Tiger's Slam - A Grand Achievement?

[Golfingdad]

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

But he's making the claim simply to refute the idea that it's somehow more difficult to win them in the same calendar year than not.  So many people who are arguing that Tiger's achievement is not technically a Grand Slam are doing so with at least a hint of implication that what he did was less difficult or less impressive than a calendar year Grand Slam.  That idea is silly and reeks of Tiger hate (or dislike).

If anybody (Jordan this year perhaps) were to achieve the calendar year Grand Slam, I would argue that this feat and Tigers were so monumentally above and beyond anything that anybody else has accomplished that it would be ridiculous to split hairs and argue one is better than the other.

[iacas]

If anybody (Jordan this year perhaps) were to achieve the calendar year Grand Slam, I would argue that this feat and Tigers were so monumentally above and beyond anything that anybody else has accomplished that it would be ridiculous to split hairs and argue one is better than the other.

I agree. After all, either are so difficult that only one or two people have done them since 1934.

[jamo]

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 "season" means a hell of a lot less than "calendar year." At least calendar years are set. Seasons (as we saw a few years ago) can be changed, and are governed by a body that does not put on any of the majors. I'm not sure why that would be a sticking point.

[David in FL]

IMO "season" means a hell of a lot less than "calendar year." At least calendar years are set. Seasons (as we saw a few years ago) can be changed, and are governed by a body that does not put on any of the majors. I'm not sure why that would be a sticking point.

Now that I think about it, calendar year is probably the better characterization...

[isukgolf]

Correct me if I am wrong, but both scenarios occur in a 12 month time frame ... so I struggle how one can be "better" than the other ...

[saevel25]

Correct me if I am wrong, but both scenarios occur in a 12 month time frame ... so I struggle how one can be "better" than the other ...

That is why I apply the to those who think it should be limited to a calendar year

Are we talking Gregorian Calendar, Roman Calendar, Mayan Calendar, ect...

[Golfingdad]

Correct me if I am wrong, but both scenarios occur in a 12 month time frame ... so I struggle how one can be "better" than the other ...

That's kind of the point that many are making ... although I wouldn't even confine it to 12 months.  I believe that "in a row" is the only part that really matters.

[David in FL]

Although we'll never know, because too few would admit it, but. I wonder how the voting/opinions would change if some other golfer had accomplished the "Tiger Slam", and Tiger was closing in on a calendar year Grand Slam. FWIW, even though I define the GS as it has been historically, I think what a Tiger did is likely more difficult.

[iacas]

Although we'll never know, because too few would admit it, but. I wonder how the voting/opinions would change if some other golfer had accomplished the "Tiger Slam", and Tiger was closing in on a calendar year Grand Slam.

Seriously, David? Nice accusation. You may as well just trot out the old "You're all Tiger fanboys" crap.

Holding all four major championship titles is a grand slam in my book. I've been pretty clear on that. And yes, you'll say maybe you're not talking about me, but I can't see where anyone has said anything that would lead you to feel they'd behave as you've accused here either.

[Gunther]

That is why I apply the :doh:  to those who think it should be limited to a calendar year :-P Are we talking Gregorian Calendar, Roman Calendar, Mayan Calendar, ect...  :-P

It's not about what we "think" it should be limited to, it IS what it's limited to. I wouldn't characterize those who want to change the definition with a "doh", I understand your argument and the motivation behind it.

[iacas]

I wouldn't characterize those who want to change to definition

@Gunther , it's not about changing "the" definition. There is no one definition to change.

You can keep posting as if it's a fact, but it is not.

[David in FL]

Seriously, David? Nice accusation. You may as well just trot out the old "You're all Tiger fanboys" crap. Holding all four major championship titles is a grand slam in my book. I've been pretty clear on that. And yes, you'll say maybe you're not talking about me, but I can't see where anyone has said anything that would lead you to feel they'd behave as you've accused here either.

I didn't mean that as an accusation, and certainly not directed towards any individual, simply a question. It's true though, the answers here tend to align pretty neatly with the the individual perception of Tiger. Whether "fan boy" or "hater"....

[iacas]

It's true though…

No, it's not. You more than implied that the definition a person gives will or would change if someone else won them the way Tiger did while Tiger was winning four in a calendar year (at this point many would take one more win, let alone four…). You don't know that to be true, and I can state unequivocally in my case that it would NOT change my definition.

That's an implication, an accusation, etc. You're smart enough to know what you were saying with that post.

[Phil McGleno]

Although we'll never know, because too few would admit it, but. I wonder how the voting/opinions would change if some other golfer had accomplished the "Tiger Slam", and Tiger was closing in on a calendar year Grand Slam.

My vote would not change.-And I resent what you are saying about my character.

[David in FL]

No, it's not. You more than implied that the definition a person gives will or would change if someone else won them the way Tiger did while Tiger was winning four in a calendar year (at this point many would take one more win, let alone four…). You don't know that to be true, and I can state unequivocally in my case that it would NOT change my definition. That's an implication, an accusation, etc. You're smart enough to know what you were saying with that post.

You said accusation, it wasn't. And yes, I implied that many answers would likely change if the scenario was reversed. By both sides. My answer wouldn't change either, but it remains that the answers so far seem to align closely with how the individual feels about a Tiger. That's a correlation that I consider interesting and worthy of my question.

[mmoan2]

Tiger's slam is a grand slam in that he won four majors in a row. However, as arbitrary as it seems, I think the definition of a grand slam is all in a calendar year. Otherwise we wouldn't be having a conversation about it. Both are equally as impressive, IMO, though the logic applied to the Jack vs. Tiger debate might lean toward favoring Spieth if he wins all four because the competition is slightly better now vs. 15 years ago.

Suffice to say both of these guys are studs even if Leishman holds off Jordan in the next hour!

[turtleback]

I think my bona fides as a fan, supporter, and defender of Tiger's historical place in golf should be beyond question.  I say this not to buttress my opinions, but to eliminate any idea that I am biased against Tiger.

My opinions touching this subject:

1) What Tiger did, while the single greatest accomplishment in the history of golf as we know it, is not a Grand Slam.

2) I come to that conclusion as a simple matter of probability.  There are three times as many opportunities of winning a consecutive slam as there are of winning a Grand slam.  You have one opportunity per year to start a Grand slam

On point 2, many people observed that once Jack Nicklaus failed to win the Masters in any given year his interest in the season dropped a bit, as winning a single season Grand Slam was always one of his ancillary goals.

And finally, the notion that there is some "official" definition of a Grand Slam is downright silly.  So those who believe that what Tiger did is a Grand Slam are entitled to their opinion, as are those who do not believe that it should be considered a Grand Slam, but something slightly lesser.  It isn't like the term Grand Slam has some intrinsically knowable objective definition.

AS I was writing this Spieth sank his long birdie putt on 16.  I do not know how this will turn out, but that was definitely a Tiger-esque moment.

[iacas]

You said accusation, it wasn't. And yes, I implied that many answers would likely change if the scenario was reversed. By both sides. My answer wouldn't change either, but it remains that the answers so far seem to align closely with how the individual feels about a Tiger. That's a correlation that I consider interesting and worthy of my question.

You didn't ask a question, David. You diminished the opinions of others by chalking it up as "Tiger fanboyism." Move on.