|
Palmer defined modern Grand Slam
Tiger might triumph, but will it be a Grand Slam?
Posted: Wednesday April 04, 2001 12:33 AM
Updated: Wednesday March 27, 2002 10:07 AM
| |
Players are debating whether a Masters win would mean a Grand Slam for Tiger Woods, who won the 2000 U.S. Open, British Open and PGA Championship Todd Bennett/Augusta Chronicle |
By Scott Michaux
The Augusta Chronicle
Listen to Woods' comments
No doubt you've heard the debate. The purity of Tiger Woods' Grand Slam quest is in question.
If Woods wins the Masters Tournament this week and adds it to his string of 2000 major triumphs in the U.S. Open, British Open and PGA Championship, does that qualify as a Grand Slam?
Depending on who you talk to, it could go either way.
``I'm not going to deny this ... the harder way to accomplish a Grand Slam is in one year,'' Woods says. ``But I think if you put all four trophies on your coffee table, I think you can make a pretty good case for that, too.''
``That is ridiculous,'' counters Arnold Palmer, the man credited for defining the criteria for the modern Grand Slam in 1960. ``If he wins (the Masters), he's starting a new one, not a continuation of last year. That takes the fun out of it. That takes the kick out of winning the Grand Slam.''
Is it or isn't? It's a question that has been ringing in golf circles since August, when Woods kept his quest alive with a playoff victory over Bob May at the PGA Championship.
The problem is, there is no official definition of what constitutes a Grand Slam. Can it contain a dogleg around the winter, or must it be a straight-ahead par-4 starting on Augusta National's first tee, with out-of-bounds stakes beyond the PGA Championship?
Augusta National founder Bobby Jones is credited with the only Grand Slam in golf history, when he swept the British and U.S. opens and amateurs in 1930.
``Jones knew it,'' two-time Masters champion Ben Crenshaw said. ``When he went to the U.S. Amateur at Merion he knew it was the last leg of the slam. And he performed it.''
The modern concept of the professional Grand Slam took shape on a flight from the United States to Scotland for the 1960 British Open at St. Andrews. Palmer had already won the Masters and the U.S. Open at Cherry Hills, and he shared a thought with Pittsburgh Press golf writer Bob Drum over in-flight cocktails.
``Gee, Bob, wouldn't it be great if I would win the British Open, come back to Akron (Ohio) and win the PGA?'' Palmer said somewhere over the Atlantic Ocean. ``Wouldn't this be unique to have a Grand Slam of golf?''
Drum wrote about the concept, and the modern Grand Slam was born.
As for Palmer's flirtation: ``I lost by a shot, and that was the end of it.''
If you accept the prevailing theory that a Grand Slam constitutes one season instead of an open-ended series, then the perfect case study of Slamology should begin with Jack Nicklaus.
After all, nobody has had more opportunities at the pure slam than the man who won six Masters titles.
``I don't think I'm the guy to determine that,'' Nicklaus said. ``I mean, it is a Grand Slam. You know, a Grand Slam is winning all four of them in one year. What is your year - calendar or fiscal?''
Nicklaus considered the season instead of any 12-month period. The way Nicklaus saw it, in the 24-year span between his first Masters victory in 1963 and his last in '86, he failed to make Grand Slam bids 18 times. He got as far as the British Open in 1972, but fell one stroke short.
``That was what I thought about every year; that was my goal,'' Nicklaus said of the annual four-major mission. ``I hurt myself several times when if I didn't win at Augusta, my year was shot. ... I was geared so high for Augusta that when I didn't win it was such a disappointment that I just, you know, didn't want to play.''
Nicklaus dusted himself off enough from the disappointment to manage to win 12 other majors, but the point remains. Whether it's officially defined or not, players know what's at stake when they start the major championship season at Augusta. After the Masters, only one player has the chance to win the Grand Slam that season.
``You've got to do that in one year because you know you have to do it in one year,'' Crenshaw said. ``That's part of the equation. It deserves to get put in a box by itself, but it's still not a slam. A slam is what it is - a slam is in one season.''
The funny thing is, Woods himself doesn't seem totally sold on the notion that a victory this week would give him the Grand Slam. A Slam by any other name, certainly, but a pure Grand Slam doesn't trip off his tongue so easily.
``I'm not saying they're wrong,'' Woods says of the feelings of his elders regarding the slam status. ``Everyone is entitled to their opinion. ... My views are slightly different than theirs.''
The fact is, Woods has never really said emphatically, ``If I win the Masters, I win the Grand Slam.'' He merely implies as much.
When Woods was approaching Byron Nelson's record streak of 11 consecutive victories in 1999-2000, he pointed out the significance of Nelson doing all in one season instead of spanning two years.
Some say that gives a glimpse of what Woods truly believes in his heart regarding the seasonal nature of the Grand Slam.
``He has an appreciation of the pure Grand Slam,'' said veteran golf columnist Bob Verdi. ``I don't think Tiger Woods has to worry about any asterisks. I don't think he needs his to be tarnished by a few critics. It would be unbelievable to hold all four. In time Tiger might not have to worry about carrying it over.''
Whatever it is called, the potential for Woods to sweep all four consecutive majors leaves everybody groping for words.
``It's an unbelievable achievement,'' said Darren Clarke. ``If he wants to call it the Grand Slam, he has every right to do so, because he deserves it if he wins all four.''
``It will be grand, but it's not a Grand Slam,'' said Golf magazine writer Mike Purkey. ``What it will be is the grandest event in modern golf.''
Maybe the only way to settle the debate once and for all would be through impartial mediation, not the media.
To gauge the value of Woods' proposed feat, Caesar's Palace sports book manager Bill Kane weighed in on the subject.
``Usually on proposition wagers, it would have to be completed by a specific date,'' Kane said. ``Whoever puts it up, it would have to be done in that year, period.''
So if anyone tried to collect on any Grand Slam bets come Monday?
``I think I'd have to go with Arnie and Jack and say, `Sorry, it's not a slam,''' Kane said.
| SLAM OR SHAM? |
|---|
| Here's what some are saying about Tiger's probable Grand Slam |
| ``If he's holding all four, that would be an unbelievable feat. Whether or not the traditionalists say it is, I don't know, because it's not all one season. I sit on the fence.'' - Darren Clarke |
| ``No way, Jose. You've got to win them all in one year. That doesn't take a thing away from him. But that just doesn't cut any beans.'' - Arnold Palmer |
| ``If I had all four trophies at home I'd be saying, `I'm it.' No one else is going to do it in the next hundred years. If he doesn't do it this year, he'll do it sometime soon. Why not? That's all he gears his game for.'' - Rocco Mediate |
| ``It would be an incredible accomplishment if he does win the Masters. But a single season constitutes a Grand Slam.'' - Ben Crenshaw |
| ``I don't think it's the Grand Slam in the way we've all kind of imagined that to be. I still believe it has to happen in one season. It would be a tremendous accomplishment but I still think there would be higher stakes ahead for him to one day try to achieve it all in one season.'' - Jim Nantz, CBS commentator |
| ``I think he's going to do it just to make our lives (in the media) miserable. So we have to figure out what to call it. I'm saying it's not.'' - Ron Sirak, Golf World executive editor |
| ``He has an appreciation of the pure Grand Slam. I don't think Tiger Woods has to worry about any asterisks. I don't think he needs his to be tarnished by a few critics. It would be unbelievable to hold all four. In time Tiger might not have to worry about carrying it over.'' - Bob Verdi, Golf World columnist |
| ``It should be a calendar year. That's the way it is in history. Why do you want to rewrite history?'' - Fuzzy Zoeller |
| ``If I held all four majors, if you put all four on top of the table and say I hold all of them, that's a Grand Slam.'' - Colin Montgomerie |
| ``Personally, as a fan, I think it's pretty compelling to win four major championships in a row. Is that the Grand Slam? I don't have a regulation anywhere that says what the Grand Slam is. That's up to you all to argue about.'' - Tim Finchem, PGA Tour commissioner |
| ``Four in a row? Absolutely. Even though it's not in the same year, I would say that would be a slam in my book.'' - Greg Norman |
| |
| Related information |
| Multimedia |
 Visit Video Plus for the latest audio and video
|
| Search our site |
Watch CNN/SI 24 hours a day |
|
|
Sports Illustrated and CNN have combined to form a 24 hour sports news and information channel. To receive CNN/SI at your home call your cable operator or DirecTV. |
| 
