jep
|
|
response 4 of 6:
| 
Apr 22 13:35 UTC 2001 |
No. There's no parallel at all, except that the "grand slam" in tennis
and golf is a term named for the feat in baseball.
A grand slam in baseball is one at-bat, a home run with the bases
loaded, resulting in 4 runs batted in. It's clearly defined. There's
no doubt about what constitutes a grand slam in baseball. It's clear to
everyone. It's an official stat.
A Grand Slam in golf is not officially defined. It's a media term.
It's not just subject to interpretation; interpretation is the essence
of what it's all about. Hence this item. (-:
|
raul
|
|
response 5 of 6:
|
Apr 26 02:52 UTC 2001 |
It's a great accomplishment, but not a Grand Slam. Labeling it as such is
another attempt by the media and some fans to have something really great to
write about. It's a natural tendency, to group athletes, teams, and events
one is contemporary with with the great ones of all time. Some actually
deserve it, such as Michael Jordan. Some don't. The desire to witness
history is natural, though.
The difficulty arises when history becomes difficult to quantify. Basketball,
for on example, is much more difficult to win in now than it was 30 or 40
years ago. UCLA and the Boston Celtics both had incredible dynasties the
likes of which will never be equalled in their leagues. While both were
undeniably superb, the duration of their dominance was due (in my opinion)
more to lack of intense competition than especially dominant play. Basketball
is far more popular now than it was then, and there are many more competitive
athletes available to all sports. Tiger Woods could be an exceptionally
strong golfer in a mediocre field of competitors, assisting his walk through
the majors.
Not that he's pushing them over with no effort. The mere fact that he
consistently wins in a sport in which a winner could come from everywhere,
even with all the pressure an expectations, somewhat belies my previous
argument.
|
jep
|
|
response 6 of 6:
|
Apr 26 13:00 UTC 2001 |
I think there are reasons to consider Tiger Woods as a different kind of
phenomenon than the dominant basketball teams of the late 60's and early
70's. For one thing, there has never been so much motivation for good
athletes to become golfers. The money, the recognition, the playing
conditions, and the equipment are at all-time highs.
Golf is not a team sport, so if you win, it's all you, and if you lose,
it's still all you. You can't gather in a group of the other best
golfers and dominate even when you personally have an off day.
Athletes now are much better conditioned and trained -- which means
they're better athletes. Mickey Mantle and Babe Ruth could show up to
games following night after night of drinking, and still compete at the
highest level, but John Daly and Daryl Strawberry couldn't.
Tiger is dominating golf at a time when there are more good golfers,
with the ability to play at a higher level, than at any time in the
past. It's too much of a stretch to think he couldn't have competed
with Jack Nicklaus and Sam Snead. He'd beat them, too, if players from
different ages could compete with one another in their primes.
There is no way to say you're not experiencing history when you're
watching Tiger play. The records, in their starkest and most
objective forms, speak for themselves. The number of tournaments,
numbers of majors, his age, are all just plain facts; extremely
impressive without any interpretation. Didn't he have something like 56
rounds without a double bogey? (I'm not a golfer, so it's harder to
remember some of the statistics, but it's not hard to be impressed when
you hear about them.)
|