Tiger's Slam - A Grand Achievement?

[Hatchman]

* The Bobby Jones era journalists defined it as pointed out earlier as a quad and noted the accomplishments, Masters weren't in play. The Amatures were noted. [1930] * Arnold Palmer's camp is said to have contributed to perpetuating the term "Modern Day Slam". [1960] According to Arnold Palmer's autobiography, A Golfer's Life, in 1960 he (already having won the Masters and the U.S. Open that year) and his friend Bob Drum (of the Pittsburgh Press) on the trans-Atlantic flight to The Open Championship at St Andrews came up with the idea that adding The Open Championship and PGA Championship titles that summer would constitute a modern Grand Slam. Drum spread the notion among the gathered media and it caught on.[1] Now the Tiger slam. [2000] [2050] The Sand Trap Slammers Slam

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lakitu

I think the Tiger Slam is more impressive. As stated in this thread numerous times, it's because of the layoff between the PGA and Masters. Consistency in golf is tremendous. Pretty much every year a player gets hot and dominates for months at a time... then cools off noticeably (see Adam Scott, Snedeker, etc). Any attempt to discredit the "Tiger Slam" is just petty imo. Tiger effectively won it in my eyes. Didn't he finish solo 5th in the Masters that year anyways? Lol. If he had won that Masters, he would have won six in a row. Astounding - the best golf ever played and probably that ever will be played.

Jordan Spieth is unquestionably the best in the world right now, but who knows? He could cool off big time next year. No telling how the big publicity is going to affect him either. (For the record, I like him a lot.)

That's not the case at all. At least not for me. It's merely semantics as said before. For me the original definition as winning them in one season / calender year is what a true Grand Slam is. What Tiger did was extremely impressive and possibly the most impressive achievment I'll ever witness, but it's not a Grand Slam imho.

So some journalist arbitrarily defines something a real long time ago, with a completely different set of tournaments and we are supposed to stick with that? It is like Pluto being demoted from planet to dwarf planet (I'm still mad at Neil deGrass Tyson about that one!).

As stated above, there is no official group, PGA, R&A;, USGA etc. that has an official definition of what a "Grand Slam" constitutes or what day of the year starts the cycle. Therefore, the only reasonable definition should be if someone holds all four titles at the same time .  Spieth will be defending his Masters and US Open titles until the end of next years Masters and US Open and Johnson the Open Championship. This is the best definition in my opinion because it eliminates the arbitrary start date of a cycle. You either hold all four or you don't.

[krupa]

I think Tiger did something very impressive and it's called a Tiger Slam.... which is pretty cool to have something named after you.  If the PGA didn't start a wraparound season, it would be more clear-cut but a Grand Slam, in my opinion, is all four majors won consecutively, starting with the Master's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious

So some journalist arbitrarily defines something a real long time ago, with a completely different set of tournaments and we are supposed to stick with that? It is like Pluto being demoted from planet to dwarf planet (I'm still mad at Neil deGrass Tyson about that one!).

[jbishop15]

[SPOILER=OT] [/SPOILER]

I think most people here believe that the Grand Slam, at worst, has to be the four majors in a row.

[iacas]

I think most people here believe that the Grand Slam, at worst, has to be the four majors in a row.

Correct. That's always been my definition.

[krupa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbishop15

I think most people here believe that the Grand Slam, at worst, has to be the four majors in a row.

Correct. That's always been my definition.

I contend that if you hold the title of all four majors you've won the grand slam. The calendar year is irrelevant and arbitrary.

Tiger won the modern day Grand Slam already. Heck I could make the case it was tougher. He won it over 10 months not just 5.

I admit that I haven't read every post so maybe you clarified your position later in the thread?

[jbishop15]

I admit that I haven't read every post so maybe you clarified your position later in the thread?

You couldn't hold all four titles at one time and not have won them all in a row. Your description of the holding all the titles because the masters was cancelled is a doomsday scenario that discounts the fact that people can look at things on a case by case basis.

[ghalfaire]

I think most people here believe that the Grand Slam, at worst, has to be the four majors in a row.

I think, which means I've changed my mind, that the term Grand Slam (as applied to golf) means winning all four majors, period and in any order or time frame.  Thus the term "career Grand Slam" was used to describe winning all four majors in a career.  But because what Tiger did was a greater achievement of holding all four major titles simultaneously but not in a single calendar year, a new description was needed for this as it wasn't the accepted understanding of  "Grand Slam" which was a calendar year Grand Slam, but was a more significant achievement than just a career Grand Slam.  Thus someone came up with the Tiger Grand Slam to describe this achievement.   I think IACAS said this earlier in different words.  I don't think this diminishes what Tiger did in fact just the opposite it true.  The fact they, whoever they are, came up with a new event name will mean we can now all argue whether or not the Tiger Grand Slam or the calendar year Grand Slam is more difficult to achieve.

[Wally Fairway]

It is interesting that the 2nd post in this thread (and I will admit I have not read all 9 pages) that says it is not a Grand Slam posts a reference in which the calendar year slam is called a "Single Season Grand Slam". So I guess that the calendar year thing is also defined by a modifier.

I'm not sure why or how something this stupid could get to 9 pages, but then again the Tiger <> Jack as GOAT thread is just under a billion views, a million posts, and hundreds of thousands of pages and yet those who believe their view is the only correct perspective remain unswayed.

Keep Calm and Argue on the Internet

[jgreen85]

No, definition is all four in a year imo.

[iacas]

I admit that I haven't read every post so maybe you clarified your position later in the thread?

They are synonymous. I'm not taking into account the doomsday scenario you created. Clearly that would be an exception should it ever ever ever happen. In other words, this: [quote name="jbishop15" url="/t/83344/tigers-slam-a-grand-achievement/150#post_1173021"] You couldn't hold all four titles at one time and not have won them all in a row. Your description of the holding all the titles because the masters was cancelled is a doomsday scenario that discounts the fact that people can look at things on a case by case basis.[/quote]

[krupa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krupa

I admit that I haven't read every post so maybe you clarified your position later in the thread?

You couldn't hold all four titles at one time and not have won them all in a row. Your description of the holding all the titles because the masters was cancelled is a doomsday scenario that discounts the fact that people can look at things on a case by case basis.

I don't think my situation is a "doomsday scenario" at all.  Didn't Augusta lose the Eisenhower tree to extreme weather?

As for the fact that people can look at things on a case by case basis... isn't that why people call Tiger's accomplishment the "Tiger Slam" instead of a "Grand Slam"?  At the end of the day it's just a label and if people think that a different label diminishes Tiger's accomplishment, well, that's on them, I guess.

[krupa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by krupa

I admit that I haven't read every post so maybe you clarified your position later in the thread?

They are synonymous. I'm not taking into account the doomsday scenario you created. Clearly that would be an exception should it ever ever ever happen.

They are not.  You started this thread because you didn't like people's definition/interpretation of the phrase "Grand Slam" so I took your definition literally. It was simple and concise.  If you want to revise it, cool, but they are not the same thing.

Is it unlikely that the Master's (or any other tournament) will be cancelled?  Sure.  But in 2015 with all the crazy crap happening in this country and around the world, the likelihood of an event (weather or man-made) cancelling a "mere" golf tournament is certainly higher than it used to be.

[jbishop15]

I don't think my situation is a "doomsday scenario" at all.  Didn't Augusta lose the Eisenhower tree to extreme weather?   As for the fact that people can look at things on a case by case basis... isn't that why people call Tiger's accomplishment the "Tiger Slam" instead of a "Grand Slam"?  At the end of the day it's just a label and if people think that a different label diminishes Tiger's accomplishment, well, that's on them, I guess.

of course it's just a label; but it's one with weight. Makes it important to talk about.

[Silent]

So some journalist arbitrarily defines something a real long time ago, with a completely different set of tournaments and we are supposed to stick with that? It is like Pluto being demoted from planet to dwarf planet (I'm still mad at Neil deGrass Tyson about that one!).

As stated above, there is no official group, PGA, R&A;, USGA etc. that has an official definition of what a "Grand Slam" constitutes or what day of the year starts the cycle. Therefore, the only reasonable definition should be if someone holds all four titles at the same time.  Spieth will be defending his Masters and US Open titles until the end of next years Masters and US Open and Johnson the Open Championship. This is the best definition in my opinion because it eliminates the arbitrary start date of a cycle. You either hold all four or you don't.

No, you're not supposed to do anything. I'm just expressing why I have the opinion it's not a Grand Slam, but something else (as for now the name Tiger Slam was 'invented' I believe).

[Rick Martin]

No, you're not supposed to do anything. I'm just expressing why I have the opinion it's not a Grand Slam, but something else (as for now the name Tiger Slam was 'invented' I believe).

careful - this guy keeps locking me out of threads if I dare say something negative about tigs.

[jbishop15]

careful - this guy keeps locking me out of threads if I dare say something negative about tigs.

Dude, what is wrong with you? We get that you don't like Tiger; fine. But nobody is talking about Tiger! Nobody is making this about him, except you. We're all discussing other topics and you insist on being rude for no reason. He's not restricting you because you dislike Tiger; he's restricting you because you keep derailing threads.

[misty_mountainhop]

FWIW, no, of course it wasn't a grand slam. By the accepted norm of the definition . It's a technicality but there you go. That doesn't mean I think it's any less of an achievement though and, unlike many who would equate TW's 'slam' as 'grand', I'm not actually that big of a TW fan. In fact, it's an awesome achievement from an awesome golfer (albeit not quite so awesome any more). Not a Grand Slam though. Sorry.