OT - Tiger Woods Grand Slam

[Kalen Braley]

Wait...would it be a superior achievement for someone to win them all in the same calendar year?

I think so, but open to hearing why not...other than the 8 month wait.

Jim,

Not at all.  As you mentioned its likely harder with the 8 month wait as you have a much longer time period to remain at the top of your game.  Much less have to sit on 8 long months of pressure and anticipation.

But anecdotally I understand why it sounds nicer to do them all in the same calendar year.

[JESII]

So the Tiger Slam is more difficult than the traditional?


Sounds like a breakfast mean at Denny’s...

[Niall C]

Kalen

It's not nicer, it's psychologically much harder. It's a bit like the difference between running a personal best in training and then doing it under the gun. With the Tiger Slam, IIRC, no one was talking about 4 in a row until after 3 and in the build up to 4. Whereas with the Grand Slam as soon as someone wins the Masters all focus/pressure is on them.

Niall

[Kalen Braley]

Jim,


I would certainly think so.  One took almost a year to complete, the other 5 months...


Niall,


Every major is a major regardless of how it fits in the schedule, none of them are "training" that i'm aware of. I still don't see how 5 months of pressure from April to August is more pressure than waiting 8 months to win that last one, much less surviving the pressure in June thru August to win 3 in a row.

[Jon Wiggett]

Jim,


I would certainly think so.  One took almost a year to complete, the other 5 months...


Niall,


Every major is a major regardless of how it fits in the schedule, none of them are "training" that i'm aware of. I still don't see how 5 months of pressure from April to August is more pressure than waiting 8 months to win that last one, much less surviving the pressure in June thru August to win 3 in a row.

Kalen,


if a player plays 40 straight majors starting with the Masters they have 10 attempts at a Grand Slam but 37 attempts at 4 in a row so even dimmest person should be able to work out which is harder to achieve.

[Tim_Cronin]

I'll bite.


1. Four in a row at the start (Masters) is harder than four in a row starting with the other three. Must be, since the other has been achieved.
2. Any of those permutations is harder than Jones' four straight, given two only-am tournaments (even though the am contingent was much better in that era). The randomness of match play is mitigated by Jones' talent and the 36-hole standard of the day.
3. Any of the above qualifies as a Grand Slam. This calendar distinction is meaningless in tennis, if I recall the explanation given by Bud Collins on NBC once upon a time. It should be the same in golf. Four in a row is four in a row.


Questions: Would winning four straight beginning with the Masters be easier or harder with the PGA in May rather than August? What do you call winning the four traditional majors and the Players (which Tiger did in 00-01)? How about four straight and the Olympics?

[Niall C]

Kalen


No playing in a major isn't training but then I was using an analogy to illustrate the point as I'm sure you knew.



The 8 months of pressure you refer to presumably is the wait between the 3rd and 4th major in the sequence ? So that's the pressure going into the last tournament. What about in the Grand Slam where it builds after winning the Masters then ramps up after the second before going ballistic after the 3rd ? You can only really imagine that as no one as far as I can remember has achieved that.


In contrast when Woods did his four in a row it only really began to be talked about after the third major. Absolutely for sure there was, and is, pressure going into every major but the additional pressure only really heaped on with one tournament to go. But at the end of the day, I'm speculating as to how the pressure ramps up in a Grand Slam, since as no one has ever come close to a Grand Slam (at least in the modern day) I can't say for sure.


Niall   

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Four in a row starting with the Masters is only mathematically more difficult.

I'm of the opinion that four in a row at any time is impressive regardless of which one "started" it, and that it's actually slightly more impressive to win four that span 10 months than four that span five months.

Like I said before, what's more impressive: winning the Masters on April 7-12 or winning it specifically on April 13? The latter is more "difficult" mathematically, but it's no less impressive a physical, real-world achievement than winning it on any of the days between April  7 and April 12.

Niall, I think you're drastically over-stating the "pressure" to win the Grand Slam (or even the next major) after someone wins the Masters. Though some will say as a side note "such and such is the only player with a chance to win the calendar-year Grand Slam," I don't think there's much actual pressure to do so. Should someone win two in a row, there will be amped up pressure to win their third. Just as Tiger saw in 2000. And should someone some day win the Masters, PGA, and U.S. Open, they'd have only 3-4 weeks of "pressure" between 3 and 4. Tiger had 6+ months of pressure after winning his third. It was also only his second Masters win, so it's not like winning at Augusta was a foregone conclusion.

[Kalen Braley]

Jon,

I think Erik addressed your point pretty well in his last post.  While more difficult mathematically to do in a calendar year, it doesn't factor in other criteria such as the long time in between majors for any other 4 in a row scenario. Certainly with the human element factored in of dealing with months and months of pressure that slowly build in addition to keeping ones game at the tippy top level for nearly a year, I stand by the assessment of being more difficult in the aggregate.

Golf is filled with plenty of guys who got hot one summer for a couple of months and won 3-4 tournaments and perhaps a major or two, but doing it for 12 months in a row...that's a far far more difficult task.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I think Erik addressed your point pretty well in his last post.  While more difficult mathematically to do in a calendar year, it doesn't factor in other criteria such as the long time in between majors for any other 4 in a row scenario. Certainly with the human element factored in of dealing with months and months of pressure that slowly build in addition to keeping ones game at the tippy top level for nearly a year, I stand by the assessment of being more difficult in the aggregate.

I'll put it another way for those arguing about the mathematics of it: Winning four in a row starting with the U.S. Open (or, since 2019, the PGA Championship) is mathematically just as hard as winning four in a row starting with the Masters. Both have a somewhat arbitrary starting point, which is the sole reason it's mathematically more difficult while being no less "physically" impressive.

[Jon Wiggett]

Four in a row starting with the Masters is only mathematically more difficult.

and this from the man who spends his entire time throwing out what ever maths he can that will back up what ever pet idea he has. And as to your last post it is correct when you just look at the individual thing but is the same as saying winning one major is the same as winning ten in a row as it is just as hard to win each individual event. This is correct until you look at the whole picture when it becomes obvious it is a foolish argument.


Kalen,


so basically you are saying statistics and odds of how difficult something is basically bullshit. Go down your local book maker and ask for the odds on a player in the next ten years winning all four majors in the same years and then the same for a player winning four majors in a row in the next ten years. I bet the bookie will decide the same year option is less likely.


You got a 30 foot putt to make and you can have either 10 goes or 37 goes at it in order to hole it once. Which option are you going to choose if you really need to make it? I bet both you and Erik suddenly decide the maths do matter after all.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

And as to your last post it is correct when you just look at the individual thing but is the same as saying winning one major is the same as winning ten in a row as it is just as hard to win each individual event.

No.

You're arbitrarily setting a starting point. It's mathematically more unlikely, which is entirely different than the physical, actual, real-world difficulty it takes to win four in a row.

Go down your local book maker and ask for the odds on a player in the next ten years winning all four majors in the same years and then the same for a player winning four majors in a row in the next ten years. I bet the bookie will decide the same year option is less likely.

Are you not understanding that both Kalen and I (and I'm not trying to speak for Kalen, but I don't think I'm doing so here) agree  that it's mathematically less likely, hence the bookie, but that should not be confused with which task is "physically" or "real-world" more difficult?

You're confusing the "likelihood" (mathematical) with actual real-world "difficulty" (non-mathematical).

Again, is it physically, real-world "more impressive" if someone wins the Masters on April 13 than if someone else wins it on any day between (inclusive) April 7-12? The latter is far more LIKELY, but no less or more DIFFICULT.

[Garland Bayley]

Jim,


I would certainly think so.  One took almost a year to complete, the other 5 months...


Niall,


Every major is a major regardless of how it fits in the schedule, none of them are "training" that i'm aware of. I still don't see how 5 months of pressure from April to August is more pressure than waiting 8 months to win that last one, much less surviving the pressure in June thru August to win 3 in a row.

Kalen,


if a player plays 40 straight majors starting with the Masters they have 10 attempts at a Grand Slam but 37 attempts at 4 in a row so even dimmest person should be able to work out which is harder to achieve.

No longer Sandman, now Dimman.

[Kalen Braley]

Garland,

I can't help it if Jon doesn't want to look at the full picture, but I've been accused of far worse so its all good. 

P.S. But if we want to compare apples to apples, its a simple question: whats harder to win?  A calendar year slam starting with the Masters and finished in 5 months, or a Tiger slam starting with the US Open and ending twice as long in 10 months?  Easy answer...

[Garland Bayley]

Four in a row starting with the Masters is only mathematically more difficult.

I'm of the opinion that four in a row at any time is impressive regardless of which one "started" it, and that it's actually slightly more impressive to win four that span 10 months than four that span five months.

...

Dimman Jr.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

I can't help it if Jon doesn't want to look at the full picture, but I've been accused of far worse so its all good. 

P.S. But if we want to compare apples to apples, its a simple question: whats harder to win?  A calendar year slam starting with the Masters and finished in 5 months, or a Tiger slam starting with the US Open and ending twice as long in 10 months?  Easy answer...

Clearly the 10 month version is easier. You have to be a bit dim to think otherwise.

[Kalen Braley]

Garland,

I can't help it if Jon doesn't want to look at the full picture, but I've been accused of far worse so its all good. 

P.S. But if we want to compare apples to apples, its a simple question: whats harder to win?  A calendar year slam starting with the Masters and finished in 5 months, or a Tiger slam starting with the US Open and ending twice as long in 10 months?  Easy answer...

Clearly the 10 month version is easier. You have to be a bit dim to think otherwise.

Clear as mud indeed.

P.S.  I had a neighbor years ago whose best friend worked in the inner circle of one of Vegas' top sports books.  I wish I had kept in touch with him to have him run this scenario by his friend...

[Jon Wiggett]

Erik,


I am afraid your own argument does not back you up but only leads to a conclusion that winning four in a row is just as easy or hard regardless of when you start. Your doing it over 10 months being harder is simple incorrect and just because your say it is.
As for setting an arbitrary starting point I think you will find that to do a Grand Slam (all four in the same year) does kind of mean you have a defined starting point. That you have made this error kind of shows that in your desire to be correct you fit the supposed facts to back up your point but lost the context of the bigger picture which was my earlier point.


That something is mathematically harder suggest that it is whether you like it or not.


Kalen,


have you something original of your own to bring to this discussion?

[Niall C]

Four in a row starting with the Masters is only mathematically more difficult.

I'm of the opinion that four in a row at any time is impressive regardless of which one "started" it, and that it's actually slightly more impressive to win four that span 10 months than four that span five months.

Like I said before, what's more impressive: winning the Masters on April 7-12 or winning it specifically on April 13? The latter is more "difficult" mathematically, but it's no less impressive a physical, real-world achievement than winning it on any of the days between April  7 and April 12.

Niall, I think you're drastically over-stating the "pressure" to win the Grand Slam (or even the next major) after someone wins the Masters. Though some will say as a side note "such and such is the only player with a chance to win the calendar-year Grand Slam," I don't think there's much actual pressure to do so. Should someone win two in a row, there will be amped up pressure to win their third. Just as Tiger saw in 2000. And should someone some day win the Masters, PGA, and U.S. Open, they'd have only 3-4 weeks of "pressure" between 3 and 4. Tiger had 6+ months of pressure after winning his third. It was also only his second Masters win, so it's not like winning at Augusta was a foregone conclusion.

Erik,

It's far more difficult whether you look at it mathematically or simply as an achievement. Going back to the Jones comparison, one of the things that makes Jones achievement so impressive was that he nominated it in that he declared it as his goal that year.

Palmer effectively nominated the modern Grand Slam for everyone else, Woods included. When someone wins one of the majors other than the Masters, no one says "now he's got a chance of winning four in a row" but they do refer to the Grand Slam in relation to the Masters. And as I've said before, I do think it's a huge achievement to win any major at any time irrespective of how it is achieved.

Each of Woods victories was a great achievement but I don't recall anyone talking about any kind of slam when he was chasing his third as you suggest. As for the span between first and last, you could argue it the other way, that the gap between 3rd and 4th gives the player the chance to regroup and prepare. However if you go with your reasoning then Young Tommy has Woods beaten hands down. There was 5 years between his first and last and 2 years between the third and fourth.

Niall

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Short response as we're all deep into the repetition stages (and not about golf course architecture at that).

Jon, please don't confuse facts with opinions. In my opinion, winning four consecutive and different majors over ten months is more impressive, more difficult, than winning four consecutive and different majors* over five months.

Some here continue to confuse probability with "difficulty."

As for the span between first and last, you could argue it the other way, that the gap between 3rd and 4th gives the player the chance to regroup and prepare.

One could, but I disagree. In my opinion, having to wait seven months or so to win the fourth consecutive different major is more difficult than waiting one.

It's fine by me if you want to disagree. But that's not "in error" or "wrong" as Jon wishes to believe it is.

However if you go with your reasoning then Young Tommy has Woods beaten hands down. There was 5 years between his first and last and 2 years between the third and fourth.

Points for the humor Niall.  So are you suggesting that Young Tom Morris has a "non-calendar-year Grand Slam" as well? 

[Joe Hancock]

No one has mentioned the advantage of winning during the era of Daylight Savings Time......


(Sarcasm)

[John Emerson]

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.

If there is one record in golf I think that won’t be broken it’s this one.

[Jon Wiggett]

This was posted by Erik in a PM

I am afraid your own argument does not back you up but only leads to a conclusion that winning four in a row is just as easy or hard regardless of when you start.

Yes - I am saying that winning four in a row is as impressive regardless of which tournament is the first and the last. It's as physically impressive, as real-world "good" an accomplishment.

As for setting an arbitrary starting point I think you will find that to do a Grand Slam (all four in the same year) does kind of mean you have a defined starting point.

I don't define "Grand Slam" as within a single year. Woods won a non-calendar-year Grand Slam. This was discussed heavily already. Maybe you missed all of that?

That you have made this error

I've not made an error - I merely don't accept your more rigid definition that a "Grand Slam" is ONLY achieved within a single calendar year. This was already heavily discussed, so I'm not getting further into it.

That something is mathematically harder suggest that it is whether you like it or not.

You continue to confuse "likely" with "harder" or "more difficult."

Which is "more difficult" from a physical perspective: winning the Masters on April 13 exactly or winning the Masters on any of the dates from April 7 to April 12? Which is more likely to occur? Statistical likelihood is not the same as actual, physical, real-world "difficulty."




Firstly Erik, I don't appreciate you posting this in a PM so please keep it on this thread where it belongs.

Secondly, I am not confusing likely with harder you are. You have the same putt but in two different scenarios.

The first is a 10 foot putt in a practice round the second is the identical putt but to win a tournament.

I would suggest that the second putt is infinitely harder to hole than the former. Then we come to the point of likelihood. The rarer an opportunity is the higher pressure it becomes and therefore the harder it becomes. Likelihood does play a part which points to what I have said for a while. You are not looking at the whole picture and without that you have ne context.

[A.G._Crockett]

No one has mentioned the advantage of winning during the era of Daylight Savings Time......


(Sarcasm)

Joe, we have reached that point of absurdity in this thread, haven't we?  An argument about which is more difficult, given that all of this calendar stuff is a made-up human convention anyway.  But I have the solution!  Stick with me here...


1. The dates of the 2000 Masters were April 6 thu 9.


2. Tiger's mother is from Thailand, which follows the Songkran calendar.

3. The Songkran New Year's celebration in Malaysia, including Thailand, is April 13th thru April 15th.

4. Therefore, Tiger Woods won the US Open, the British Open, the PGA, AND The Masters ALL IN THE SAME CALENDAR YEAR, unless you happen to be a racist/xenophobic/religious zealot/nationalistic/provincial/ethnocentric a**hole who thinks the Gregorian Calendar is somehow divinely inspired magic instead of just a made-up convenience. 

5. Hereafter, this unprecedented and never duplicated achievement by Woods will be referred to as "The Songkran Slam", as distinguished from "The Gregorian Slam".  (We are leaving out MANY other "alternative" calendars here; Jewish, Islamic, Chinese, Ba'hia, and so on.  I'll need to do further research on those.)

6. If you are a Songkran Slam Denier, then to have credibility for your position, you must explain the following passage in less that one million words:  "In the Gregorian calendar, a year ending in "00" that is divisible by 400 is a century leap year, with the intercalation of February 29 yielding 366 days instead of 365.  Century years (divisible by 100) that are not divisible by 400 are not leap years but common years of 365 days. For example, the years 1600, 2000, and 2400 are century leap years since those numbers are divisible by 400, while 1700, 1800, 1900, 2100, 2200, and 2300 are exceptional common years despite being divisible by 4. Leap years divisible by 400 always start on a Saturday; thus the leap day February 29 in those years always falls on a Tuesday (dominical letter BA)."

So I hope that settles this once and for all, now that all of you know that Woods accomplished BOTH sorts of Slams.  My work here is done...
 

[Peter Pallotta]

AG -
You think *Tiger* had a challenge?
I say, "luxury"!
When I was young, there were a hundred and fifty of us living in a shoebox in the middle of a lake. We used to have to get out of the lake at three o'clock in the morning, half hour before we went to bed, lick the lake clean with our tongues, eat half a handful of freezing cold gravel, go to work in the mines 24 hours a day for fourpence every six years, and when we got home our Dad would beat us around the head with a broken bottle and slice us in two with a bread knife -- if we were lucky!
Not comparing, just saying -- both Tiger and Bobby had it *easy*!