of having won 3 legs and going for the 4th in the same season.

The streak is 4 wins in Majors tournaments, there's nothing about the added time to rest and prepare that adds difficulty to the task imo.

Irrelevant.  The season still started in early January, and the Masters came 3 months later.  Plenty of time to pickup a few nicks and let the pressure build, especially if the player fails to perform well in in one or more of those events.  The time spent sitting and thinking in the off season is not really a good thing.  With the sort of schedule Tiger has almost always played, the start of the season is mostly meaningless too - he's going to be effectively coming off the same number of recent tournaments because that's how he schedules his participation.

[newtogolf]

Irrelevant.  The season still started in early January, and the Masters came 3 months later.  Plenty of time to pickup a few nicks and let the pressure build, especially if the player fails to perform well in in one or more of those events.  The time spent sitting and thinking in the off season is not really a good thing.  With the sort of schedule Tiger has almost always played, the start of the season is mostly meaningless too - he's going to be effectively coming off the same number of recent tournaments because that's how he schedules his participation.

That's the great thing about polls, we can all have our own opinions and defend them.

I'm a huge Tiger fan so this has nothing to do with taking anything away from his accomplishments, I just think if Spieth can win 4 majors in the same season it's a greater accomplishment and will be something no other professional golfer has ever accomplished.

[Mac62]

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.

Because there are many of his fans who wish to accord every possible accolade to him, justly or otherwise.  In my opinion.

I voted no.  It didn't happen within the same calendar year, it's not a Grand Slam.  If a batter in baseball finished off one season strong and started the next season equally strong, they wouldn't award him the batting title for the previous year based upon his performance across two seasons.  If the Green Bay Packers won their last six games in the process of a 6-10 season, then started off the next season with 7 straight wins enroute to a 7-9 season, they wouldn't qualify for the playoffs as being 13-0.  No matter how much of a Packers fan you are, they were still 6-10 one season and 7-9 the next.

Oh, and a "Tiger Slam" sounds like a cheap breakfast at Denny's.

[Golfingdad]

Because there are many of his fans who wish to accord every possible accolade to him, justly or otherwise.  In my opinion. I voted no.  It didn't happen within the same calendar year, it's not a Grand Slam.  If a batter in baseball finished off one season strong and started the next season equally strong, they wouldn't award him the batting title for the previous year based upon his performance across two seasons.  If the Green Bay Packers won their last six games in the process of a 6-10 season, then started off the next season with 7 straight wins enroute to a 7-9 season, they wouldn't qualify for the playoffs as being 13-0.  No matter how much of a Packers fan you are, they were still 6-10 one season and 7-9 the next. Oh, and a "Tiger Slam" sounds like a cheap breakfast at Denny's.  :-D

Your baseball analogy is a good one - but not for the reason you think. Things like batting titles or golden gloves, which are defined CLEARLY, and actually involve trophies given out at the end of the season obviously cannot carry over. But other things, such as hitting streaks, can and do carry over multiple seasons. Also consider this: imagine if somebody lost the Masters one year and the PGA the following year, but won all 6 in a row between those two. That would be CLEARLY a more impressive feat than randomly winning 4 in the calendar year, but I feel like many would still say "sorry, not a grand slam" as if it's somehow less impressive. Probably the same people that would consider a cycle in baseball more impressive than a homer, a triple and two doubles just because somebody came up with a catchy name and definition for it. The idea that anybody cares much about this either way is silly, but more silly is anybody that somehow thinks Tigers is less impressive because He had to file two separate tax returns for his winnings.

[Mac62]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

Your baseball analogy is a good one - but not for the reason you think. Things like batting titles or golden gloves, which are defined CLEARLY , and actually involve trophies given out at the end of the season obviously cannot carry over. But other things, such as hitting streaks, can and do carry over multiple seasons...

Then it logically follows that if the Grand Slam isn't clearly defined, whether he accomplished it or not is 100% a matter of opinion.  If the world of professional golf and the media want to discuss a Grand Slam, there should be a clear definition of exactly what a "Grand Slam" is.  Otherwise, it's about as nebulous as discussing the sound of one hand clapping.  In baseball, a Grand Slam is a home run with the bases loaded - it's real simple, you either accomplished it or you didn't.

Quote:

...The idea that anybody cares much about this either way is silly, but more silly is anybody that somehow thinks Tigers is less impressive because He had to file
two separate tax returns for his winnings.

I think many of his fans care a great deal about it because they're eager to add another jewel to his crown - especially now that it's becoming increasingly apparent that he'll never again stand a chance of accomplishing it.  Whether it's more or less impressive - I think the 13-0 run across two seasons by the Packers that I postulated in the first post is pretty impressive, but not as impressive as a 13-3 season and a Super Bowl victory at the end of it.

[mvmac]

Then it logically follows that if the Grand Slam isn't clearly defined, whether he accomplished it or not is 100% a matter of opinion.

Right, which is why we can have a thread discussing it