News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Scott McWethy

  • Karma: +0/-0
OT - Tiger Woods Grand Slam
« on: February 12, 2020, 01:57:35 PM »
With the Masters being only a few months away, I wanted to ask what you all think about the Bobby Jones Grand Slam compared to the Tiger Woods Grand Slam.  I know the purists say the Grand Slam is only that if all four majors are won in the same calendar year.  Personally, I think what Woods did is more difficult to attain.  He won the U.S. Open, Open Championship, and the PGA Championship in 2000, and then the Masters in 2001.  He had to wait 8 months until completing the slam since there was a break in majors from August of 2000 to April of 2001.  In my opinion, the pressure ramped up way more with all that waiting time.  I think him winning that Masters in 2001 and completing the Grand Slam was a bigger achievement than what Jones did in 1930.  What say you?  Agree or disagree?

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: OT - Tiger Woods Grand Slam
« Reply #1 on: February 12, 2020, 02:02:43 PM »
Hard to compare as Jones had to win 2 of those 4 tournaments at match play, which is more unpredictable than 4 rounds of stroke play. While not as impressive as his "Tiger Slam," Tiger winning USGA Championships at matchplay 6 years in a row (3 Juniors, 3 US Ams) is still very impressive.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2020, 04:34:27 PM by David_Tepper »

Peter Flory

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: OT - Tiger Woods Grand Slam
« Reply #2 on: February 12, 2020, 02:22:17 PM »
Tough to say.  At least Tiger didn't have to travel to the Open on a passenger liner while hitting balls into a tarp for practice. 

But 2 legs of Jones's slam were against amateurs.  While those were premier events then, the competitors still had other responsibilities in life (as did Jones).  Obviously, Tiger would have had to have a physical injury to not win the 2 ams at his peak.  And it appears that was also the case with Jones- he barely won his 2 professional majors that year- each by 2 strokes.  But he dominated against the amateurs, winning the British Am 7 & 6 and the US Am 8 & 7.   Roger Wethered won a British Am 7 years prior and had several other close finishes, but Eugene Homans didn't have a similar track record.  Bobby Jones must not have thought that his grand slam was going to be too much of a long shot since he did place a bet on himself at the start of that year. 

In modern times, Spieth had a very legitimate shot at getting the calendar year grand slam in 2015 and followed it with a T2 in the Masters in 2016.  Then Koepka had a legitimate chance last year with T2, 1, 2, and T4. 

So, with 3 modern players within a few breaks of doing it, it isn't out of the realm of possibility to imagine that someone could actually accomplish the feat. 

Obviously getting a slam isn't easy, but for a dominant player at their peak, it does appear doable.  I'm waffling like crazy here... but I'd say Jones's was easier due to am events.  Those were harder to win vs professional tournaments earlier in the century than when Jones did it.  In fact, no amateur has won the Open since Jones did it that year.  Goodman was the last am to take down a US Open in '33.  Jones did it right at an inflection point in the am vs pro balance. 
« Last Edit: February 12, 2020, 02:39:30 PM by Peter Flory »

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: OT - Tiger Woods Grand Slam
« Reply #3 on: February 12, 2020, 02:38:15 PM »
Personally, I think what Woods did is more difficult to attain.
What Woods did was orders of magnitude more difficult. No question.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, Garland, and Chris.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: OT - Tiger Woods Grand Slam
« Reply #4 on: February 12, 2020, 03:50:39 PM »
To me, they are equal.


One of the hardest things about the Grand Slam is that no player can stay at the peak of his form from April to August.  Tiger did June-July-August, and the following April, which is not quite the same as keeping it together for five months straight. 


Yes, Tiger won his four against tougher competition and all the distractions of the modern day.  But Jones won the Amateur in May, the Open in June, the U.S. Open in July, and the U.S. Amateur in late September.  That's not to be taken lightly.

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: OT - Tiger Woods Grand Slam
« Reply #5 on: February 12, 2020, 04:22:40 PM »
One of the hardest things about the Grand Slam is that no player can stay at the peak of his form from April to August.  Tiger did June-July-August, and the following April, which is not quite the same as keeping it together for five months straight.
Funny, because I see it as "Tiger stayed at the peak of his form from June to April," which is a much longer time period than April to August. IIRC, 2000 was the year Tiger had 89 consecutive rounds where he beat the field average. (Just checked, yeah, August through November, which was basically the end of the season).

Then in 2001, Tiger won at Bay Hill, The Players*, and the Masters. Peak form, June to April. 11 months instead of just five.

* Remember that funny graphic about the last time an American held all four major championships and the Players… and it was all because Tiger Woods held all of them?

https://twitter.com/golfchannel/status/996133111929991168

Obviously, Tom, you get to have your opinion. I just don't think "he was peak June to August and then again in April" accurately describes his play from 2000 to 2001.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, Garland, and Chris.

V. Kmetz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: OT - Tiger Woods Grand Slam
« Reply #6 on: February 12, 2020, 04:41:45 PM »
I think Woods' achievement is the greater performance of golf, because (regardless of format) two of its titles (the Masters and the PGA) were attained against the world's absolute best, highest ranked, most accomplished and half of Jones' 1930 achievement was not. That's my plain answer.

The detailed answer is:
1. First, Woods ought to have nothing to prove (as pro or am) to say match play/stroke play is telling in Jones' favor. Woods has done plenty in match play to suggest otherwise in his first decade.

2. My (but maybe not your's) acknowledgement that if Woods had elected to stay an amateur and not turn pro in August of 1996, given the affluent family means that Jones enjoyed, relative to his time, we might well have seen more than one "Jones' slam there in 1997 - 2007. I guess I'm asking you if the 42 million Nike had ready for his entry into the 1996 Milwaukee Open was at all responsible for the way the dude was tearing it up those years...does he not win the US or British Open in 2000 by a gazillion if he's not winning a direct earning from the trade? I honestly don't know, but I suspect that he would have still been a great champion

3. Finally, I genuinely admire, and even defend, Jones and his legacy in many discussions and a few writings. Nobody has a finer amateur record than he; he was an absolute marvel of ability on the course and a humbled gentlemen off it. And probably no one did more to evangelize the delight and interest in American golf as did he.  But he was no amateur, that is merely a legal fiction.  While he took no prizes and was able to deny a visible profit from his playing... he was still the leading practitioner at his game, his name drew gate and monies, the clubs he played were desired and sold, the wealthiest boys treated him as an orchid, he did not cruise in steerage, he did not travel in the coach section...and the moment he retired there was magically in place a deal with Hollywood for the shorts and a deal with Spalding (?).

Jones looked like a pro, was friends with the pros, traveled with the better pros, drew like a name pro, won like a pro, enjoyed perks and allowances the pros commonly received. In every way, EXCEPT the actual taking of prize money, he was a professional golfer...  Lest you think I'm merely being provocative or hyper-literal, it's really an editorial critique of us (then and now) and our need for these plus-factors to serve in meaningless social media lists and their nearly meaningless debates... somehow its not enough for Jones to merely be an astounding player with good comportment and an evident moral code, we have to sell it as he's beyond the ugly money of it, which I'm saying, was not the truth of this amateur. Golf, not law or engineering was his profession, certainly as a young man and you know that no one was hoping to play a round with him to hear his legal opinion on maritime boundary statutes or somesuch.

Again this isn't Jones' "fault," it's our ever-more-hyper-hyperbole cultural biopsy of the Info Age; I know Jones didn't do as he did with malice or to prove or disprove my point one hundred years hence... however his wishing to keep the nomenclature of amateur prevents us from seeing how he would have fared in the 10 PGAs against the top fields...and that desire to keep amateur status has me wondering why he never did take a Western Open, when for the leading pros that was just about a major in the Between World Wars period.

So there's the details of my plain open...that Woods' holding of all four professional majors at once is harder (regardless of format) because each of the four faced the world's BEST players, not just the best players who don't want or need the prize money or lucaratti that follows (then or now).
"The tee shot must first be hit straight and long between a vast bunker on the left which whispers 'slice' in the player's ear, and a wilderness on the right which induces a hurried hook." -

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: OT - Tiger Woods Grand Slam
« Reply #7 on: February 12, 2020, 04:43:32 PM »
This is like those Nicklaus vs Woods GOAT threads.

In Bobby Jones day, the depth of his competition was orders of magnitude worse than either Jack or Tiger.

Tigers run was far more difficult against full fields that could win...

Peter Pallotta

Re: OT - Tiger Woods Grand Slam
« Reply #8 on: February 12, 2020, 04:49:27 PM »
I think Tiger's was the greater accomplishment
But if Tiger wins all four majors in 2020, he'd be the first to say that a Grand Slam is even more impressive than a Tiger Slam.
One would be 'very special' but the other would be 'historic'   

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: OT - Tiger Woods Grand Slam
« Reply #9 on: February 12, 2020, 06:18:01 PM »
One of the hardest things about the Grand Slam is that no player can stay at the peak of his form from April to August.  Tiger did June-July-August, and the following April, which is not quite the same as keeping it together for five months straight.
Funny, because I see it as "Tiger stayed at the peak of his form from June to April," which is a much longer time period than April to August. IIRC, 2000 was the year Tiger had 89 consecutive rounds where he beat the field average. (Just checked, yeah, August through November, which was basically the end of the season).

Then in 2001, Tiger won at Bay Hill, The Players*, and the Masters. Peak form, June to April. 11 months instead of just five.

* Remember that funny graphic about the last time an American held all four major championships and the Players… and it was all because Tiger Woods held all of them?

https://twitter.com/golfchannel/status/996133111929991168

Obviously, Tom, you get to have your opinion. I just don't think "he was peak June to August and then again in April" accurately describes his play from 2000 to 2001.


Okay, I will call you on the b.s. 


Tiger won his last event in 2000 at the Canadian Open [9/10/2000] and his first event in 2001 at Bay Hill [3/18/2001].  That's six months between victories.  I don't doubt that he played well in between, he was a great player.  But if he was playing anywhere near "peak Tiger" in that stretch he probably would have won somewhere, don't you think?

Peter Flory

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: OT - Tiger Woods Grand Slam
« Reply #10 on: February 12, 2020, 08:05:50 PM »
Bobby Jones got 50-1 odds when he placed the wager on himself.  When Tiger was peaking, I think that his pre-season slam odds were something like 45-1. 

The per major odds to equate to that are about 37.61% (i.e. 37.6%^4 = 2%). In other words, a golfer would have to be able to win 1 out of every 3 majors on average to have a 1 in 50 chance of winning the calendar slam. 

But... if you only have to win 3 majors after you've already won another, that more accurately describes what Tiger did.  We would have been equally amazed if he won any 4 in a row, not necessarily the sequence that he happened to do.  In that case, assuming that he was going to periodically win majors, the odds of him stringing 3 in a row after one of his wins would rise from 2% to 5.3%.  It is more than twice as easy statistically. 

It's like the problem- what are the odds of flipping the same thing 4 times on a row on a coin vs what of the odds of flipping 4 heads in a row. 
« Last Edit: February 12, 2020, 08:09:22 PM by Peter Flory »

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: OT - Tiger Woods Grand Slam
« Reply #11 on: February 12, 2020, 08:15:35 PM »
Tiger won his last event in 2000 at the Canadian Open [9/10/2000] and his first event in 2001 at Bay Hill [3/18/2001].  That's six months between victories.  I don't doubt that he played well in between, he was a great player.  But if he was playing anywhere near "peak Tiger" in that stretch he probably would have won somewhere, don't you think?
Peak Tiger is a stretch, sure, because he didn't need to be at his peak to win events. That's also when the pros had much more of an off-season.

Also, he did win during that six months: Tiger won the 2000 Johnnie Walker Classic on the European Tour in November, 2000.  :)

And, hey, that's a double standard because for a player to win all four majors in the same numbered calendar year, he doesn't have to win any events - or even make the cut - in any tournaments he plays in between. Such a player wouldn't have to stay in "peak form" for five straight months: he only has to play well enough over 16 specific days spread out over those five months. Playing well on 16 specific days spread out over 11 months is, IMO, more difficult.

Thus, Tiger's slam was more impressive. That he had to wait eight months and face the pressure of winning the fourth major in a row, which only amped up after winning the Players adds to, it does not subtract from, the difficulty.

IMO, anyway.

But... if you only have to win 3 majors after you've already won another, that more accurately describes what Tiger did.

That's just the difference between setting an arbitrary starting point and not. It's not got anything to do with "golf skill" - it's just got everything to do with odds making. Tiger's chances of winning the Masters on April 13 are (if I am doing it correctly) lower than they are of him winning it on April 9, or something, too, because of the way the Masters is traditionally scheduled, but it doesn't make one lesser of a feat than the other, just less statistically likely. Not actually less difficult or impressive, just mathematically.


Tiger would have the same odds if you happened to say "Tiger will win all four majors in a row starting with the U.S. Open" as he would if you say "starting with the Masters" or "starting with the British Open" or the PGA.

The calendar year is an arbitrary thing. Tiger's Slam was, IMO, a "real" Slam. He held all four major championships (and the Players) at one time. Slam.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2020, 08:20:09 PM by Erik J. Barzeski »
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, Garland, and Chris.

Peter Flory

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: OT - Tiger Woods Grand Slam
« Reply #12 on: February 12, 2020, 08:32:30 PM »
Right, it just is a calculation of how improbable the thing was.  We know that he is/ was a great player, but he still lost more than he won.  There's both a skill component and a luck component.  On the luck side, it's not only his luck, but he's affected by how others happened to play that week. 

On the skill side, it doesn't require any more skill to win 4 majors in a row and then lose the next one than it does to win 2, lose 1, and then win the last 2.  In both cases, the guy won 4 out of 5. 

We're streak analyzing.  Like if Steph Curry went 10-10 on 3-pointers in one game vs if he missed some shots and then hit his last 4 3's in game one and then hit is first 6 in the next game before missing others.  .  Both amazing, it's just that we're more likely to see streaks of the 2nd kind than the 1st kind.  They happen more often mathematically. 

Kevin Pallier

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: OT - Tiger Woods Grand Slam
« Reply #13 on: February 12, 2020, 10:23:51 PM »
If you are going to include non-calendar year "Grand Slams" then you should also include Mickey Wright's 1961/62 achievement.

10 LPGA Tour wins in each of those seasons to boot.

mike_beene

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: OT - Tiger Woods Grand Slam
« Reply #14 on: February 13, 2020, 12:25:36 AM »
Did Jones continue to practice law during the summer of his slam? Was he a quality tax lawyer?

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: OT - Tiger Woods Grand Slam
« Reply #15 on: February 13, 2020, 03:02:28 AM »
It's very difficult to judge successes between eras. I really don't know which was the more difficult to achieve but both accomplishments are supremely impressive.

So far as Jones not being an amateur, its a very dodgy argument. He met the definition of amateur that makes him an amateur. How much money he or his family had, which clubs he played, who he he played with or how much better he was than his competition are all irrelevant points. Being a pro means taking money... period. Interestingly, I bet Jones has a very amateur schedule in that he played in very few events. The guy was at home far more than some architects or golf hounds on the road trying to tick off courses!

Ciao
« Last Edit: February 13, 2020, 03:05:42 AM by Sean_A »
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: OT - Tiger Woods Grand Slam
« Reply #16 on: February 13, 2020, 03:36:29 AM »
Apples and Oranges.
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: OT - Tiger Woods Grand Slam
« Reply #17 on: February 13, 2020, 04:47:33 AM »
First off Wood’s achievement in winning four majors in a row is not a Grand Slam. That’s not me being a purist but simply a matter of fact. A Grand Slam was always the four in one season. Tiger didn’t do that therefore it’s not a Grand Slam. I don’t think that will make a bit of difference to the legend or even invalidate the question of which was the greater achievement.
On the other hand Bobby Jones’s achievement was a Grand Slam and furthermore from what I remember reading, he declared it as his goal that year. And that I think is the difference between Wood’s achievement, as great as it was, and an actual Grand Slam.

When a player wins the first tournament he automatically becomes the only person who can achieve the Grand Slam that year. Going into the second tournament the pressure increases beyond it being another major, and so on. The pressure keeps getting ramped up. Wood’s didn’t have that increasing pressure as no one was talking about a “Grand Slam” until after he’d won the third tournament.

That said, which was the greater achievement ? I tend to agree with Adrian, apples and oranges.


Niall

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: OT - Tiger Woods Grand Slam
« Reply #18 on: February 13, 2020, 10:06:56 AM »
A Grand Slam was always the four in one season.
I disagree. That's how you define it. I define it as "holding all four major trophies at one time."

At one time a loooong time ago when I debated the topic on my site, members were able to find definitions that defined things both ways, both "within the same calendar year" and "four in a row."

For example, the Wikipedia page says:
Quote
Winning the four majors in consecutive tournaments but not in the same year is known as a non-calendar year Grand Slam, while winning all four majors at any point during the course of a career is known as a career Grand Slam.
In other words, the term "Grand Slam" is used there to mean differently than you've suggested is "fact," invalidating your claim. Woods did not win a "calendar-year Grand Slam," but he did win a "non-calendar year Grand Slam," and owns three (IIRC) career Grand Slams. The golf page says basically the same thing, and uses "Grand Slam" as well, with the same adjective ahead of it.

Yeah, it's semantics, but it always seems to me that when someone uses that they're trying to downgrade Tiger's accomplishment. Ignore the calendar year bit and ask yourself how many people even won three majors in a row. Hogan in '53 and Tiger in 2000 (or 2000-2001  ;) ), also IIRC.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2020, 10:14:13 AM by Erik J. Barzeski »
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, Garland, and Chris.

Rob Marshall

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: OT - Tiger Woods Grand Slam
« Reply #19 on: February 13, 2020, 11:44:34 AM »
The Grand Slam has always been in a calendar year. Hence the "Tiger Slam". What Tiger did was amazing and will most likely never be done again but it was not the Grand Slam. I believe Bobby Jones won the Grand Slam while working for a living.....
If life gives you limes, make margaritas.” Jimmy Buffett

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: OT - Tiger Woods Grand Slam
« Reply #20 on: February 13, 2020, 12:32:32 PM »
Erik

It’s not how I define it, it is how it was defined. Nor is it semantics on my part or me looking to downgrade Wood’s achievement, on the contrary, it is you deciding that you (aided and abetted by Wikipedia) want to re-write history. I’m merely distinguishing Woods fantastic achievement with an actual Grand Slam which is an even greater achievement for the reason I stated. 

The modern Grand Slam post-dates Hogan’s feat, as Hogan was in no position to accomplish the Grand Slam in 1953 as it wasn’t physically possible for him to play in all four of the majors due to the dates making it impossible to do. True historians will correct me if I’m wrong but the modern Grand Slam (Open, US Open, Masters and USPGA in a single year) originated in a discussion that Arnold Palmer had with a journalist. That was probably the early 1960’s ?

You may recall when Woods accomplished his fantastic run of 4 in a row, it was referred to as the Tiger Slam because patently it wasn’t a Grand Slam. Depending on your age you may even remember before then that part of the build up to the Masters was whether anyone would manage the Grand Slam that year and then going into the next major the chat was all about there being only one man left able to do it.

So when and if someone manages to do a Grand Slam it will be an even greater achievement than the “Tiger Slam”, which is not to downgrade Wood’s fantastic achievement but just to put it into perspective.

Niall

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: OT - Tiger Woods Grand Slam
« Reply #21 on: February 13, 2020, 12:33:40 PM »
The Grand Slam has always been in a calendar year. Hence the "Tiger Slam". What Tiger did was amazing and will most likely never be done again but it was not the Grand Slam. I believe Bobby Jones won the Grand Slam while working for a living.....

Rob

You beat me to it. A great accomplishment and let's honour him for that but let's also not make it out for more than it was.

Niall

Matt_Cohn

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: OT - Tiger Woods Grand Slam
« Reply #22 on: February 13, 2020, 01:17:04 PM »
Just mathematically, only a 1/4 of randomly generated "four straight majors" would be "calendar-year slams".

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: OT - Tiger Woods Grand Slam
« Reply #23 on: February 13, 2020, 01:28:53 PM »

Niall, Rob,


I am afraid you are just plain wrong. I am always amazed why people just continue to support such incorrect points of view. Erik has clearly told you that you are both wrong and he is right so it is about time you two just wise up.  ::) ::) ::)


Erik,


a Grand Slam is and always has been one calendar year where as yours seems more cullender in nature ;) 


As for which is the greatest. They are both the greatest achievement of their type  but so different as not been able to compare. Now if you are talking about the greatest example of 3 majors in a year the Hogan '53 is by far the greatest ;D


Jon

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: OT - Tiger Woods Grand Slam
« Reply #24 on: February 13, 2020, 02:04:03 PM »
It’s not how I define it, it is how it was defined.
Again, it is not universally defined as such, and I provided evidence of that. Definitions of words can and do change over time.

want to re-write history
No. Your definition is not universal. A blood orange is still an orange, as is a "large" orange. Tiger has a non-calendar-year Grand Slam, which makes it a kind of "Grand Slam." Tiger did not achieve a calendar-year Grand Slam, but he has achieved a Career Grand Slam (three times), and a non-calendar-year Grand Slam.

So when and if someone manages to do a Grand Slam it will be an even greater achievement than the “Tiger Slam”, which is not to downgrade Wood’s fantastic achievement but just to put it into perspective.
I don't agree with that either, as I stated in response to Tom. I believe that winning four majors over a span of 10-11 months is a greater accomplishment than winning them over four (April, May, June, July) or five (before the PGA moved to May).
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I generally ignore Rob, Tim, Garland, and Chris.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back