Tiger Woods recently won his fourth Grand Slam event in a row.  Some 
experts mean he got golf's first Grand Slam in the era of professional 
golf.  Some say he has to do all four in the same year to have it called 
a Grand Slam.  Arnold Palmer and Jack Nicklaus were both on the side of 
saying it wasn't a Grand Slam.

Everyone agrees it was a magnificent string of major victories -- but 
was it the Grand Slam?

6 responses total.

Nope, not a grand slam.  But "holding" the titles to all 4 major tournaments
at the same time - plus the TPC title as well - is unprecedented, and surely
as "good" as doing a grand slam.

I'm inclined to call it a Grand Slam.  Four in a row is four in a row.  
Saying they all have to be in the same calendar year is just arbitrary 
in my view.

Of course, there's no reason not to expect Tiger to get all four in the 
same year; maybe even this year.

So if Bobby Higginson hits a 3-run homer, then the next time up hits a solo,
we can consider that a grand slam?

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.  (-:

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.  

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.)

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss