Damn, I guess God has spoken.
2000-2001 I’d say… Oh, I guess it would be impossible for a season to cross “year” boundries…like the NFL, NBA, and NHL.
The reason I consider what he did to be a Grand Slam is because the Golf season isn’t really a season…it’s the whole year. There’s a smallish break of any real tournaments for about a month or so…but not very long. It’s not like baseball, where the off-season is as long as the real season. It’s not the same as the split perfect game analogy, because it’s not the same event. Who cares about the calendar year? Because Golf truly has no “season,” I think that holding all 4 championships at the same time is a Grand Slam. Do you say “Oh yes…it’s Golf season now!” No…because it really never ends. However, I must say I get excited for Hockey season and Baseball season.
One other interesting thing is that he also holds the Players Championship…the unofficial 5th major…so he’s got ALL FIVE right now. 
Jman
Sure, calendar years are arbitrary. The people on my side of the argument are arguing for a completely arbitrary standard, and the people on the other side of the argument are arguing for a different completely arbitrary standard. It’s just a matter of which side ends up the most convincing.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Gazoo *
**
But how are they going to fit all those words on a trophy?
That sounds like two years to me. For the NFL, NBA and NHL, their season crosses the year line, but it is still one season. This is two seasons. Everyone knows that the Masters is the first major of the season. That is accepted and is not in question here. Since that is the case, his four consecutive majors occurred in two seasons, therefore it cannot be a “Grand Slam”. Noone here is saying that Woods didn’t accomplimsh something incredible here. Noone is trying to say that winning four majors in a row is not an amazing thing. It just isn’t technically a “Grand Slam”. Would you say that if a golfer comes along and wins all four majors in one season, that his accomplishment would be no better than Woods’? The “Grand Slam” is the ultimate single-season accomplishment in golf. Just because noone has done it yet, doesn’t make the definition any less precise.
Anyone in England (or gamble there)? Something tells me if you bet with a bookie there that Tiger Woods would win the Grand Slam and then went to that bookie today and tried to collect, the bookie would laugh in your face.
Every single other year, right before the U.S. Open, the Masters champion is always referred to as “the only man who can win the Grand Slam this year”. It was always the calendar year before. I don’t see why we should change it just for Tiger.
Personally, Tiger Woods has ruined golf for me. He either wins every tournament, or if he doesn’t, the media talk about why Tiger isn’t winning instead of talking about the guy who is.
I thought it was interesting when Jim Nantz called it a Tiger Slam yesterday.
It’s pretty clear that Gazoo and I aren’t going to agree on this point, and that’s fine. But what’s truly astonishing is Gazoo’s assertion that Tiger Woods isn’t getting his “props”!
TIger Woods isn’t getting his props? Tiger Woods isn’t getting the attention, credit, praise and adulation he deserves???
If Gazoo really believes that, he and I live on two different planets. With the POSSIBLE exception of Michael Jordan, NO athlete has ever gotten as much praise, adulation, press coverage, or MONEY as Tiger Woods! The media clearly think he’s bigger than the game of golf (if Justin Leonard shoots a 65 in round 1 of the British Open and Tiger shoots a 70, BET on this: headlines will read “Tiger Only 5 Back at Open”).
Oh, no argument that he probably gets more press than anyone on Earth. I wasn’t trying to say otherwise. My point in regards to the “props” is that there are some people who refuse to acknowledge the immensity of his achievements. Be it jealousy, bias (I think many from the “old school” don’t like the younger players kicking ass), or whatever.
The argument about whether what Woods accomplished is or isn’t a “Grand Slam” is just about semantics. Call it a flying frazelyup and it is still a great and unprecedented feat. Whether it is or isn’t labelled a grand slam isn’t really important, is it? Woods stills gets the trophies and the prize money either way, so what’s the difference?
After all, a true grand slam occurs only when a batter hits a home run with the bases loaded.
…but…
If this is true:
Then that sort of means it WAS previously defined, and the matter is settled.
Yeesh, let’s avoid the anti-Tiger issue and get back to the matter at hand.
-
The term “Grand Slam” was invented to describe an accomplishment that occurred over the course of one golfing season, specifically just a few months in duration at the time (Bobby Jones, 1930). It beat the hell out of the term “impregnable quadrilateral.”
-
No one has ever managed what Bobby Jones did since (mostly because to do so would mean winning two amateur events and then winning two events no amateur has won in over 60 years).
-
For some forty years, the “modern” version of the “Grand Slam” has been the winning of the four “majors” in the same golfing season. This has consistently been the case, and, as noted, no one has talked about anyone winning two majors in a row other than the Masters and the US Open as having gotten half-way to a Slam.
-
The term “Grand Slam” has changed definitionally (see points 1. and 3. above).
-
If it changed once, it can change again. Only time will tell if the term gains a different meaning.
As for the Tiger issue, let’s just point out that many players have managed brief periods of relatively tremendous success, only to fade away when either injury or the yips made it difficult for them to compete at that level. Tom Watson is the best example. When Tiger has lasted 20 years, has 19+ majors won over more than 10 years and shows his staying power, he will get the acknowledgement as the game’s greatest player. For now, he is clearly the best player on the planet, and no one is denying him THAT title.
And another vote for the opinion that all the naysayers are a bunch of nitpicking, anal, definition-thumping doofuses. I can imagine their sphincters clenching as they read this now (not that I want to).
Lighten up, people. Tiger accomplished something truly unprecedented. Just because it doesn’t meet one tiny asinine requirement of your definition of Golf Nirvana doesn’t lessen the magnitude of his accomplishment in my eyes (which are wide open in amazement). I can’t see how doing this all within one calendar would make it one iota more special. Specialness is made up of iotas, btw. The only time I hear people talk about the calendar year in golf is when they’re referring to how much money a player has made that year. Most of us are barely aware that the PGA tour season actually ends at some point every year.
Why can’t you all just enjoy his accomplishment, and not sit their throwing pebbles at the man in the limelight?
[hijack]
Ummm…why?
Little that Nantz says ever interests me, and this just apears to be a weak attempt to coin a phrase.
[/hijack]
I agree with Nantz’s contributions (er, lack thereof), but, I thought it was interesting in that he attempted to call it something else entirely. The grand slam is all four majors in one year. Having all four in your possession but not won in the same year (having never been done before), well, why not call it the Tiger Slam?
Actually Tom Watson is a pretty poor example. He was top ten on the PGA money list from 1974-1983, number one 5 times. You can bookend those with top 20 on the money list from 1973-1987. In that time he won every Major championshiop, except the PGA, including several Birtish Opens in the mid-70’s and into the early 80’s I would hardly call that brief.
As for the Grand/Tiger/Flarf/Whatever Slam I think it is a nonsensical discussion. Put this achievement next to an actual Grand Slam (Calendar Year)and as far as I am concerned it is exactly the equivalent amazing achievement. Who gives a crap what it’s called. The name is of absolutely no consequence.
Reviewing the bidding:
- Comparisons with the baseball, football, basketball, or hockey seasons are meaningless. Their seasons are discrete and clearly marked by a championship tournament at the end. If a team wins 112 games in a 162-game stretch that doesn’t coincide with a season, it’s an impressive achievement, but it doesn’t mean the team won anything.
Ditto games. If Mike Mussina concludes one start with 7 no-hit innings, then no-hits the other team for the first two innings of the next start, it’s not a no-hitter because it doesn’t match up with the frame within which games are won or lost.
Golf, as has been pointed out, has no specific season. It’s played year-round, worldwide. Even the PGA Tour shuts down only briefly.
- Other grouped achievements in other sports (baseball’s and horseracing’s Triple Crowns, etc.) have been achieved a number of times, and no one doubts they will be again. They’re rare and dificult, but a great player/horse/whatever can get there. Such groupings serve a purpose in that they distinguish superlative achievement from that which is ‘merely’ very, very good.
Golf’s Grand Slam, if defined as a single-calendar-year achievement, hasn’t been achieved, and may never be achieved. It in all likelihood distinguishes the essentially impossible from the possible, which IMO renders the definition meaningless. (This doesn’t detract from the value of calling the tournaments ‘Grand Slam events’ to distinguish them from your more run-of-the-mill weekly BigSponsor Bigcity Opens, though.)
In baseball, a ‘perfect game’ is defined, but there’s no term for a game where, in allowing no batter to reach first, the pitcher never throws a pitch outside the strike zone. It’s got no name because it ain’t gonna happen, so why name it? Same here, IMO.
-
Snoooopy’s count isn’t particularly meaningful: if we define a GS as something that could only have been won beginning with the 1960 Masters, then there have either been 41 or 165 opportunities (so far) to win one, depending on which way we define it. There are four possible ways to define a ‘year’ within which a GS takes place: it can begin with the Masters, the US Open, the British Open, or the PGA. And there are seven ways a GS not restricted to a calendar year can overlap with a specified calendar year.
-
In the end, it’s up to the authorizing body to define a term. If golf’s Grand Slam has never been defined by the PGA, then the Grand Slam is whatever people decide it is, and this argument is part of that process. (My recollection is that baseball’s Triple Crown has at least some official recognition - I’m sure the HoF recognizes the achievement as it’s generally defined. I’m not sure about horseracing, or about tennis with respect to their GS.)
I think I’ve given away where I stand on this: IMO, these terms are appropriate for distinguishing a rare and superlative accomplishment. How many horses or baseball players have won Triple Crowns? How many pitchers have pitched perfect games? (Idle thought: why isn’t there a pitcher’s TC - say, wins/strikeouts/ERA?) A handful of each, in a century of competition. Even if we ‘water down’ the definition of a golfing Grand Slam to mean four majors in a row, regardless of starting point, it will still be a much rarer occurence than any of these: if I live until 2050, are the odds for or against its being accomplished again before I die, other than by Tiger? We’re still talking about ‘widening’ the name to encompass the rarest of the rare in the way of sterling achievements in golf.
There’s no absolute right or wrong here, but I’d compare the ‘purists’ on this issue with the queen in “The Princess and the Pea”. (Or do I really mean “Once Upon a Mattress” ? ;))
Just one quick question.
If next year a golfer wins all four majors in the same year, would you consider that a more impressive achievement? If you would even grant that it would be 1% better or even 0.1% better, then that is* the greatest accomplishment and should be set apart from the other 4 in a row strings that are possible.
I still say that the fact that noone has accomplished it yet does not does not mean that the term “Grand Slam” has no meaning.
I would love to be able to say that I saw a “Grand Slam” in my lifetime, that I witnessed the greatest single year achievement possible, but it just isn’t so.
Also, how do they define “last season’s money winner” if golf has no season? Doesn’t that term lose all meaning then?
son of a …
The one time I don’t preview!
Personally, I don’t see how winning four in the same calendar year is any better than winning four consecutive in any other twelve month period. But apparently, others don’t feel the same way.
The only things more impressive, in my book, than what Tiger just did would be (a) More than 4 consecutive Majors (which we may soon see); and (b) breaking the consecutive tournaments won streak of 11 (which will probably never be done in my lifetime).
Did anyone else read Reiley’s article in this week’s SI? I can’t vouch for the authenticity, but according to the article, Tiger’s “slump”, wasn’t because he was playing bad golf, but rather because he was practicing shots he knew he’d need at Augusta in other tournaments. Unreal. It makes me want to get tapes of the other events and compare shots to the Masters.
(Oh, Airbeck, the number of mistakes I’ve made the one time I didn’t preview… 
)