[Rob Marshall]

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


Jon

Jon, Erik is not always right but he's never wrong, just ask him.

[Tim Martin]

Grand Slam has always been defined as winning all four Majors in a calendar year.

[Jon Wiggett]

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


Jon

Jon, Erik is not always right but he's never wrong, just ask him.

 

[Niall C]

Erik


Just so I'm clear, you are basically saying that the definition of Grand Slam has changed ? Or perhaps you are you saying it can mean anything that suits your purpose ? Either way, presumably this change happened after Woods remarkable feat, or was it before, because if it was before then that would be a remarkable bit of prophecy ?


I'm really keen to find out the answers to these questions because if we can change definitions retrospectively I'm going to start a thread on how I won the "real" Grand Slam of Glasgow GC monthly medal, Moray GC Annual Stableford and Silloth Family Foursomes (although I'll probably neglect to tell anyone it took ten years to achieve).


Niall
 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Just so I'm clear, you are basically saying that the definition of Grand Slam has changed?

I've not just said that, I've cited evidence that supports that "Grand Slam" means "holding all four major championship titles."

In a calendar year: "calendar year Grand Slam"
Not in a Calendar Year: "non-calendar Year Grand Slam"
Over a Career: "career Grand Slam"

All of those are "grand slams" just like a blood orange and a large orange are both oranges. The adjectives modify the noun, but the noun is still the root.

Also, the title of the topic is "OT - Tiger Woods Grand Slam" and it's not talking about his triple career grand slam:

I know the purists say the Grand Slam is only that if all four majors are won in the same calendar year.

In other words, the OP recognizes that "Grand Slam" is not universally accepted as ONLY the "calendar year Grand Slam."

[Jon Wiggett]

But you can have a large blood orange where as you cannot have a non-calendar year calendar year grand slam so I am not sure what your point is.


Is Nicklaus' career grand slam more impressive than Wood's because it was over a longer time? Surely it must be. So Jack's still the GOAT 


I think the point is a Grand Slam is in one calendar year. I have never heard of the Calendar Year Grand Slam until you came up with it.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

But you can have a large blood orange where as you cannot have a non-calendar year calendar year grand slam so I am not sure what your point is.

And yet… Tiger Woods has a "non-calendar year grand slam."

I think the point is a Grand Slam is in one calendar year. I have never heard of the Calendar Year Grand Slam until you came up with it.

I didn't "come up with it," and I'd be willing to bet that you've heard of a "career grand slam."

[Rob Marshall]

But you can have a large blood orange where as you cannot have a non-calendar year calendar year grand slam so I am not sure what your point is.

And yet… Tiger Woods has a "non-calendar year grand slam."

I think the point is a Grand Slam is in one calendar year. I have never heard of the Calendar Year Grand Slam until you came up with it.

I didn't "come up with it," and I'd be willing to bet that you've heard of a "career grand slam."

No one says that Tiger has the "non-calendar year grand slam". It's called the Tiger Slam.

[Sean_A]

Calender Year Grand Slam was invented in Tiger's era.  I never heard that phrase before Tiger and if I did, it was in the extremely rarest of cases and likely used by nutjobs.  In my lifetime until Tiger, Grand Slam always meant winning four majors in one golf season. I don't think there is any doubt about this understanding.  Hence the reason we now have Grand Slam qualifiers (ie non calender year or Tiger Slam) once Tiger became a pro.     

I am waiting for the Did Not Play Four Consecutive Majors Grand Slam.  Hell, that could spread out over years    When did Hogan next enter the PGA after winning the '53 Open?  I don't think it was until at least a few years later because Hogan often skipped the PGA anyway. Hell, I am not sure Hogan played in any 1950s PGAs.

Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

But you can have a large blood orange where as you cannot have a non-calendar year calendar year grand slam so I am not sure what your point is.

And yet… Tiger Woods has a "non-calendar year grand slam."

I think the point is a Grand Slam is in one calendar year. I have never heard of the Calendar Year Grand Slam until you came up with it.

I didn't "come up with it," and I'd be willing to bet that you've heard of a "career grand slam."

Erik,


there is a Grand Slam which is all four majors in the same year and there is the career Grand Slam which is winning all four majors at some point. As has been pointed out to you when Woods held all four at the same time it was called the Tiger Slam because no other name for it including no non-calendar year grand slam.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

No one says that Tiger has the "non-calendar year grand slam". It's called the Tiger Slam.

The point was that I didn't "come up with it." The phrase "non-calendar year grand slam" was on Wikipedia (and elsewhere) long before I wrote it in this topic.

there is a Grand Slam which is all four majors in the same year and there is the career Grand Slam which is winning all four majors at some point. As has been pointed out to you when Woods held all four at the same time it was called the Tiger Slam because no other name for it including no non-calendar year grand slam.

So you're okay with words coming before the phrase "grand slam" which modify "grand slam."

Five years ago I polled 110 people if Tiger Woods had a "grand slam" and 60 said yes, that Tiger's winning of four consecutive majors in 2000-2001 was a "grand slam."

Again, how any one of us defines "grand slam" is not universal. Tiger won a "grand slam." It was a "non-calendar-year grand slam," but "non-calendar-year" modifies "grand slam" just like a "large orange" is still an orange.

When did Hogan next enter the PGA after winning the '53 Open?

I define a "grand slam" as holding all four major trophies at the same time. And…

[Jon Wiggett]

I think we all understand that you believe Tiger has a grand slam because it fits your 'selfinition'  .

[Sean_A]

No one says that Tiger has the "non-calendar year grand slam". It's called the Tiger Slam.

The point was that I didn't "come up with it." The phrase "non-calendar year grand slam" was on Wikipedia (and elsewhere) long before I wrote it in this topic.

there is a Grand Slam which is all four majors in the same year and there is the career Grand Slam which is winning all four majors at some point. As has been pointed out to you when Woods held all four at the same time it was called the Tiger Slam because no other name for it including no non-calendar year grand slam.

So you're okay with words coming before the phrase "grand slam" which modify "grand slam."

Five years ago I polled 110 people if Tiger Woods had a "grand slam" and 60 said yes, that Tiger's winning of four consecutive majors in 2000-2001 was a "grand slam."

Again, how any one of us defines "grand slam" is not universal. Tiger won a "grand slam." It was a "non-calendar-year grand slam," but "non-calendar-year" modifies "grand slam" just like a "large orange" is still an orange.

Well, language does evolve.  The modern Grand Slam was never accomplished, so who's to say the Tiger Slam won't be the new definition for Grand Slam (without qualifiers) in 15 years?  However, as always, I refer to the ultimate reference for definitions...the OED.  Whatever the OED states I go along with.

Ciao

[A.G._Crockett]

The Grand Slam is a made up contrivance; it isn't an event like the Super Bowl or the World Series.  Saying that it MUST be one thing or the other is just personal preference; O.B. Keeler borrowed a bridge term to try to describe what Jones did.  That was Keeler's preference; presumably, if Keeler had written about Jones a different way, then the achievement would be defined a different way.  That doesn't mean a thing.
But as to the comparison of what Woods did vs what Jones did?  There isn't any.

By 1930, top level golf was already a professional sport; Jones was the ONLY amateur to win either the British or the US Opens between 1920 and 1930, and only four amateurs even made the Top Ten at a US Open in that time frame.  So it's a pretty simple fact that Jones only had to beat the top golfers in the world TWICE in 1930; the two amateur wins were exactly that, amateur tournaments.  I think it's fair to say that a number of other tournaments in 1930 had far tougher fields than the US or British ams, notably the Western Open and the N-S Open.
And not only was Jones only competing against amateurs, add the fact that he didn't even have to beat the entire field to win; he just had to beat the amateur in front of him each day in match play. 

None of that should downgrade what Jones accomplished, but the question is the comparison.  And again, there isn't any...

[Niall C]

Just had a look at Erik’s prime reference point which is the Grand Slam wiki page and shockingly it doesn’t reference the Silloth Family Foursomes. But what it does say in the very first line is;

“The Grand Slam in professional golf is winning all of golf's major championships in the same calendar year.”

That’s pretty definitive on what a Grand Slam is. You’ll note it’s not referred to as the calendar year Grand Slam. Then it goes on to say;

“Other variations include the Career Grand Slam, winning all of the major tournaments within a player's career, or the non-calendar year Grand Slam, also known as the Tiger Slam, holding all major titles at the same time although not in the same year.”

So Erik’s source firstly defines what a Grand Slam is, and then secondly, that Tiger’s achievement doesn’t meet that definition.
 
In case Erik think that is semantics, here’s another quote from Erik’s prime source;

“Only Bobby Jones has ever completed a Grand Slam. No man has ever achieved a modern era Grand Slam.”

Of course the wiki page hasn’t been updated since 29th June 2019 and as we all now know the English language moves ever forward 

Niall

[Rob Marshall]

Give it about 10 or 15 minutes and he'll update the Wiki page to agree with him. I've seen that move before. Right Erik?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Just had a look at Erik’s prime reference point which is the Grand Slam wiki page and shockingly it doesn’t reference the Silloth Family Foursomes. But what it does say in the very first line is;

What does the second sentence say?

Other variations include the Career Grand Slam, winning all of the major tournaments within a player's career, or the non-calendar year Grand Slam, also known as the Tiger Slam, holding all major titles at the same time although not in the same year.

A large blood orange is still an orange.

[Niall C]

...and a dog might be a mammal but that doesn't make it a cat.

Your prime source defines Grand Slam, and it defines Tiger Slam, and the two are distinct. It also states unequivocally that no one has ever won the Grand Slam in the modern era.

Parse your way out of that.

Niall

[A.G._Crockett]

Just had a look at Erik’s prime reference point which is the Grand Slam wiki page and shockingly it doesn’t reference the Silloth Family Foursomes. But what it does say in the very first line is;

“The Grand Slam in professional golf is winning all of golf's major championships in the same calendar year.”

That’s pretty definitive on what a Grand Slam is. You’ll note it’s not referred to as the calendar year Grand Slam. Then it goes on to say;

“Other variations include the Career Grand Slam, winning all of the major tournaments within a player's career, or the non-calendar year Grand Slam, also known as the Tiger Slam, holding all major titles at the same time although not in the same year.”

So Erik’s source firstly defines what a Grand Slam is, and then secondly, that Tiger’s achievement doesn’t meet that definition.
 
In case Erik think that is semantics, here’s another quote from Erik’s prime source;

“Only Bobby Jones has ever completed a Grand Slam. No man has ever achieved a modern era Grand Slam.”

Of course the wiki page hasn’t been updated since 29th June 2019 and as we all now know the English language moves ever forward 

Niall

I think the original question was, rather than a preferred definition of the Grand Slam, the relative difficulty of what Woods did vs. what Jones did.  And perhaps we could agree than picking one or the other as more difficult doesn't diminish either feat; both men did something that nobody else was able to accomplish.  That only five men have ever won all four in their CAREER makes winning all four consecutively extraordinary.

That said, (again) remember this: Jones won two amateur match play events in 1930, by which time the best golfers in the world were professionals; there is simply no way around that.  Assuming that Jones won four majors in a row that were of equal difficulty to what Woods managed is just not supportable.
There is a reason that neither the US nor British amateurs are considered majors today; the irony of this discussion is that, by 1930, they weren't even close to the best fields of the day then, either.  You can choose to believe that those two tournaments were the equal of the Masters and the PGA today, or even the Western Open and the N-S, among others, in 1930, but you won't be able to support your argument.
So I'll say it again; no matter how you choose to define "Grand Slam", if you're comparing relative difficulty, there is NO comparison.  There just isn't...

[Erik J. Barzeski]

...and a dog might be a mammal but that doesn't make it a cat.

If you don't understand why that fails, I don't know what to tell you.

Your prime source defines Grand Slam, and it defines Tiger Slam, and the two are distinct. It also states unequivocally that no one has ever won the Grand Slam in the modern era.

It also gives "other variations" and gives the example of Tiger Woods winning "the non-calendar year Grand Slam."

Parse your way out of that.

Do you only look at the first definition of a word? Because if so, then "Grand Slam" means to hit a home run with the bases loaded, bringing in four runs.

So I'll say it again; no matter how you choose to define "Grand Slam", if you're comparing relative difficulty, there is NO comparison.  There just isn't...

Agreed.

[Garland Bayley]

Winning the masters is no big deal. Easiest so called major. If he can make a Tiger slam with the other 3 and The Players Championship, then the feat can be compared to Bobby's.

[Jon Wiggett]

It also gives "other variations" and gives the example of Tiger Woods winning "the non-calendar year Grand Slam."

but by that way of doing things you can call anything a 'Grand Slam' which is what Niall has being trying to get through to you. Just because some self important stuffed shirt decides to create a definition on Wiki does not make it so.


To answer the OP. You cannot say that Tiger Woods' achievement is on a par with Jones purely out of opportunity to actually do one or the other feat. With a Grand Slam you have one chance each year to achieve it. Fail to win the first leg then the chance is gone for another season. With Woods' achievement every major is a chance to start it so you have four times as many opportunities to achieve it.

The Grand Slam is a made up contrivance; it isn't an event like the Super Bowl or the World Series. 

I read this and it has taken me an age to stop laughing. Oh the irony, like an event calling itself the 'World Series' that involves almost no one can call itself a global event. I assume this was not a serious comment

[Erik J. Barzeski]

but by that way of doing things you can call anything a 'Grand Slam' which is what Niall has being trying to get through to you.

By what way of doing things? By using secondary definitions?

Niall's mammal/cat/dog thing was not this. He was using completely different words. If that was the way we are talking, then I would agree that Tiger didn't win the "grand slam" in 2006 even though he won the "scoring title" just because both are "achievements."

I'm simply using a "variation" in the definition of "Grand Slam" by way of "non-calendar-year" being appended at the front. I'm not using an entirely different word.

A large blood orange is still an orange, a non-calendar-year grand slam is a variation of a Grand Slam, and an inside-the-park home run is still a home run, even if most people assume by "home run" you mean a ball hit out of the field of play (and in fair territory, on the fly, etc.).

Just because some self important stuffed shirt decides to create a definition on Wiki does not make it so.

It is evidence that "Grand Slam" has variations. Tiger won the non-calendar-year Grand Slam.

And for the record, Tiger's achievement >>>>  Bobby's, and Tiger's 2000 > Ben's 1953. IMO, of course.

[A.G._Crockett]

Once again:
Two of the four tournaments Jones won were AMATEUR match play tournaments, in which Jones had to beat FIVE amateur golfers in each.

In the decade before 1930 NO other amateur had won either the US or British Opens because professional golf was already ruling the game by 1930, with the very obvious exception of Jones.  Those two tournaments were well on their way to no longer being considered "majors", and for good reason, and weren't even among the best fields of 1930, much less comparable to modern stroke play fields.  There's just no way around that.

You can quibble all you want about the calendar slam vs. the so-called Tiger slam; both are made-up contrivances anyway, and I think I'd probably agree that the calendar year is perhaps marginally more difficult than the Tiger version. 

 But if you are simply comparing the quality of the tournaments that Woods won and the fields he had to beat to what Jones did, there is NO comparison.  None.

[A.G._Crockett]

Calender Year Grand Slam was invented in Tiger's era.  I never heard that phrase before Tiger and if I did, it was in the extremely rarest of cases and likely used by nutjobs.  In my lifetime until Tiger, Grand Slam always meant winning four majors in one golf season. I don't think there is any doubt about this understanding.  Hence the reason we now have Grand Slam qualifiers (ie non calender year or Tiger Slam) once Tiger became a pro.     

I am waiting for the Did Not Play Four Consecutive Majors Grand Slam.  Hell, that could spread out over years    When did Hogan next enter the PGA after winning the '53 Open?  I don't think it was until at least a few years later because Hogan often skipped the PGA anyway. Hell, I am not sure Hogan played in any 1950s PGAs.

Ciao

Sean, I think your last paragraph is an abridged version of the "career" slam, with an additional filter.
But as to the "invention" of Tiger's version of the Slam, remember that the whole Slam idea is an invention anyway, sort of like saying that Daylight Savings time isn't "real" but Standard Time is; it's ALL made up by somebody for some reason.
The point to be considered is not some made-up "pure" version, but just which was more difficult; what Jones did in his era, or what Woods did in his. 

Do you think that a top pro today would have a better chance of winning two amateur match play tournaments plus the two Opens, or the two Opens plus the Masters and the PGA?  Pretty easy question, isn't it?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()