Are these records?
Nelson has the record right? 18? in a year. If you win 10 at the end of 05 and 9 in the first half of 06, I guess that record goes by the wayside. 19 victories in a calendar year.
lowest scoring average in a calendar year? this would the Tiger Trophy then, not the Vardon.
How about most money in a calendar year? ever hear of this
How about 1971- PGA played in Feb.- If someone had won the 1970 Masters, US Open, British, lost the PGA and then came back in 1971 and won the PGA, would that be considered the Grand Slam? that would be all four in a calendar year.
As a matter of fact, when Tiger won 6 straight from late 99 to early 2000, it was in fact counted as 6 straight, not 3 and 3, or whatever, and it is considered the second longest victory streak, after Nelson's 11.
There is a substantive difference between streaks and seasonal records. You understand that, don't you? The "records" you cite are not steaks, they are seasonal totals or averages or whatever. Almost all major sports carry streaks over during the off season. The Patriots hold the record for consecutive victories in the NFL, not the Dolphins. The record for most losses in a row in the NBA was at one point held by the Nets, I think, over multiple seasons.
Are you going to make the argument that it's harder to put together a 57 game hitting streak than consecutive 30 and 28 game hitting streaks separated by 6 months? How about if Rollins had ended the season with a 55 game hitting streak, and then started 2006 off with a 56 game hitting streak? Are you going to make the (absurd, imo) argument that Dimaggio's 57 game hitting streak was more impressive than a 55 and a 56, separated by 6 months?
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.
----
Nice quip on the weather. (Just as an aside, there were plenty of guys that missed the weather completely.) Guess you don't understand that weather introduces a lot of randomness, and randomness in golf produces sometimes strange results. I don't doubt that at some point, the frustration of seeing his efforts hampered by the weather created additional problems and pressures on Tiger, but if you think the pressure was the main reason he shot 80+, how do you explain all the other times that he responded beautifully to the pressure? Was he just lucky those other times?