If Tiger is credited for 24 consecutive cuts at the Masters then Hogan should be credited with 3 consecutive U.S. Open wins

[Hawkeye77]

1 hour ago, nyytmarelol said:

there are no women on the internet

Not according to my spam folder. 

[PedronNiall]

1 hour ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Not according to my spam folder. 

 

[naval2006]

Technically consecutive for a tournament and consecutive for a player are a different thing.  The media will use it interchangeably to catch the audience.  Only serious fans, WRXs or purists will argue.  The majority of viewers will take it unquestionably.  

 

On Tiger's Slam, well it's Tiger's Slam.  A feat that will not likely be repeated.  

[Pepperturbo]

17 hours ago, redfirebird08 said:

If it’s so easy, why has nobody else been able to do it? 8 months is a long time to keep your game in good enough shape to win a 4th straight major. Look at what happened to Scheffler in 2022 or Rahm in 2023. They were super hot from January to April and then won jack squat the rest of the year after winning The Masters in April of those 2 years. 

I never said it was easy...  Easy or hard has nothing to do with what I said.

[wedgegame]

It probably only make sense to me, but making a cut is something multiple players can do in any given tournament whereas winning only one player can do.  As a result the bar for considering consecutive wins vs cuts made should be different.

[Chunkitgood]

18 hours ago, nyytmarelol said:

a bunch of grown men arguing that winning 4 majors in a row isn't a grand slam. one of the threads of all time I'd say.

While some degree of ontological necessity of the meanings of words has been conjectured, it is generally accepted that such meanings are largely conventional, and words simply mean what they are generally thought to mean. Of course, over time such meanings have changed through a process which when spontaneous might be called evolution.  Linguists probably have a name for the process.

 

On the other hand, when people knowingly use words to mean something other than their conventional meaning, it might fall into one of two categories, one of which is hyperbole, in which the divergent meaning is expected to be understood by the listener as such with no intent to attach any permanence to it.  The other, in which someone knowingly uses words outside their conventional sense in order to further his own purposes is generally known as lying, fraud, misrepresentation, etc. which activities are often subsumed and justified under the itself divergent usage of the term “hype.”

 

Thus when someone says Woods was the greatest golfer ever, he may be right, or he may be wrong, but he is using words as conventionally understood.  Ditto saying he won four majors in a row.  
 

To say he’s a golfing diety would be hyperbole.  No deception intended.

 

To say he accomplished the Grand Slam would be using words which have a conventional meaning in a sense other than that meaning.  If done knowingly, which we must assume to be the case for sports journalists and such, it is conduct of a sort almost universally reprobated.

 

In the golf business, it is known as “growing the game.”

 

The OP’s premise that Woods should be credited with the making the most consecutive Masters cuts is of course incorrect.  The actual record of 23 seems to be held by Player.

[jonsnow]

20 hours ago, Pepperturbo said:

Yep.

 

There's Tiger overlapping slam and then fact slam.  The distorted media glosses over facts so often, they are causing lazy and ignorant people to think conjecture and fact are one and the same... pretty sad IMO.

Kind of like "opinion" and "truth". I think it's funny when I hear someone say they are speaking their truth; no, you're speaking your opinion. You don't get to have your own truth separate from THE truth.

 

Edited April 26 by jonsnow

[Ty_Webb]

And now I have Ali G in my head...

[bscinstnct]

1 hour ago, Chunkitgood said:

While some degree of ontological necessity of the meanings of words has been conjectured, it is generally accepted that such meanings are largely conventional, and words simply mean what they are generally thought to mean. Of course, over time such meanings have changed through a process which when spontaneous might be called evolution.  Linguists probably have a name for the process.

 

On the other hand, when people knowingly use words to mean something other than their conventional meaning, it might fall into one of two categories, one of which is hyperbole, in which the divergent meaning is expected to be understood by the listener as such with no intent to attach any permanence to it.  The other, in which someone knowingly uses words outside their conventional sense in order to further his own purposes is generally known as lying, fraud, misrepresentation, etc. which activities are often subsumed and justified under the itself divergent usage of the term “hype.”

 

Thus when someone says Woods was the greatest golfer ever, he may be right, or he may be wrong, but he is using words as conventionally understood.  Ditto saying he won four majors in a row.  
 

To say he’s a golfing diety would be hyperbole.  No deception intended.

 

To say he accomplished the Grand Slam would be using words which have a conventional meaning in a sense other than that meaning.  If done knowingly, which we must assume to be the case for sports journalists and such, it is conduct of a sort almost universally reprobated.

 

In the golf business, it is known as “growing the game.”

 

The OP’s premise that Woods should be credited with the making the most consecutive Masters cuts is of course incorrect.  The actual record of 23 seems to be held by Player.

 

“To say he’s a golfing diety would be hyperbole.”

 

4 Majors and The Players in a row = Golf God. 
 

Or preternatural for those who may be agnostic with respect to the existence of golf divinity. 

 

It’s far beyond the comprehension much less the attainment of the mortals walking the courses like ants beneath the aura of the all powerful Sun Day Red. 
 

How’s that for “hyperbole”? 🤣

 

 

[Shilgy]

3 hours ago, Chunkitgood said:

While some degree of ontological necessity of the meanings of words has been conjectured, it is generally accepted that such meanings are largely conventional, and words simply mean what they are generally thought to mean. Of course, over time such meanings have changed through a process which when spontaneous might be called evolution.  Linguists probably have a name for the process.

 

On the other hand, when people knowingly use words to mean something other than their conventional meaning, it might fall into one of two categories, one of which is hyperbole, in which the divergent meaning is expected to be understood by the listener as such with no intent to attach any permanence to it.  The other, in which someone knowingly uses words outside their conventional sense in order to further his own purposes is generally known as lying, fraud, misrepresentation, etc. which activities are often subsumed and justified under the itself divergent usage of the term “hype.”

 

Thus when someone says Woods was the greatest golfer ever, he may be right, or he may be wrong, but he is using words as conventionally understood.  Ditto saying he won four majors in a row.  
 

To say he’s a golfing diety would be hyperbole.  No deception intended.

 

To say he accomplished the Grand Slam would be using words which have a conventional meaning in a sense other than that meaning.  If done knowingly, which we must assume to be the case for sports journalists and such, it is conduct of a sort almost universally reprobated.

 

In the golf business, it is known as “growing the game.”

 

The OP’s premise that Woods should be credited with the making the most consecutive Masters cuts is of course incorrect.  The record of 23 seems to be held by Player.

Why does he get a year off in your mind and not Woods?  Player did not play in 1973. He made the cut in 14 consecutive…missed a year…then made 9 more.

[dono]

From the 1973 Masters Wiki, so I am guessing injury exemption? I understand for some reason(s) he is the only winner that is not a member of the Masters? Someone on here will know.

 

Gary Player played in 52 Masters from 1957 through 2009;^[5] and missed only this one, to recover from leg and abdominal surgery.^[6][7][8] He returned in 1974 to win the second of his three green jackets.

Edited April 26 by dono

[Valtiel]

On 4/25/2024 at 2:38 PM, Shilgy said:

For his personal record yes, he won three straight. For record book purposes he did not as there was a US Open played in 1949.

Yeah this is where the idea for this thread should have died unfortunately, heh. 

Cuts are a personal record; you make or miss them based on whether or not you play and no one else is involved in them. Wins and their consecutiveness are a public record based on what WAS actually played whether or not you were there. 

Ben Hogan can't be credited with winning three consecutive tournaments across a span of four with Cary right there in the Middlecoff. 😅

[iBanesto]

4 hours ago, Valtiel said:

Yeah this is where the idea for this thread should have died unfortunately, heh. 

Cuts are a personal record; you make or miss them based on whether or not you play and no one else is involved in them. Wins and their consecutiveness are a public record based on what WAS actually played whether or not you were there. 

Ben Hogan can't be credited with winning three consecutive tournaments across a span of four with Cary right there in the Middlecoff. 😅

 

Very well summarised.

 

 

Middlecoff a forgotten great player.

 

Edited April 27 by iBanesto

[PedronNiall]

10 hours ago, wedgegame said:

It probably only make sense to me, but making a cut is something multiple players can do in any given tournament whereas winning only one player can do.  As a result the bar for considering consecutive wins vs cuts made should be different.

 

To be fair, they are, but they're still considered across the entirety of those who play. Tiger's consecutive cuts at The Masters just edged out the other two he was tied with, who had themselves surpassed everyone else ever to play the tournament. If it weren't significant to make every single cut every year you play any of The Majors there'd be no record as everyone would do it without issue. 

 

The cuts made is really just icing on the career cake at Augusta. Not like anyone would care much about Woods, Couples, or Player having the accomplishment if they hadn't also had their wins there. 

[Ironman_32]

Yea, this is kind of where records get fuzzy though. 

 

kind of the same thing with the total wins records of Tiger vs Snead. Some of Sneads wins that count were short events (18, 36 holes) or a very limited field. For Tiger, we don’t count his wins in the World challenge he puts on, and those are probably just as quality as some of Snead that count.

 

Also similar to when a journeyman makes it on tour at ~35 years old and is considered a rookie, or a guy makes the nfl after college and is a “rookie” but played a postgrad high school year, 3 years JUCO, 8 years of college.

 

Same as Steve Stricker winning comeback player of the year in consecutive years. 
 

end of the day they’re a records that don’t really mean much. 

[Chunkitgood]

On 4/26/2024 at 4:24 PM, Shilgy said:

Why does he get a year off in your mind and not Woods?  Player did not play in 1973. He made the cut in 14 consecutive…missed a year…then made 9 more.

Sorry, I stand corrected.

[Chunkitgood]

Consecutive seems to means in its most common sense following one another without interruption.

 

It is a poorly chosen word to describe the altogether remarkable fact (IIRC), that he made the cut in every Masters in which he ever entered, totaling 24.

[Golfnutgalen]

1 hour ago, Chunkitgood said:

Consecutive seems to means in its most common sense following one another without interruption.

 

It is a poorly chosen word to describe the altogether remarkable fact (IIRC), that he made the cut in every Masters in which he ever entered, totaling 24.

He missed the cut in the second one he attended in 1996. Made the cut the year prior so 25 total times. Never missed out after turning pro.

 

My question is how did he miss the cut in 1996? I saw the stats once and he was averaging 342 while hitting 93% of the fairways. And still he went 75 - 75 MC. My guess is he was still struggling with distance control with his irons at that point.

Edited Wednesday at 12:26 AM by Golfnutgalen

[jimecherry]

12 minutes ago, Golfnutgalen said:

He missed the cut in the second one he attended in 1996. Made the cut the year prior so 25 total times. Never missed out after turning pro.

 

My question is how did he miss the cut in 1996? I saw the stats once and he was averaging 342 while hitting 93% of the fairways. And still he went 75 - 75 MC. My guess is he was still struggling with distance control with his irons at that point.

would probably need putting and scrambling stats too considering you can lose alot of strokes at augusta on and around the greens

[LBB]

On 4/26/2024 at 11:51 AM, Valtiel said:

Yeah this is where the idea for this thread should have died unfortunately, heh. 

Cuts are a personal record; you make or miss them based on whether or not you play and no one else is involved in them. Wins and their consecutiveness are a public record based on what WAS actually played whether or not you were there. 

Ben Hogan can't be credited with winning three consecutive tournaments across a span of four with Cary right there in the Middlecoff. 😅

Agreed.  A golfer is not credited with a missed cut for an event they do not tee it up at.  You can be credited for "not winning" and event you didn't enter.

 

You can say that Chicago Bulls have never lost in 6 consecutive NBA finals in the 90s.  Factually true, because you can't lose a NBA finals series you weren't in.  But you can't say that the Chicago Bulls won 6 consecutive NBA Finals, because you certainly can "not win" a NBA Finals you never made it to.  The Houston Rockets won 2 NBA Finals between the Bulls two sets of 3 peats.

 

 

[mosesgolf]

I view Tiger's streak similar to the list below.  Doesn't get simpler than that imo.

 

https://www.mlb.com/news/longest-scoreless-inning-streaks-in-history

[Chunked]

Tigers Grand Slam, win total, consecutive cut streak, Masters cut streak and other records are examples of his dominance. If they are meaningless to you then so be it. He doesn’t get more money or take money from any other player due to these notations, however they do help paint the picture of his historic career. 

[MrDC]

Go for it, it's official now.
 

[Scotty1140]

On 4/25/2024 at 6:52 PM, Pepperturbo said:

You're welcome to that belief. 🙂

 

I like Tiger but from the school that says, it's NOT a Grand Slam...period, over it.  Touting and naming a different accomplishment as if it were equivalent doesn't make a case.  Like making a big hullabaloo over a KF guys' 57 on a very short, highly elevated track wasn't IMO comparable to 59 on a typical PGA Tour track; that's how I think.  If others don't agree, I am fine with that.  You have a good day. 

 

Everyone knows it's not a grand slam, that's why it's called the Tiger Slam.

 

Calling it the Tiger Slam is a play on the commonly known term of grand slam indicating he accomplished something similar to it. Everyone knows that.

 

Also, who exactly is claiming a KF 57 is better than a PGA Tour 59? It's like you're assuming things just so you can have an argument. 

 

 

[Pepperturbo]

Just now, Scotty1140 said:

Everyone knows it's not a grand slam, that's why it's called the Tiger Slam.

 

Calling it the Tiger Slam is a play on the commonly known term of grand slam indicating he accomplished something similar to it. Everyone knows that.

 

Also, who exactly is claiming a KF 57 is better than a PGA Tour 59? It's like you're assuming things just so you can have an argument. 

 

 

You're missing my intent.  I am not interested in arguing or whether anyone agrees; it's my opinion.  Our opinions depend on how we get there, and how much we pay attention to what's going on around us. 

 

As for the 57 vs 59, many in the media and some on here.  If you've missed the references, ole, well. 

It won't take long before people infer the Tiger Slam is just as good as Nicklaus' accomplishment and Bobby Jones.  It's easy to see how distortions take on a fact appearance.  Reason Fact Checkers came about.  

 

Note how it's gradually being reframed in the following Wikipedia description.

 

"The Grand Slam in professional golf is winning all of golf's major championships in the same calendar year. The only player who has accomplished this feat is Bobby Jones in 1930, winning the four major tournaments of that era: the British Amateur, the British Open, the United States Open, and the United States Amateur.[1] Modern variations include a Career Grand Slam: winning all of the major tournaments within a player's career and the Tiger Slam: winning four consecutive major titles but not in the same calendar year (named after Tiger Woods, the only player to accomplish the feat)."

 

In my world, close doesn't count.

[mosesgolf]

Curious to see how the sports media would reference someone doing the same thing in tennis-win the French, Wimbledon, US Open, Australian open in that order.  Only does golf have a "Tiger Slam".

Maybe there will be a Scotty Slam some day.  lol

[Ferguson]

On 4/25/2024 at 4:50 PM, golferdude54 said:

Tiger recently made his 24th consecutive cut at the Masters, and is credited for doing so despite not being able to play every year since 1997 due to injuries. He didn't play 2014, 2016, and 2017.

 

If he's getting credit for making consecutive cuts based on appearances and not years then Ben Hogan should be credited with 3 consecutive U.S. Open wins from 1948 to 1951, only missing 1949 due to recovering from a head-on Greyhound bus collision that year.

 

He won 1948, 1950, and 1951 in 3 straight appearances. Yet the USGA do not consider that as an official record, the official record is 2 consecutive U.S. Open wins by him and 5 other golfers based on years, not appearances. 

 

 

 

"If this then that" threads always end up talking about Moe Norman.

 

[Shilgy]

1 hour ago, Pepperturbo said:

You're missing my intent.  I am not interested in arguing or whether anyone agrees; it's my opinion.  Our opinions depend on how we get there, and how much we pay attention to what's going on around us. 

 

As for the 57 vs 59, many in the media and some on here.  If you've missed the references, ole, well. 

It won't take long before people infer the Tiger Slam is just as good as Nicklaus' accomplishment and Bobby Jones.  It's easy to see how distortions take on a fact appearance.  Reason Fact Checkers came about.  

 

Note how it's gradually being reframed in the following Wikipedia description.

 

"The Grand Slam in professional golf is winning all of golf's major championships in the same calendar year. The only player who has accomplished this feat is Bobby Jones in 1930, winning the four major tournaments of that era: the British Amateur, the British Open, the United States Open, and the United States Amateur.[1] Modern variations include a Career Grand Slam: winning all of the major tournaments within a player's career and the Tiger Slam: winning four consecutive major titles but not in the same calendar year (named after Tiger Woods, the only player to accomplish the feat)."

 

In my world, close doesn't count.

You do realize that what you quoted lumps the modern Slam with the Tiger Slam?  Even the Jones achievement was a creation of writers.  Were events being played with much better players than the two “major” amateur events.  Somehow because it was Jones they hyped the Ams as the equivalent of the Opens.  I would suggest it was the prevailing pro denigration of the day.

[Pepperturbo]

7 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

You do realize that what you quoted lumps the modern Slam with the Tiger Slam?  Even the Jones achievement was a creation of writers.  Were events being played with much better players than the two “major” amateur events.  Somehow because it was Jones they hyped the Ams as the equivalent of the Opens.  I would suggest it was the prevailing pro denigration of the day.

Your perception, not mine.  

[bscinstnct]

2 hours ago, Pepperturbo said:

You're missing my intent.  I am not interested in arguing or whether anyone agrees; it's my opinion.  Our opinions depend on how we get there, and how much we pay attention to what's going on around us. 

 

As for the 57 vs 59, many in the media and some on here.  If you've missed the references, ole, well. 

It won't take long before people infer the Tiger Slam is just as good as Nicklaus' accomplishment and Bobby Jones.  It's easy to see how distortions take on a fact appearance.  Reason Fact Checkers came about.  

 

Note how it's gradually being reframed in the following Wikipedia description.

 

"The Grand Slam in professional golf is winning all of golf's major championships in the same calendar year. The only player who has accomplished this feat is Bobby Jones in 1930, winning the four major tournaments of that era: the British Amateur, the British Open, the United States Open, and the United States Amateur.[1] Modern variations include a Career Grand Slam: winning all of the major tournaments within a player's career and the Tiger Slam: winning four consecutive major titles but not in the same calendar year (named after Tiger Woods, the only player to accomplish the feat)."

 

In my world, close doesn't count.

 

People are perfectly capable of assessing the significance of a player winning

 

4 modern majors and the Players in succession 

 

It needs no qualifiers or nicknames, it’s something no other player in history has done and no one else will ever be able to do. 

 

Jack never won more than 2 majors in a season, btw