OT - Tiger Woods Grand Slam

[Peter Flory]

Which is more impressive?  The Pats going 16-0 in '07 or the Colts winning 23 in a row from '08 to '09? 

There are lots of 16 game winning streaks in the NFL if you eliminate the single season criteria.  It's because there are more opportunities for it.  Every game, you get the chance to start a new streak.  Only once per season do you get a chance to start a single season streak.  So, you get 16 chances to every 1. 

In golf with the majors, you get 4 times as many chances to start a major streak if you eliminate the single season restriction.  It's just going to occur more often. 

That doesn't mean that it easier than what Jones did.  Still was likely harder to do because of the average world ranking of the participants in each and depth of field.  It would be really interesting to watch one of those Jones finals matches shot for shot to get a feel for what he was up against and how well he had to play to dominate them. 


On a side note, I noticed that in the 1930 Open trophy presentation, they refer to it as the "British Open" multiple times.  Is it really such a bastardization to refer to it as that?  I always thought it was a modern thing. 

[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

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?

AG

No, that isn't the question for me. The question is comparing the feats of golfers who were roughly equally dominant over their competition. My answer is always the same. Great champions of any era are great champions of all eras. I think the question goes far deeper than the tired modern strength of field argument. To me, Bobby Jones was awesome. Tiger was awesome.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:


Jones wrote up his victories in the Grand Slam in the book, Golf Is My Game.


On top of everything else, he was a really impressive writer.  You can't get a sense of his ball striking ability, but you can get a sense of how difficult some of his early matches were at the (British) Amateur, and how well he had to play to get through them.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Which is more impressive?  The Pats going 16-0 in '07 or the Colts winning 23 in a row from '08 to '09?

23-0.

This assumes similar era (check), similar opponents (dunno), etc. The Pats being gifted nearly six easy wins a year within their own division doesn't help their case. 

Declaring that the only "Grand Slam" to exist, with no "variations," is the one that is within a single calendar year is arbitrary. Because of golf's schedule, it occurs over the shortest period of time, making it IMO easier for a golfer to get hot for four months and win them, rather than staying hot enough in order to win them over 10 months.

Tiger Woods won all four majors within a 365-day period, and held - simultaneously - all the trophies. He got "a" Grand Slam. A "non-calendar-year" Grand Slam.

It's because there are more opportunities for it.

Right! You're docking him on a mathematical basis, not for an actual performance-based reason. What's more impressive: Tiger winning the Masters on any date from April 6-April 12, or Tiger winning it exactly on April 13? The latter is less likely, mathematically, but no less impressive an actual physical feat, IMO.

On a side note, I noticed that in the 1930 Open trophy presentation, they refer to it as the "British Open" multiple times.  Is it really such a bastardization to refer to it as that?  I always thought it was a modern thing.

The British Open Trophy doesn't even say "Open Championship" on it. IIRC it says "Golf Champion Trophy." You know which one does? The U.S. Open trophy, which says "United States Golf Association Open Championship," I think. Yep.

On top of everything else, he was a really impressive writer.  You can't get a sense of his ball striking ability, but you can get a sense of how difficult some of his early matches were at the (British) Amateur, and how well he had to play to get through them.

So which "four victories" was more impressive to you?

[Peter Flory]

Here is a good summary/ quick read that describes his year:
https://www.usga.org/articles/2010/09/museum-moment-jones-scorecard-from-1930-amateur-final-2147490252.html

Some things that I didn't realize or hadn't really thought about:
- It was only the 2nd time that Jones played in all four of the majors in the same year. So, he batted .500 on getting the Grand Slam through 1930
- Until that year, he had never won the British Am.  It was considered to be very difficult due to all the matches required to win it. 
- Jones became the first player to win the British Am and British Open in the same year in 40 years (nobody had done it since 1890).  So, while ams dominated the game in the early century, they weren't getting the Open title. 
- On his trip, which he of course had to take by boat, he captained and won the Walker Cup, won the British Am, vacationed in Paris (with his wife), and then won the British Open, before boating back.  I nominate this as the greatest golf trip in the history of mankind. 
- When Jones won the US Open that year, the temps climbed into the 100s.  He holed a 40 footer on the 72nd hole for the 2 shot win... so a 3-putt meant a playoff.  https://youtu.be/oo5cOqiVXIo?t=38

That he could do this during the great depression definitely set him apart- i.e. not an amateur in the typical sense.  I'm wondering if anyone else in the World participate in all 4 of the majors that year. 

[A.G._Crockett]

Which is more impressive?  The Pats going 16-0 in '07 or the Colts winning 23 in a row from '08 to '09? 

There are lots of 16 game winning streaks in the NFL if you eliminate the single season criteria.  It's because there are more opportunities for it.  Every game, you get the chance to start a new streak.  Only once per season do you get a chance to start a single season streak.  So, you get 16 chances to every 1. 

In golf with the majors, you get 4 times as many chances to start a major streak if you eliminate the single season restriction.  It's just going to occur more often. 

That doesn't mean that it easier than what Jones did.  Still was likely harder to do because of the average world ranking of the participants in each and depth of field.  It would be really interesting to watch one of those Jones finals matches shot for shot to get a feel for what he was up against and how well he had to play to dominate them. 


On a side note, I noticed that in the 1930 Open trophy presentation, they refer to it as the "British Open" multiple times.  Is it really such a bastardization to refer to it as that?  I always thought it was a modern thing. 

Peter,This doesn't work in the Woods-Jones comparison because both the Pats and the Colts were beating only NFL teams.  If one of them had played half their games against college teams, then it would be roughly the same as what Jones did in 1930.

[David Harshbarger]

Peter,This doesn't work in the Woods-Jones comparison because both the Pats and the Colts were beating only NFL teams.  If one of them had played half their games against college teams, then it would be roughly the same as what Jones did in 1930.

Correction: the Pats play in the AFC East. That's 6 games, 37.5% of their schedule, against: The Bills, The 'Fins, and the Jets. 


Then again the Colts play in the AFC South.  That's 6 games, 37.5% of their schedule, against: The Jags, The Texans, and The Titans. 


So, the only conclusion is that what Jones did was *far* more impressive.

[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?

AG

No, that isn't the question for me. The question is comparing the feats of golfers who were roughly equally dominant over their competition. My answer is always the same. Great champions of any era are great champions of all eras. I think the question goes far deeper than the tired modern strength of field argument. To me, Bobby Jones was awesome. Tiger was awesome.

Ciao

Sean,I've said several times that nothing about either man's achievement diminishes the other.
But you cannot seriously argue that Jones was "roughly equally dominant" in 1930 as Woods was in 2000-2001.
In two of his four wins, Jones didn't have to beat Hagen, Sarazen, Craig Wood, Horton Smith, Harry Cooper, Tommy Armour, Johnny Farrell, Bill Mehlhorn, Henry Cotton, Leo Diegel, MacDonald Smith, Jim Barnes, or ANYBODY ELSE that played well in the two Open championships that year.  In other words, he did NOT have to beat the best players in the world.  Period.

He only had to beat one amateur a day in the two Ams; he didn't even have to beat the full field, and he did not face a single player that finished in the top 20 of the two Opens that year.  If THAT compares to the fields that Woods beat, I'm missing something big. 

That's not a knock on Jones at all; it just doesn't compare to what Woods did.  At all...

[Erik J. Barzeski]

He only had to beat one amateur a day in the two Ams; he didn't even have to beat the full field, and he did not face a single player that finished in the top 20 of the two Opens that year.  If THAT compares to the fields that Woods beat, I'm missing something big. 

Additionally, the fields IN those Opens were almost surely significantly weaker than any fields in the Opens of 2000. The number of golfers in the world was likely measured in the tens of thousands (and most of whom came from two countries).

[David Harshbarger]

He only had to beat one amateur a day in the two Ams; he didn't even have to beat the full field, and he did not face a single player that finished in the top 20 of the two Opens that year.  If THAT compares to the fields that Woods beat, I'm missing something big. 

Additionally, the fields IN those Opens were almost surely significantly weaker than any fields in the Opens of 2000. The number of golfers in the world was likely measured in the tens of thousands (and most of whom came from two countries).

If Donald Ross built 300 courses by the end of the 1920's, and each course supported only 100 golfers, that would get us to 30,000. 


My guess is the number was at least a million even then.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

If Donald Ross built 300 courses by the end of the 1920's, and each course supported only 100 golfers, that would get us to 30,000.

My guess is the number was at least a million even then.

Maybe. That's still only 1/33rd of a million.

Even if we stipulate to a million, that's many times less than in 2000.

[Peter Flory]

One guy that we're leaving out of this discussion is Ben Hogan and his triple crown in 1953. 

- Going into 1953, only once before had all 4 majors in a year been won by Americans
- this was after the car accident that almost took away his ability to walk
- He sets the Masters scoring record that stood until Jack Nicklaus beat it
- Wins the US Open at Oakmont when all but 1 player had to qualify for it (including Hogan).  The event included a 36 hole final day that he had to walk with his damaged body.
- Then wins the British at Carnoustie in his only appearance ever in the event with little to no experience playing links golf and his first time playing the smaller 1.62" ball. 
- Hogan couldn't play in the PGA because of the scheduling conflict between it and the British.  He also wasn't playing the PGA annually at that point because it required 5 straight days of 36 holes to win it. 

The next major that Hogan did play in was the 1954 Masters, in which he was tied for the lead after 72 holes and then lost by one shot in an 18 hole playoff to Sam Snead. 

So, Hogan was 1 stroke away from essentially completing the Tiger slam if you excuse him from the fact that it was impossible for any player in 1953 to play in all 4 majors due to the overlap in dates. 

Look at the run that Hogan went on from 1948 through 1956- these were his finishes in every major that he played in during that stretch: T6, 1, 1, T4, 1, 1, 1, T7, 3, 1, 1, 1, 2, T6, 2, 2, T8, T2 (at one point in that streak, he won 8 out of 11 that he played in).

That to me is the greatest stretch of golf in majors ever. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

One guy that we're leaving out of this discussion is Ben Hogan and his triple crown in 1953.

Ben has been mentioned a few times.

2000 > 1953, and 2000-2001 >> 1953. Strength and depth of field, etc. Look at the 1953 British Open field. Yawn. Look at the field in 1959, when Player won. Double yawn. It wasn't until Arnold Palmer in the 60s did the British Open start to become relevant, again, and even as late as the 90s, prominent American players refused to make the trip over to play in it.

So, Hogan was 1 stroke away from essentially completing the Tiger slam if you excuse him from the fact that it was impossible for any player in 1953 to play in all 4 majors due to the overlap in dates.

I think very, very few people will call four majors that include two of the same major a grand slam.

[Peter Flory]

People always think that things were easier to win in the past.  Ben did have to go against the guy who is currently tied with Tiger Woods for most wins ever- and that guy is the one who stopped the Hogan slam. 


2000 Woods vs 1953 Hogan vs 1930 Bobby on pay per view at Shadow Creek might get some ratings. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

People always think that things were easier to win in the past.  Ben did have to go against the guy who is currently tied with Tiger Woods for most wins ever- and that guy is the one who stopped the Hogan slam.

Doesn't make it untrue. And Snead's 82 has a number of stinkers in there. 

Tiger's 82 >> Snead's "82."

[Jon Wiggett]

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.).

A large blood orange is still an orange as a cat is a mammal and a dog is a mammal but a cat is not a dog. It really is not that difficult. A Grand Slam is only that and a Career Grand Slam is only that but a 'non-annual grand slam is also a Career Grand Slam and visa/versa.

[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

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?

AG

No, that isn't the question for me. The question is comparing the feats of golfers who were roughly equally dominant over their competition. My answer is always the same. Great champions of any era are great champions of all eras. I think the question goes far deeper than the tired modern strength of field argument. To me, Bobby Jones was awesome. Tiger was awesome.

Ciao

Sean,I've said several times that nothing about either man's achievement diminishes the other.
But you cannot seriously argue that Jones was "roughly equally dominant" in 1930 as Woods was in 2000-2001.
In two of his four wins, Jones didn't have to beat Hagen, Sarazen, Craig Wood, Horton Smith, Harry Cooper, Tommy Armour, Johnny Farrell, Bill Mehlhorn, Henry Cotton, Leo Diegel, MacDonald Smith, Jim Barnes, or ANYBODY ELSE that played well in the two Open championships that year.  In other words, he did NOT have to beat the best players in the world.  Period.

He only had to beat one amateur a day in the two Ams; he didn't even have to beat the full field, and he did not face a single player that finished in the top 20 of the two Opens that year.  If THAT compares to the fields that Woods beat, I'm missing something big. 

That's not a knock on Jones at all; it just doesn't compare to what Woods did.  At all...

AG

For a stretch of several years, when Jones teed it up he was the man to beat just as was the case for Tiger. Jones won more often than he lost and proved he could beat his best rivals on several occasions. For his time that makes Jones dominant in much the same way Tiger was. Its fairly obvious I place Jones very high on the the greatest golfers list  Maybe the best golfer ever not named Jack or Tiger.

Ciao

[Niall C]

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

Sean


An interesting idea but it would be a rare instance where the bar is lowered because human achievement hasn't been able to get over it. Woods achievement deserves to be feted in it's own right and calling it a Tiger Slam is just recognition of the man who first achieved it. But surely after that having achieved a peak you look to the next summit, no ?


The Grand Slam is a peak that has still to be climbed and should we really obscure it just to burnish Tigers already gleaming reputation ? 


Niall

[Erik J. Barzeski]

A large blood orange is still an orange as a cat is a mammal and a dog is a mammal but a cat is not a dog. It really is not that difficult. A Grand Slam is only that and a Career Grand Slam is only that but a 'non-annual grand slam is also a Career Grand Slam and visa/versa.

Jon, your analogy doesn't work. Mammal is a classification that contains dogs and cats. The only real parallel here would be that "Grand Slam" is the classification that includes "Career," "Calendar-Year," and "Non-Calendar-Year."

Look, at the end of the day, you define it differently than I do, and you ignore the "variations" as Wikipedia calls them. That's all.

So, truce? You don't have to take it, because I will, and have. Everyone gets to have their own definition.

[Niall C]

He only had to beat one amateur a day in the two Ams; he didn't even have to beat the full field, and he did not face a single player that finished in the top 20 of the two Opens that year.  If THAT compares to the fields that Woods beat, I'm missing something big. 

Additionally, the fields IN those Opens were almost surely significantly weaker than any fields in the Opens of 2000. The number of golfers in the world was likely measured in the tens of thousands (and most of whom came from two countries).

If Donald Ross built 300 courses by the end of the 1920's, and each course supported only 100 golfers, that would get us to 30,000. 


My guess is the number was at least a million even then.

You probably had over 30,000 golfers by as early as the 1890's and maybe even earlier. By the 1930's there was a debate in Parliament regarding caddies and employment IIRC and the number of golfers was put at 650,000 if memory serves. That number was debated, at least in the newspapers, but on the basis that you had several thousand clubs in Britain plus several hundred more in Ireland, each with on average 300 members then you quickly get up to that number and beyond. That doesn't take into account the casual golfer who wasn't a member of a club.


How many clubs would you have had in the US and Canada by then ? I've no idea but I'd imagine a good many times more. Then you have various countries in Europe, Australia, South Africa etc, where golf was long established. Without doing a hard number crunch it's easy to see that there was probably several million golfers by the 1930's. Less than now but still a significant number to allow for competition.


As to the larger question of comparing the two era's, for sure Jones didn't come up against guys who had trained as hard, practised as hard, and had to work as hard to qualify for tournaments as the guys in Woods era. Actually, let me qualify that a little, in Jones era I'm pretty sure you still had to qualify for each tournament whereas in the modern era once you've gained your exemption you don't.


Woods also had the distinct advantage, relative to the Jones era, of being pampered. Jones would have no doubt traveled first class for the time but that would still have meant a lot of time in bone shaking automobiles and trains and the odd plane journey. Woods travels by private jet/helicopter staying in the very best accommodation. He had a whole company producing the best equipment just for him, including having the pro V ahead of anyone else IIRC.


At the end of the day, it is apples and oranges....or if you like, cats and dogs.


Niall
     

[Sean_A]

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

Sean

An interesting idea but it would be a rare instance where the bar is lowered because human achievement hasn't been able to get over it. Woods achievement deserves to be feted in it's own right and calling it a Tiger Slam is just recognition of the man who first achieved it. But surely after that having achieved a peak you look to the next summit, no ?

The Grand Slam is a peak that has still to be climbed and should we really obscure it just to burnish Tigers already gleaming reputation ? 

Niall

Niall

My not to die on a hill definition would be the following:

Grand Slam = hold four pro major trophies in one season
Tiger Slam = winning four consecutive pro major trophies in one calender year
Impregnable Quadrilateral (sounds much cooler than Bobby Slam) = hold US & Brit Ams trophies and US Open & Open trophies in one season

I wouldn't use the words grand slam to associate with a career accounting .  That is so far removed from the original meaning that its silly.

I definitely think the proper Grand Slam is more difficult to achieve than what Tiger did because as was pointed out earlier, there are more opportunities to do so over a calender year compared to one golf season. But hey, its all good stuff.  I also believe B Jones was the third best player to date.  Not in the league of Jack & Tiger, but well ahead of the others in his wake and perhaps more importantly well ahead of Hagen who was Jones' closest rival.

Just to piss people off, I think Vardon was the 5th best player to date .  Its safe to say  that I think the ODGs could and did play wonderfully well.

Ciao

[Niall C]

Sean


I'm not sure I'd argue with much you've said there, and as you know I like a good argument. However I do think you undervalue Hagen. As you say he was probably Jones's main rival but unlike Jones, and latterly Woods, I don't think he went chasing records in the way the other two did. Jones targeted certain tournaments and Woods famously and openly chased Nicklaus's majors record (at least until the point when it didn't look like he was going to do it and then he played it down). Hagen I think was more motivated to chase the money and a good time even if that meant doing a tour of far off places to the detriment of winning tournaments. That said he did win a hatful of majors plus a good number of Western Opens which probably wasn't that far behind the Open and US Open. Who's to say how we'd think of Hagen now if the Western Open had become a major.


Interestingly Hagen thought Vardon the best ever, and I think from what I've read and the little I've seen his game would have stood up better today than his two main contemporaries in Braid and Taylor. However folk tend to look back and think of Vardon as being the superior of the three because he won 6 Opens plus 1 US Open (or was it two ?), and then Taylor after that because of his superior goal difference over Braid ie. 5 second places at the Open. However folk also forget that Braid was the first to get to 5 Opens which beat young Tommy's record. He didn't quite hang up his clubs at that point but there was a sense he took his foot off the gas. And similar to Hagen with the Western Open, he also dominated the News of the World PGA by winning 4 times compared to Taylors twice and Vardons once. At the time it was probably the second most prestigious tournament after the Open, and including the US and French Opens.


Then of course there is Peter Thomson and Bobby Locke, where do you put them in the mix ?


Niall


 

[Sean_A]

Niall

I certainly would place Hagen among the 10 best players so far.

I am afraid Locke and Thompson don't make the cut. I figure one needs to win at least two different majors for inclusion of a very short list of the very best. Being a huge fan of Braid, it's a tough cut, but there ya go.

Ciao

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tiger Woods: "I had all four trophies on my mantle at the same time, and no one has ever done that. Call it what you want. This will be a different kind of Slam, I guess".

[David Harshbarger]

Tiger Woods: "I had all four trophies on my mantle at the same time, and no one has ever done that. Call it what you want. This will be a different kind of Slam, I guess".

+1