The Phil Slam

[Glenn Spencer]

Matt,

How many kids does Woods have? How many degrees does he have? Did Jones practice law or not practice law? How do you know that Hagen was not as skilled as Mickelson? I think Hagen would kick him all over the place. Just because you read about someone and hear how good they are continually, that does not make them better. You only get one chance to do it and it is that simple partner. Woods lost his chance to do something in the same ballpark, when he shot 75 in the 3rd round? at Augusta in 2000, he then lost that chance again in 01, when he played a course he didn't take to-Southern Hills. In 2002, the weather got in his way, everything is a factor when you only have one shot. What you are not realizing is the Grand Slam is it's own ballpark. You either do it or you don't!

[George Pazin]

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

Sorry, Doug-O, but I'm not wrongo, unless you're criticising my poor wording in that run on sentence (as my old high school English teacher was wont to do).

I defined the Tiger Slam as 4 in a row, starting with the US Open, so there is only 1 way to win it.

 

Glenn -

The fact that you're citing Jones's law practice, and lack of play/preparation, should show you how apples to oranges the comparison is. Both feats are among the greatest in golf and should be celebrated as such.

A little too early to start drinkin' yet.

 

[Glenn Spencer]

George,

Speak for yourself, I am already ripped!! Apples 2 Apples I say! Jones had plenty of distractions. He had a family and all of that stuff. I was just countering the statement by Matt Ward. What has Tiger done from the age of 13 besides have his every whim catered to , just like Jones. Both men had plenty to deal with mediawise and expectations. Jones just accomplished the greatest golfing achievement.

[PThomas]

ain't the Grand Slam unless you do it in one year

perhaps our older participants can help with this:  when Trevino won the US and British Opens in 71, was there talk of a Slam at the Masters in 1972...and I'm sure you'll recall that the British was the last major of 1971, as the PGA was played in Feb that year

I bet there wasn't

this new version  of the Grand Slam is just a media creation