The Phil Slam

[George Pazin]

Glenn -

First of all, you do understand that this is a sports opinion argument, don't you? So take this in that vein:

Perhaps you should read my post more accurately before you attack them falsely! At no time did I state you said anything at all about Nelson's 11 in a row, I simply pointed out that Tiger's 6 is a streak and considered such by the Tour. I also pointed out that the various records you cite are seasonal records, not averages. Feel free to use exact quotes from my post if you don't think I'm the one being accurate here.

Furthermore, when Jim pointed out the diversification of the players, he included far more than just black players, as you can see from his follow up post to you, so maybe you should have read his post more accurately.

I used the Rollins point, as well as the NFL and NBA points, to point out that it is a commonly accepted practice to consider streaks as separate from seasonal records.

Maybe you need to go easy on the sauce, not me!

 

In all seriousness, this is a 19th hole sports argument with no right or wrong - it's all opinion. Feel free to label my arguments as assinine (most commonly accepted spelling, btw) if it makes you feel better, but it doesn't help your argument at all.

Or, you could simply lighten up and enjoy the banter.

[Glenn Spencer]

George,

Thank you for the correction, that is definitely the more commonly used spelling In reading your response, I feel it would be hard for one to not think that you were saying that Tiger's streak was carried over and therefore it made my point moot- not the case at all. I talked about both of Jim's points about other golfers, I would compare that to the fact that they are not playing golf in other parts of the universe yet and therefore Tiger is not playing against the strongest field possible, it will be much stronger when aliens are hitting 5-irons. I understand the difference between an argument and a sports discussion. I felt that you are the one who took it to another level, when you said, you understand this don't you? I think it is plenty clear that I understand my position and all that it took me to arrive at it. For some reason, I have trouble using the exact quote feature, but it is there.

[Matt_Ward]

Botton line for those who are a bit clueless ...

Media attention today DWARFS -- repeat after me -- DWARFS whatever existed back in the '20's and 30's. Not even remotely close. The pressure from what media can do today is truly mindboggling. Anyone fortunate to attend press event in which Mickelson held court prior to his '04 Masters triumph would have heard many times over when is lefty going to win a big one.

The next item -- overall competition also DWARFS what existed back then. The issue is not that Jones should be faulted because of the fact that players of different backgrounds did not play then -- but the fact that they do now.

I don't doubt that a slam needs to be in a given year but I don't see how much lower on the totem pole the idea should be for someone able to hold all four titles irrespective of the year as Tiger did and as Phil is capable of with wins in the US and British Opens.

[Glenn Spencer]

Matt,

point taken, point taken and you can call it a great achievement if you want to it certainly is, but it is not in the same ballpark as a Grand Slam. It has nothing to do with it. Everyone on here has avoided the question, why do we want to call this a Grand Slam? How is calling  this a Grand Slam any different than saying a baseball player hitting 43 home runs in his last 81 games of 05 and 31 in his first 81 of 06. If someone wants to tell me that would be the home run record in baseball, then I will be glad to call this a Grand Slam. The reason it seems is because he held them all at the same time, that is just circumstance, not a Grand Slam.

[George Pazin]

Thanks for the response, Glenn.

Sorry if I offended you with the "understand" part, it was not my intent, I was trying to clarify the difference between streaks and seasonal records. I wouldn't say Tiger's carry over streak makes your point moot - in fact, I'd guess far more people don't consider Tiger's Slam a Grand Slam, including many/most on this site - but I do feel it's important to note commonly accepted practices and try to see where things fit in.

In the end, we all have our opinions and will likely stick to them regardless of the facts....

 

P.S. I think I saw an alien hit a 260 yard 4 iron at the Phoenix Open this year on the way to a win.

[Jim Nugent]

I agree with Glenn on one point.  The slam must be done in one calendar year.  Tiger's slam was amazing, but is not in my mind the grand slam.  On all other points I think he is mistaken.

Glenn, you said earlier the U.S. Amateur was open to all players.  100% false.  It was/is not open to the best players of all (along with Jones himself).  The pro's.  Neither was the British Amateur.  Jones played against 2nd-rate competition in those events.  How can winning them be as good an accomplishment as winning the majors today?  

Similar to the 1984 Olympics.  The U.S. took home a record haul of medals in gymnastics.  Looks good in the record books -- until you remember that the best gymnasts in the world did not compete.  Their countries boycotted those games.  

And even when Jones was playing against the best -- in the two opens -- that competition pales compared to competition today.  Just like football, baseball, track, swimming, tennis, ping pong, soccer, and basketball competition from then pales compared to today.      

George is definitely right about the spelling question.  Look it up in a dictionary if you doubt that.    

[Glenn Spencer]

Jim,

For the last time, I know that professionals can't play in amateur tournaments, I know it now, just like I did when I was 6 years old. Someone, I think you said something about black players and I merely stated that all of these tournaments were open to any purple, black, South African or otherwise. I apologized for my spelling to the man. What were the other points I tried to make, they were 'subpoints' if anything. I just don't want to hear that this is a damn Grand Slam is all.

George- No problem sir, I just have a real problem with this discussion, always have. Apparently the aliens come small in stature, but they carry a big stick, in more ways than one if this alien is anything like the one about 30 years before him.

[Paul_Turner]

Phil has no chance at Hoylake, he is hopeless in the wind.

I think it's nitpicking about Tiger's slam not being within 1 year. Appreciate his genius while we have it.  You'll miss it when it's over.

[John_Cullum]

There is no such thing as a grand slam in golf. It's not in the rule book, and its not a tournament or series of tournaments. It is a figment of journalists' imagination and can mean whatever you want it to mean.

[Matt_Ward]

Glenn:

Get real -- when you say "it's not in the same ballpark" -- you must be sniffing some powerful glue brother.

The simple fact is that holding all four of the major crowns is only the slightest of steps behind someone bagging all four in a calendar year IMHO. Whether it's call Grand or Greatest I don't see the wide gap like you proclaim.

Glenn -- allow me to help your strict constructionalist approach. I understand fully the meaning of a calendar year --I just believe to give major heft to any player who can hold all four of the majors at the same time.

I agree doing it in one calendar year is the ultimate -- but this silly thought that holding all four -- even if it's done by consecutive years is "not in the same ballaprk" is truly faulty reasoning to the nnnnnnth degree on your part.

One other thing -- you didn't answer but I'll say this again -- media coverage today is light years beyond what Jones handled. Ditto the overall competition. As Jim N pointed out the totality of the field for the US and British Ams was limited to the smallest of numbers that could conceivably beat Jones. In all likelihood, match play caused them to get beat even before squaring against the likes of Jones.

Please do me a huge favor -- don't try to convince me with another reply saying again and again the very same thing. I don't demean Jones feat but I sure as hell won't chop down the Tiger Slam as being "not in the same ballpark." I can see where you are going but you lost me, and likely others, with this faulty dive off the high board of proportion and respect for an athlete's achievement.

[Jim Nugent]

Jim,

For the last time, I know that professionals can't play in amateur tournaments, I know it now, just like I did when I was 6 years old. Someone, I think you said something about black players and I merely stated that all of these tournaments were open to any purple, black, South African or otherwise. I apologized for my spelling to the man. What were the other points I tried to make, they were 'subpoints' if anything. I just don't want to hear that this is a damn Grand Slam is all.

Glenn, now I understand what you meant.  OK, you get the point.  Why don't you address it, then?  "Jones' slam was a much greater achievement even though half the tournaments were played against minor league competition of the day," is your stance right now.

Sorry, I misread what you were saying about spelling.  

[Jack_Marr]

I'm not sure if it's harder to win the majors all in one year or in a row. A player could win six in a row and still not have an official slam as it could spread over two seasons.

[Glenn Spencer]

Jack- I said those exact same words to my father last night.

Matt- If you think that I am writing a reply to change your mind, you are sorely mistaken.

Jim- Noone on here has responded to my home run question in any way. I will respond to yours. In reviewing sports history, the ONLY way to look at it, the ONLY way is to look at a man's accomplishments. Competition, field size, countries and race represented are all factors that Jones could not control. Tiger's feat is a marvelous one, but it has nothing to do with a Grand Slam. Tiger has had all the advantages of Jay Brunza and junior competition to hone his game against. Financial security, no family to support at the time, video equipment to check his swing, launch monitors, stats and a much more controlled playing field. Jones did not have any of these benefits and was able to bring his best on a variety of courses. The part noone seems to get is you only have one chance to win a Grand Slam. According to y'all, a new Grand Slam possibility begins every time someone wins a Major, I don't think that is what it is all about. This is why pre-2001- every commentator woud say when someone else won the Open that 'there will be no Grand Slam. In 90 at Medinah, Faldo stood on the 18th green and had a putt to keep it alive an go in a playoff, that is pressure, not, 'oh, it doesn't matter I can just start a new Grand Slam run with a win at St. Andrews in 3 weeks.

[Matt_Sullivan]

Back to Thomas Brown's original post -- Tom if you are offering 300 to 1 I am happy to wager $20 on Phil!!

[Tim Pitner]

I still don't like Mickelson's chances at the British Open so I predict the Grand Slam debate will be moot.

[Glenn Spencer]

Media Coverage- the country was in a sad state of affairs in 1930 and I think that less people held on to Jones' run with a greater sense of expectation than any feat today could bring. In the world today, people have a lot more things to take up their time and interest. In 1930, Jones was all the country had, I don't see 2 ticker-tape parades in one year in Woods' future any time soon. More media coverage does not necessarily mean greater pressure. I really don't think Tiger cares what some 28-year old female reporter from Charleston, SC has to say about his golf game. Most of those clones ask the same question every week anyway. 80%? of them seem to be idiots. Tiger just gives a stock answer and moves on. Jones had a lot more to deal with, although from a lot less people.

[George Pazin]

Glenn, I don't have a problem with you - or anyone else - choosing to define a Grand Slam as all 4 in the same calendar year. That's a simple definition, and a precise one at that, and I'm all for precision.

What got me going originally was your statement that Tiger's Slam (or whatever you choose to call his 4 in a row) doesn't compare to Jones' or Hogan's achievements (at least, that's how I interpret the statement that Tiger doesn't have the claim to golf's greatest achievements, like Jones or Hogan), and that the pressure/media scrutiny was not as great for Tiger as Hogan or Jones in their big years. As I said, each accomplishment was remarkable, unbelievable, and deserves to be celebrated in its own right.

I wasn't alive in 1930 to observe the intense media scrutiny you seem to feel Jones was under, but I can't believe there are many people other than you and maybe OB Keeler's descendants that believe the media pressure was greater then than now. If that's your belief, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'd bet a lot of money (to me, anyway, pocket change to others) that no one even mentioned Jones was going for the Grand Slam when he teed it up at the US Am to finish it off. I've read his writings, and I don't believe anyone viewed it as completing the magical Slam, just an amazing season, the likes of which no one had seen to that point. I'll have to read the Sampson book I bought recently to see if he shares anything on this point - if anyone else already has, I'd love to hear it.

As for your home run question that you said no one addressed, I beg to differ: I have stated repeatedly that that is a seasonal record, recognized by the ruling body of the sport in its official record book. By definition, it is number of home runs in a season, season being defined by the season of the sport, not simply the number of games. That is in fact the reason they eventually took the asterisk off of Maris's record, even though it was in more games. To recognize your home run hypothetical as a record, someone would have to track all 162 game stretches in baseball, all 16 game stretches in football, etc.

The Grand Slam is a mythical construct of media people and fans. It is not a recognized record in the record books of the USGA, the R&A, the PGA Tour, whatever (at least, not to my knowledge). You seem to feel the intrinsic element is the calendar year (or maybe that we hold a ticker tape parade? ). Robert Walker and I feel it's holding all 4 at once. And, yes, this means that each time someone wins 1, he has a chance to complete a Slam by winning the next 3. The reason no one talks about it is that it is incredibly rare to win 2 in a row, let alone 3 or 4. If Phil wins the US Open at Winged Foot, I, for one, will consider it on par with Hogan winning 3 in 1953. Not better, not worse, just different and worthy of celebration. And if he finishes it off at Hoylake, I'd call the Phil Slam a Grand Slam. I see almost zero chance of this happening, but I'd celebrate it nonetheless.

[Glenn Spencer]

George-

I appreciate your response- thank you. Let's try this perspective, with reasonable logic, Jones' career began in 1916 at the age of 14 as an amateur at Merion. Agreed? Under my definition of Grand Slam this provided him with 15 chances to win a Grand Slam, as his career ended in 1930. Tiger began his Grand Slam potential in 1997 (PGA). Tiger will have a new chance to win a 'Grand Slam' 4 times a year until he quits, minus the 3 it will take to complete it. If one figures him to play at an optimum level until he is, idk, 48? This would supply him with 28 years at 4 a pop, minus 3. I figure that at 109 chances to win a 'Grand Slam'. Media scrutiny or not, I think that is a lot less pressure.

[George Pazin]

I think you're comparing apples to oranges.

Jones chose to end his career at the age of 28. Tiger might choose to end his at 35, he might have an injury, whatever. The pressure is always on, and the pressure today is greater than the pressure 70 years ago (my subjective view). (I never bothered to check whether or not Jones had any other consecutive stretches in there, btw.)

Anyway, as Paul Turner said, this is all nitpicking. To me, the depth of field alone makes Tiger's accomplishments greater, but that's like saying Newton was smarter than Einstein. Both were pretty clever guys (much smarter than, say, Shakespeare)(that's an old inside joke).

To each his own.

Time to start drinking.

 

[Glenn Spencer]

George- time to start drinking is a classic line- I want that as a quote on the bottom of my page-full credit to you of course!!!! just don't know how. Your are right to each his own. I just think the math says it all. 109-15. Even if Jones played till his death in 71, that is only 56 chances, slightly more than half that you are affording Tiger and Mickelson.

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

An editor from "The Golfer" magazine e-mailed me the other day and called it a "Mickelslam."

[Matt_Ward]

Glenn:

Help me with your ignorance - do you actually believe that Bobby Jones came out of the Pennsylvania coal mines to be the golfer he was? Your fanciful idea that Jones did not have any substanial advanatges (e.g., money, education, status, etc, etc) is far from the actual record.

Bobby Jones had more advantages than most and was able to use his considerable talent -- along with the time / income he had -- to become the successful golfer he was. Yes, Jones did not have a launch monitor or junior camp to hone his craft but the idea that Jones had no advantages to mention is simply lacking in fact. If you want to mention a contemporary of Jones who had little if any status or edge it would be Johnny Goodman -- the '33 US Open champ and last Am to win the National title.

Glenn, you are the guy who said that a Tiger Slam is "not in the same ballpark" as a calendar Grand Slam. That is preposterous. Please knock yourself out and let me know how many people have ever held all four titles at one time? When one compares the quality of competition today there's little doubt that I see both accomplishments in a very high light while conceding the smallest of edges to the calendar accomplishment. If there's anything "not in the ballpark" it's your inability to grasp what a significant achievement Tiger accomplished and what Phil may be able to match.

[Doug Siebert]

Streaks are not seasonal records. People differ in their opinion of the Grand Slam versus the "Tiger Slam". The reason the mythical Grand Slam - as defined by sportswriters - is "tougher" than Tiger's 4 in a row is that there is only one way you can win it, whereas with 4 in a row, there are 4 ways to win it. But the same can't be said for any specific 1 "Slam" of the 4. If you call the Tiger Slam 4 in a row, starting with the US Open, then it is just as mathematically unlikely as the Grand Slam, just as improbable, and, most importantly, just as impressive. We'll likely not see another for a long long time.

Wrongo.  It IS more "mathematically difficult" to achieve the Grand Slam than the Tiger Slam, because as you pointed out there are four ways to do it, versus only one for the Grand Slam.  If Phil completes a Phil Slam, he'll be showing us another of the four ways, no easier or harder than the way Tiger did it.  Only 1/4 of all possible Tiger/Phil Slams are Grand Slams, therefore the Grand Slam is 4x more difficult.

Phil does have one advantage over Tiger in that if he does the Phil slam, he'll "only" have to win one more major to achieve a Grand Slam, whereas Tiger would have needed three more.

Its kind of funny talking about this, Phil is on a good run right now but I'd have to get some awfully huge odds to put money on Phil doing a Phil Slam, let alone a Grand Slam

[Glenn Spencer]

Matt,

I am an idiot and all that you say is correct!!! The fact that Bob Jones grew up in a wealthy family meant he just had to accomplish the Grand Slam. Please explain how you are able to tell someone against all mathematical fact that they are ignorant. I hope that you are looking forward to Winger Foot to see the start of another great Grand Slam run by Jerry Kelly and then after that maybe Scott Verplank, after all you don't have to be great, just 4 in a row, and it starts with the first one, whenever that happens. In writing this out, it really doesn't seem like 4 in a row anymore, because the run can't start without the first one, so it really just seems like 3. Remember, everyone watch the majors this year, hopefully we will see 3 great Grand or Mickelslam or Tiger Slam or Body Slam attempts. Should be interesting.

[Matt_Ward]

Glenn:

It's real simple partner -- you are the guy who says not once -- but several times -- that holding all four major titles at the same time is "not in the same ballpark" as winning them all in one year.

That is inane.

Have you ever bothered to understand -- truly understand that is -- the quality of the competition that exists today and even winning one or two majors in a lifetime is no doubt a big deal?

I agreed that a calendar Grand Slam is still the highest because it can only be accomplished in one way. However, the silly idea that holding all four major titles at once is way, way below that of the calendar Grand Slam points to me you either don't understand the modern nature of today's competitive golf or are simply being stubborn and will not retract such an ignorant statement.

One other thing -- let's get way beyond this erroneous nature of Bobby Jones. The guy came from mega money and had the time to hone his considerable craft. Jones didn't have to worry for a New York minute where his next meal was coming from or where anything else of value was coming from either.