Tiger's Slam - A Grand Achievement?

[Phil McGleno]

The only hatred here comes out of you my man.

Others here are familiar with your body of work buddy. You are derisive, rude, condescending, and very much anti-Tiger. You have made proclamations about Tiger and speculated and get uppity and rude when called out on those as speculative. You post as if your opinion is fact, just like how you posted here about how TST is some odd island of super Tiger Lovers. [quote name="skydog" url="/t/83344/tigers-slam-a-grand-achievement/54#post_1172093"] 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.[/quote] You ever consider that it is because that is how 60-70% of golf fans feel? That TST is not unique in that? For all you know we have more of your kind-Tiger haters-than other sites?

[iacas]

To both of you, stick to the topic. Neither of you are the topic.

[skydog]

FWIW, the way the question is worded with 'grand slam' in quotes- if I had to vote I would vote no. The definition of it (same calendar year) may be arbitrary but it's the defintion of it as far as I'm concerned. But I take no issue with someone saying that it's purely arbitrary semantics and that 4 in a row is 4 in a row. Again, really no strong opinion here either way.

[ghalfaire]

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!

Well I certainly don't want to try to diminish what Tiger achieved in the slightest.  But I believe the accepted definition of Grand Slam has always been "all four majors in a single calendar year" ever since I have played the game and that was a long time before Tiger was even born.   I would agree the calendar year is arbitrary, but it is a part of the definition and has been for a long time. I don't know who else in golf has held all four championships simultaneously but it is a significant achievement, but if not in a single calendar year it isn't a grand slam according to all the dictionaries I have read.

[Phil McGleno]

Well I certainly don't want to try to diminish what Tiger achieved in the slightest.  But I believe the accepted definition of Grand Slam has always been "all four majors in a single calendar year" ever since I have played the game and that was a long time before Tiger was even born.   I would agree the calendar year is arbitrary, but it is a part of the definition and has been for a long time. I don't know who else in golf has held all four championships simultaneously but it is a significant achievement, but if not in a single calendar year it isn't a grand slam according to all the dictionaries I have read.

Dollars to donuts I am as old as you or older, and definitions change. There is not universal or accepted agreement on the definition requiring calendar year. Look at earlier posts in this thread. This poll seems to basically answer the question of whether golf fans consider the calendar year part of the definition and thus far the calendar year requirement is losing.

[Silent]

Dollars to donuts I am as old as you or older, and definitions change. There is not universal or accepted agreement on the definition requiring calendar year. Look at earlier posts in this thread.

This poll seems to basically answer the question of whether golf fans consider the calendar year part of the definition and thus far the calendar year requirement is losing.

37 votes so far.... out of millions of golf fans. And most of those voters are probably Americans (not sure ofcourse, but I can imagine that votes might be different on a European forum).

In my opinion it's a called a Tiger Slam for a reason: because it's not a Grand Slam. In a sport that is played in seasons (like almost every sport) with a first tournament and a last tournament, a money list where everybody starts a $ 0 and a final tournament (FedEx Cup, Race to Dubai) I don't think the 'official' definition in one of those sports (tennis, golf etc.) will ever change and winning majors in 1 season will be considered just a little bit more special or an achievement then doing so over a period of 2 seperate seasons. Wether one won it in a row or not...

That being said I don't care that much how people call it. It was an amazing performance from Tiger that might never be matched again. However if Spieth completes the Grand Slam this year, I wouldn't be surprised if the history books will name him and Bobby Jones as the only ones actually achieving The Grand Slam.

[iacas]

In a sport that is played in seasons (like almost every sport) with a first tournament and a last tournament, a money list where everybody starts a $ 0 and a final tournament (FedEx Cup, Race to Dubai) I don't think the 'official' definition in one of those sports (tennis, golf etc.) will ever change and winning majors in 1 season will be considered just a little bit more special or an achievement then doing so over a period of 2 seperate seasons. Wether one won it in a row or not...

The seasons on the European Tour and the PGA Tour don't even start at the same time. The PGA Tour and the Web.com tour even intermingle their seasons now. Golf is played year-round.

I maintain that seasons are arbitrary. They're not like other "seasons" in other sports because a trophy is handed out each week. The only thing "seasons" matter for in golf are things like the FedExCup, Vardon trophy, etc., and that's just bookkeeping. You can't claim to win the FedExCup because you win the most points from mid-way through one season to mid-way through the next, but that's a season-long "tournament." The majors are their own tournament.

Tournaments are their own "season." See post #66 about an NFL team winning four championships in a row (four "trophies" in a row) across a decade/century or not.

That said, I realize neither group is likely to convince someone else from the other group, so…

[Gunther]

Dollars to donuts I am as old as you or older, and definitions change. There is not universal or accepted agreement on the definition requiring calendar year. Look at earlier posts in this thread. This poll seems to basically answer the question of whether golf fans consider the calendar year part of the definition and thus far the calendar year requirement is losing.

The poll is an assessment of people's opinions on whether they'd like the ruling authorities to change the current definition of Grand Slam. It's completely unscientific and biased and as such, means very little. In other words, no one is winning or losing. I suggest putting together a petition and presenting it to the USGA, R&A;, World Golf Hall of Fame, US Tennis Association and others, requesting the definition of Grand Slam be changed so that Tiger can put that on his plaque next year once he's inducted.

[Phil McGleno]

The poll is an assessment of people's opinions on whether they'd like the ruling authorities to change the current definition of Grand Slam.

There is no single current definition nor are there any ruling authorities on this matter. The USGA and R&A; do not care and the PGA Tour and European Tour sanction but do not conduct the majors. They could arbitrarily change their seasons to span calendar years-Oh wait they have BOTH done that showing that the calendar year is of little distinction or relevance.

[Silent]

I maintain that seasons are arbitrary. They're not like other "seasons" in other sports because a trophy is handed out each week. The only thing "seasons" matter for in golf are things like the FedExCup, Vardon trophy, etc., and that's just bookkeeping. You can't claim to win the FedExCup because you win the most points from mid-way through one season to mid-way through the next, but that's a season-long "tournament." The majors are their own tournament.

Good point. However that sounds pretty much the same as tennis, and (also) there 'The Grand Slam' is winning all 4 Grand Slam tournaments in the same calender year.

That said, I realize neither group is likely to convince someone else from the other group, so…

That is also true :-)

[imsys0042]

The seasons on the European Tour and the PGA Tour don't even start at the same time. The PGA Tour and the Web.com tour even intermingle their seasons now. Golf is played year-round.

I maintain that seasons are arbitrary. They're not like other "seasons" in other sports because a trophy is handed out each week. The only thing "seasons" matter for in golf are things like the FedExCup, Vardon trophy, etc., and that's just bookkeeping. You can't claim to win the FedExCup because you win the most points from mid-way through one season to mid-way through the next, but that's a season-long "tournament." The majors are their own tournament.

I think the wrap-around season that they do now on the PGA tour supports the arbitrary calendar argument.  It used to be that Hawaii was the start of the season and everything was reset, money list, stats, etc.    Now it's wrap around.   That doesn't change the scheduling of the majors, but it makes it weird to say that Joe Pro has won three times in a year, but that year is actually 2 on the calendar.

I maintain that definitions can change over time.  And a few years ago I would have voted no.   I voted yes because things evolve and when something historic happens, it's exciting and should be given credit.   When David Duval broke through he won three tournaments in a row, last three of the year.   In January everyone was talking about him matching (or beating, I forget) Hogan's number of starts (winning).   That's wrap around.   It was both calendar and season wrap around.

[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.

So using this logic, only a golfer who wins The Open and PGA Championship in one year and then the Masters and US Open the following year would have accomplished something even greater than Tiger since the streak would be longer?

[David in FL]

I disagree that the Grand Slam must occur within the same calendar year. As has been said, the season currently spans 2 calendar years. I do define it as all 4 majors having been won in the same season. . It just so happens that all 4 majors of each season happen to also fall in the same calendar year.

[iacas]

Good point. However that sounds pretty much the same as tennis, and (also) there 'The Grand Slam' is winning all 4 Grand Slam tournaments in the same calender year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(tennis)

Not that wikipedia is a definitive source, but they say that winning all four consecutively but not in the same calendar year is a " Non-Calendar Year Grand Slam." In that phrase "Non-Calendar Year" modifies the term "Grand Slam." Thus the "Grand Slam" could just be considered shorthand for "Calendar Year Grand Slam." Thus, a NCYGS is still, by that definition, "a" "Grand Slam."

I maintain that definitions can change over time.  And a few years ago I would have voted no.   I voted yes because things evolve and when something historic happens, it's exciting and should be given credit.   When David Duval broke through he won three tournaments in a row, last three of the year.   In January everyone was talking about him matching (or beating, I forget) Hogan's number of starts (winning).   That's wrap around.   It was both calendar and season wrap around.

Tiger's winning streak wrapped around, too, didn't it? Yeah… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_PGA_Tour_win_streaks . Anyway, that's been addressed by @Golfingdad above re: individual streaks carrying over, like hitting streaks.

So using this logic, only a golfer who wins The Open and PGA Championship in one year and then the Masters and US Open the following year would have accomplished something even greater than Tiger since the streak would be longer?

Um, fractionally so. But what is your point, really? Because I don't think discussing the relative difficulties is the topic. Winning four consecutive majors is incredibly difficult regardless of the span over which they're won . If winning them across five months is "easier" (as I contend) then it's relative. It's still really freaking difficult . If winning them across 8 months is 1% more difficult, then that's just adding difficulty on top of something that's already incredibly, incredibly difficult.

I disagree that the Grand Slam must occur within the same calendar year. As has been said, the season currently spans 2 calendar years. I do define it as all 4 majors having been won in the same season.. It just so happens that all 4 majors of each season happen to also fall in the same calendar year.

IMO a season is just as arbitrary as a calendar year. Golf is played year-round.

[newtogolf]

Um, fractionally so. But what is your point, really? Because I don't think discussing the relative difficulties is the topic. Winning four consecutive majors is incredibly difficult regardless of the span over which they're won. If winning them across five months is "easier" (as I contend) then it's relative. It's still really freaking difficult. If winning them across 8 months is 1% more difficult, then that's just adding difficulty on top of something that's already incredibly, incredibly difficult.

I was just expanding on Phil's claims that longer streaks are more difficult.

Most individual sports stats carry over seasons in other sports, but wins and losses are limited to the current season.  If we were discussing number of rounds of not posting a score over par, that's a stat that would span seasons.  Wins and losses are typically limited to seasons.

I'm not saying what Tiger did isn't a huge achievement, but I think it would be even more impressive if it was done in a single season.   If a football team finishes a season 8-0 and then goes 8-0 the following season it would  be impressive but still would not be recognized as greater than the Dolphins going undefeated for an entire season.

[iacas]

Most individual sports stats carry over seasons in other sports, but wins and losses are limited to the current season.  If we were discussing number of rounds of not posting a score over par, that's a stat that would span seasons.  Wins and losses are typically limited to seasons.

It's been said previously that tournaments are the equivalent to "seasons" in other sports. They give out a trophy at the end.

I'm not saying what Tiger did isn't a huge achievement, but I think it would be even more impressive if it was done in a single season.

And I think it was more impressive that it spanned a longer period of time.

This isn't about team sports. It's not an equivalent concept. It's already been said you can't take your last two rounds from one major and your first two in the next one and claim to have won anything. That's closer to the idea of "seasons" in the NFL or whatever.

[David in FL]

IMO a season is just as arbitrary as a calendar year. Golf is played year-round.

The term Grand Slam itself could be said to be arbitrary. You're absolutely right when you say that nobody is likely to change their mind here. I'm curious though. Why do you care? Is it about Tiger specifically, or is it something else.

[iacas]

You're absolutely right when you say that nobody is likely to change their mind here. I'm curious though. Why do you care? Is it about Tiger specifically, or is it something else.

It's a golf discussion. Nothing more. You care about the same as I do - enough to post in this thread about it.