Tiger's Slam - A Grand Achievement?

[Gunther]

@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.

Of course that's what it is otherwise there would be no need for this thread, it would already be accepted that Tiger accomplished a Grand Slam. There is no governing body that acknowledges that. This is getting surreal.

[iacas]

Of course that's what it is otherwise there would be no need for this thread, it would already be accepted that Tiger accomplished a Grand Slam. There is no governing body that acknowledges that. This is getting surreal.

There is no one definition for "Grand Slam." There is no relevant governing body that gives a rat's ass about defining or acknowledging a "Grand Slam."

I agree it's getting surreal but not for the same reasons…

[newtogolf]

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"....

I voted "no" but I definitely would be considered more of a Tiger "fan boy" than "hater".

[Silent]

[URL=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(tennis)]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(tennis)[/URL] Not that wikipedia is a definitive source, but they say that winning all four consecutively but not in the same calendar year is a "[COLOR=252525]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."[/COLOR]

Thats's too bad, since then we wouldn't have this discussion and it was clear that Tiger never achieved 'the Grand Slam' ;-) What you said earlier in this topic is more true then anything else in this topic I guess: one 'side' will not convince the other. Even though I understand the arguments and sentiment, in my book it's not 'the Grand Slam'. It may be narrow minded, it may be something arbitrair like a calender, it just has a tiny little bit less a wow factor then achieving this within one and the same season. For me that is.

[Gunther]

There is no one definition for "Grand Slam." There is no relevant governing body that gives a rat's ass about defining or acknowledging a "Grand Slam." I agree it's getting surreal but not for the same reasons…

I would only ask what all of you who think the definition should change thought the definition of a Grand Slam was prior to 2000. I think if you're honest, you would acknowledge that it is all the majors (golf or tennis) within a season. It's just what it is and has always been. Should that change? Sure, I'm ok with it. This doesn't diminish what Tiger did which is the most incredible feat in golf history (well, other than 18 majors).

[Hatchman]

Sorry, had to post this from reliable (or unreliable)source I cannot reveal without a court order: "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. Before The Masters was founded, the national amateur championships of the US and the UK were considered majors along with the two national opens; only Bobby Jones has ever completed a Grand Slam. No man has ever achieved a modern Grand Slam, Tiger Woods being the closest in winning all four consecutively but over two calendar years. Jordan Spieth currently has a chance at the Grand Slam, winning both the 2015 Masters and U.S. Open consecutively." ;-)

[Hatchman]

It further reads: "The term "Grand Slam" was first applied to Bobby Jones' achievement of winning the four major golf events of 1930: The Open Championship, the U.S. Open, the U.S. Amateur and the British Amateur. When Jones won all four, the sports world searched for ways to capture the magnitude of his accomplishment. Up to that time, there was no term to describe such a feat because no one had thought it possible. The Atlanta Journal's O. B. Keeler dubbed it the "Grand Slam," borrowing a bridge term. George Trevor of the New York Sun wrote that Jones had "stormed the impregnable quadrilateral of golf." Keeler would later write the words that would forever be linked to one of the greatest individual accomplishments in the history of sports:": :-P

[Golfingdad]

Why does everybody have to be considered a "fanboy" of Tiger or a "hater" of Tiger?

People realllllllllllllllllllllllllllllly don't like gray very much do they?? (Even though everything in the world is probably more like 90% gray vs. 5% each of black and white)

I'm nowhere close to either of those definitions.

[Hatchman]

[iacas]

I would only ask what all of you who think the definition should change thought the definition of a Grand Slam was prior to 2000. I think if you're honest, you would acknowledge that it is all the majors (golf or tennis) within a season. It's just what it is and has always been.

You think wrong (about me anyway). And no matter how many times you say for a fact that it "is" you are incorrect. Different people have different definitions. Regardless of what you call it he still won four tournaments in a row. Changing the name doesn't diminish or increase the actual accomplishment. It is almost completely semantics.

[Gunther]

You think wrong (about me anyway). And no matter how many times you say for a fact that it "is" you are incorrect. Different people have different definitions. Regardless of what you call it he still won four tournaments in a row. Changing the name doesn't diminish or increase the actual accomplishment. It is almost completely semantics.

Erik, no matter how many times you try to diminish my personal argument, the fact remains that a Grand Slam has and always will be considered all the majors within a specified time frame. Should that time frame be changed to span calendar years or seasons, well, start the petition. Otherwise your opinion is really just a hope.

[saevel25]

Erik, no matter how many times you try to diminish my personal argument, the fact remains that a Grand Slam has and always will be considered all the majors within a specified time frame. Should that time frame be changed to span calendar years or seasons, well, start the petition. Otherwise your opinion is really just a hope.

Specific time frame is a rolling 12 month period ;)

[David in FL]

Regardless of what you call it he still won four tournaments in a row. Changing the name doesn't diminish or increase the actual accomplishment. It is almost completely semantics.

I absolutely agree.

[Gunther]

I absolutely agree.

And I do as well.

[mvmac]

I'm nowhere close to either of those definitions.

Same here.

Otherwise your opinion is really just a hope.

Well for something like this everyone can have their own definitions since it isn't a fact that the grand slam is all 4 majors in a calendar, there is no official definition. According to the poll, most people don't agree it's a fact.

[Golfingdad]

Thought exercise:

Somebody wins the first three majors one year.  Early August that same year there is some International event that causes a postponement of the PGA Championship (consider how 9/11 pushed back the '01 Ryder Cup to '02)

Let's also assume for this hypothetical that said golfer wins the PGA when it finally gets played.

What difference should it make if they are able to work out the logistics such that its played in December or in February??

Isn't the feat EXACTLY the same either way?

[Gunther]

Thought exercise: Somebody wins the first three majors one year.  Early August that same year there is some International event that causes a postponement of the PGA Championship (consider how 9/11 pushed back the '01 Ryder Cup to '02) Let's also assume for this hypothetical that said golfer wins the PGA when it finally gets played. What difference should it make if they are able to work out the logistics such that its played in December or in February?? Isn't the feat EXACTLY the same either way?

Not that difficult for me because my aim here is not to try to diminish what Tiger did. It's about semantics. That would constitute a Grand Slam if it would be considered as having been played within the same season. Too many sensitivities here and I noticed not many answered my question earlier about what a Grand Slam was prior to 2000.

[nevets88]

Here's a tennis perspective, for and against, about the same argument. Similar points are made that were made here, but I thought I'd post it anyway.

IS A CALENDAR-YEAR GRAND SLAM MORE MAGICAL THAN WINNING FOUR STRAIGHT?

YES
In sports, we measure by the season

NO
Dates are arbitrary; winning is real

NO (Calendar-year not more magical than four straight): It's not the last digits in the year of a Slam that matter, it's the accomplishment. And whether it was from January to September or June to January, the accomplishment is the same. Winning four consecutive Grand Slam events is a tremendous, incredibly rare and a meaningful achievement, no matter the year attached.

It isn't the dates that are important; it's what happens within those dates.

http://espn.go.com/espnw/news-commentary/debate/13142405/is-calendar-year-grand-slam-more-magical-winning-four-straight