Oh, I would like to point out some major differences with team sports that keep getting brought into the fray:
-Team sports begin a season on a given date and end a season with a championship game, individual sports don’t. They have a beginning if you look at just one “league” such as the PGA, but most golfers play in several events not sanctioned by the PGA (Are the British and US opens really PGA events? I’m not sure, but both are opens so not truly professional per se, and the US Open is a USGA event first and foremost).
-Teams sports, by definition, include more than one player. The 2001 Brewers do not consist of the same people that comprised the 2000 Brewers. The 2001 Tiger Woods consists of exactly the same “team” as the 2000 Tiger Woods.
-In conjunction to the above, about the only thing a “season” in the PGA determines is which year you have to claim the income for taxes purposes in.
Well, several papers have taken upon themselves to call what Eldric Woods did the “Tiger Slam”. It reflects what he achieved, that he Tiger achieved it, and it sets it apart from the calendar-restricted Grand Slam.
The title is a little cheeky, but I have no real antipathy against it. Anybody else?
Oh, no, there’s the “P” word – “purists.” Funny how that can turn into a negative word. Every time a new idea comes along, those who don’t immediately fall in love with it, whether or not it has any merit, suddenly become “purists.”
If Tiger Woods suddenly decided that the British Open really wasn’t all that important, and began bitching that he should be credited with a Grand Slam for winning the other three events, should we? I mean, we HAVE to do what would make Tiger happy, don’t we? We HAVE to do what Tiger says.
Interesting little tidbit, again from this week’s SI – when Martina Navritilova won four consecutive Major tennis tournaments, a sponsor who put up $1million if anyone won the Grand Slam, did indeed pony up the cash. Thought it was worth noting. (Oh, she says she wants hers called the Martina Slam!)