Tiger's Slam - A Grand Achievement?

[Hatchman]

In this case or sport it is not defined over time. A golfer could achieve it by winning one event four years in a row. I'd like to see one golfer win the U.S. Open who has 6 second place finishes to get his 4. It that lessor? It's a relative thing that transcends time for the armchair quarterback like me to debate as they bust thier tails trying.

[ScouseJohnny]

I voted "yes," because, logically, it shouldn't matter when a grand slam begins - Tiger commenced his with the US Open of 2000 and ended it with the Masters of 2001. Why should a "grand slam" (holding all four majors at one time), always have to commence with a Masters victory? Also, to suggest this wasn't a grand slam would seem to raise an argument that the winner of any major championship only holds that title until the end of the calendar year in which the particular major was won - not until the championship is contested again (the following year). As he walked off the 18th green at Augusta on 8th April 2001, Tiger Woods was the current holder of all four of golf's major championships. A status that lasted until 18th June 2001 at Southern Hills, when Goosen beat Brooks in the play-off for the 2001 US Open. By any logical reasoning, the "Tiger Slam" was an indisputable grand slam.

But these things are not driven by logic; unless officially defined, they are largely driven by the reaction of the sporting media and public perception. Tiger's slam has a small asterisk next to it that reads *completed in the years 2000 and 2001. In the same way that you can read endless pages of logical (and sometimes illogical) reasoning here about why Tiger's 14 majors represent a greater feat than Jack's 18, there may be a perception in the sporting media that Tiger is the greatest golfer of all time, but then there's still the asterisk *Nicklaus actually won 4 more.

You can bet that if Tiger had managed all four in one calendar year, beginning in April with the Masters and ending with the PGA in August of the same calendar year, the noise from the media would have been deafening. Similarly, if, (unlikely as it sounds), he wins another 5 majors before he retires, the acclaim he receives as the ball hits the bottom of the cup on the 18th green of the final round, to assure his 19th major championship, will be unprecedented in sport. Simplistic though it sounds, a lot of people want undisputed achievements rather than ones that make sense logically, when you think about them. If Spieth wins all four this year I don't think he will have surpassed Tiger's achievements in 2000/1, but I will regard it as "history being made," because, for the first time in the modern era, the world at large will be admiring a golfer who just completed an undisputed grand slam. Simplistic though it sounds, with sporting records of this type, the world at large can't tolerate the asterisks.

[Mr. Desmond]

When I think of a Grand Slam in a  traditional sense, all 4 in one calendar year, then no.

If I think of one golfer holding all four trophies at one time, then yes.

Does it matter?

[boogielicious]

I voted yes, but it is irrelevant. If Tiger had won them in a calendar year, the haters would change the definition so he didn't win the Grand Slam.

[imsys0042]

I voted yes. I believe that the original intent was a calendar year. And to a lot of people that makes sense since we tend to think of many things contained or in a season/year. However, the world keeps evolving and someone came along and did something that changed the traditional definition. So I think it's valid.

[Silent]

I voted no. The Grand Slam is, in my opinion, winning all the majors within the same season (just like in tennis). Holding all the titles at the same time obviously is phenomenal, yet winning those titels in two different golf seasons (i.e. calender years) is offically not the same as 'The Grand Slam', and also not in my opinion. In soccer winning the competition title while you won the cup final the year before (and the cup final of the current year is not played yet) also doesn't qualify as winning the 'double'.

[mtsalmela80]

Its very well known that a true grand slam is all majors in the same year. Golf, tennis, whatever else.

There is a very great reason they coined the phrase "Tiger Slam".

If you want to delude yourself into thinking Tiger won a real grand slam in order to put your hero on a pedestal, that's fine, but it doesn't change the definition of a grand slam.

This is the only place I've ever seen the case made that Tiger won a real grand slam.

People want to talk about "haters" , I can almost guarantee that should Jordan win the Open, before the end of the week we will see posts indicating its a bogus victory because Rory was not in the field.

Frankly, I would still bet against Jordan winning the grand slam, but if he did, it will be the one and only grand slam in the modern era.

[David in FL]

Tremendous achievement, but not a Grand Slam. I see no reason to redefine the term, just because someone did something similar.

[Phil McGleno]

This is the only place I've ever seen the case made that Tiger won a real grand slam.

Funny-I gave links to places including Fred Couples saying he had won a real grand slam elsewhere. You are one of the biggest Tiger haters though so it is no surprise you say no. @Mac62 It is not about adding another feather to his cap. It is a name. He still won the four majors in a row whether you call it a Grand Slam or a Tiger Slam or a Podunkle Grabobble. Still does not change the achievement.

[nevets88]

So if Spieth wins all four this year, which is more impressive. Spieth's 4 in a row or Woods's 4 in a row?

Order in degree of difficulty:

Career Grand Slam

Grand Slam:

4:0 Consecutive Slam

Consecutive Slam:

3:1 Consecutive Slam

2:2 Consecutive Slam

1:3 Consecutive Slam

[Abu3baid]

So if Spieth wins all four this year, which is more impressive. Spieth's 4 in a row or Woods's 4 in a row? Order in degree of difficulty: Career Grand Slam Grand Slam:   4:0 Consecutive Slam Consecutive Slam:    3:1 Consecutive Slam   2:2 Consecutive Slam   1:3 Consecutive Slam

I would say this is OT for this thread. As far as the poll, sure why wouldn't it be considered a grand slam. The guy won all 4 in a row..

[iacas]

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.

In golf, a grand slam could be defined as:

• Winning all four majors in a row starting with the Masters.
• Winning all four majors in a row starting with any one of them.

Those are clear definitions. There's just no agreement on which definition is "best." Some people prefer the first, some the second. I'm obviously in the second group.

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.

To me, it's like this.

An NFL team wins four Super Bowls in a row. Why should it matter to you if they were in the years 2005-2008 or if they were in the years 1999-2002? The one crosses an arbitrary boundary - the decade (and century) mark. The other stays within them.

A football season (a Super Bowl season) is the equivalent of a single major championship. What you are saying makes total sense if you say that you can't just take the last two rounds of one major and the first two rounds of the next major to say that the player has "won" something. Each "major" is effectively a "season" because they give you a trophy at the end.

Plus, I mirror what @Golfingdad said about hitting streaks. Orel Hersheiser had 59 innings of scoreless baseball… that spanned several games. What's important there was that they were consecutive. They also started in the middle of a game, too: they didn't start with the first pitch in the first inning of a game. Just as Tiger's streak didn't start with the first swing in the first major of a calendar year… and the nine innings in baseball are less arbitrary than the calendar year in which a golf tournament is played.

[Fourputt]

Using any comparison to a team sport is the definition of irrelevant, simply because it's almost unheard of for a team to have the same makeup for two years running.  Players retire, get traded, cut, etc., so you aren't always even talking about the same team within a calendar year, much less over multiple seasons.  For golf, it's still the same guy, a little older, maybe some swing tweaks, but nothing has changed in a significant sense.  Holding all four at the same time is a grand slam, like it or not.

[iacas]

Using any comparison to a team sport is the definition of irrelevant, simply because it's almost unheard of for a team to have the same makeup for two years running.  Players retire, get traded, cut, etc., so you aren't always even talking about the same team within a calendar year, much less over multiple seasons.  For golf, it's still the same guy, a little older, maybe some swing tweaks, but nothing has changed in a significant sense.  Holding all four at the same time is a grand slam, like it or not.

Rick, c'mon. That's your definition. I happen to agree with you, but just as I've rejected the "that is a fact" type of language from those who vote "no" I'm going to reject it from you, too. That's how you (and I) define it. It's not how "everyone" defines it.

[skydog]

Spoiler Alert: the poll results will look about the same as any on TST that involve a Tiger question.

This thread reeks of fear from Tiger fans thinking that if Spieth completes the slam it will diminish Tiger's achievement in the record books.

[Phil McGleno]

Spoiler Alert: the poll results will look about the same as any on TST that involve a Tiger question. This thread reeks of fear from Tiger fans that if Spieth completes the slam it will diminish Tiger's achievement.

And @skydog again with the anti-Tiger bull. This site does not seem to have a higher concentration of Tiger fans (or Tiger haters) than the world at large. You are free to vote NO just as I am free to vote YES. You hate TIger and I do not. What gets old is your constant attacks on this forum, the people here, and anyone who does not agree with you. It will diminish Tiger if Spieth wins a Grand Slam (whether this year or spanning two calendar years in the future) because then it will not be only achieved by ONE person but by TWO people. Being the only man to do something is more significant than being one of two, or one of twenty. That is just common sense. Drop the attitude buddy-Clearly you vote no but you do not have to behave like a jerk or convince yourself that only TST feels this way. From what I can tell TST is pretty representative of golf fans. Maybe the thread was started because there is a lot of talk of a "grand slam" this year given Spieth playing so well. Strikes me as timely, not reeking of fear. Fear? Seriously? Do you know the definition of the word? You take this shit way too seriously if you are saying that people are FEARing Jordan Spieth playing good golf, and you under-estimate the golf fans out there.

[skydog]

And @skydog again with the anti-Tiger bull. This site does not seem to have a higher concentration of Tiger fans (or Tiger haters) than the world at large. You are free to vote NO just as I am free to vote YES. You hate TIger and I do not.

What gets old is your constant attacks on this forum, the people here, and anyone who does not agree with you.

It will diminish Tiger if Spieth wins a Grand Slam (whether this year or spanning two calendar years in the future) because then it will not be only achieved by ONE person but by TWO people. Being the only man to do something is more significant than being one of two, or one of twenty. That is just common sense.

Drop the attitude buddy-Clearly you vote no but you do not have to behave like a jerk or convince yourself that only TST feels this way. From what I can tell TST is pretty representative of golf fans.

The only hatred here comes out of you my man. I didn't vote because I don't have a strong opinion on it one way or the other.

What Tiger accomplished was the most impressive feat we've seen in the game. IMO, if Jordan can win the Grand Slam (which I'm not bettting on) it would be a more impressive feat than Tiger's based on several things (his youth, strength of field, etc.)

I was poking fun at the poll results, because whether you want to admit or not, most every Tiger related poll on this site shakes out with 60-70% of the votes being the 'pro Tiger' vote.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil McGleno

And @skydog again with the anti-Tiger bull. This site does not seem to have a higher concentration of Tiger fans (or Tiger haters) than the world at large. You are free to vote NO just as I am free to vote YES. You hate TIger and I do not.

What gets old is your constant attacks on this forum, the people here, and anyone who does not agree with you.

It will diminish Tiger if Spieth wins a Grand Slam (whether this year or spanning two calendar years in the future) because then it will not be only achieved by ONE person but by TWO people. Being the only man to do something is more significant than being one of two, or one of twenty. That is just common sense.

Drop the attitude buddy-Clearly you vote no but you do not have to behave like a jerk or convince yourself that only TST feels this way. From what I can tell TST is pretty representative of golf fans.

The only hatred here comes out of you my man. I didn't vote because I don't have a strong opinion on it one way or the other.

What Tiger accomplished was the most impressive feat we've seen in the game. IMO, if Jordan can win the Grand Slam (which I'm not bettting on) it would be a more impressive feat than Tiger's based on several things (his youth, strength of field, etc.)

I was poking fun at the poll results, because whether you want to admit or not, most every Tiger related poll on this site shakes out with 60-70% of the votes being the 'pro Tiger' vote.

Maybe it turns out that we have been over-rating the current strength of field.  After all, if it turns out that 2 players achieve the grand slam in less than 2 decades, it leads one to suspect that there may not be as much competition at the top of the Tour as was previously believed.