To Slam or Not to Slam? That Is Tiger’s Question

Congratulations to Tiger Woods. He has all four majors on his trophy shelf. Unfortunately, he did it over two years. Tiger, and half the world, including Jim Nantz, have themselves convinced he has won the Grand Slam. Wake up and smell the coffee, folks, Tiger needs to win the next three majors this year for it to be a Grand Slam.

Which I’m quite sure he will. Until then, please don’t help him. He doesn’t need it.

D.S. ADAM

Newhall

*

Bay Hill, the Players and finally the Masters; will Tiger’s “slump” never end?

R.J. DEAKINS

Temecula

*

Some people are calling Tiger’s winning four consecutive majors the Grand Slam.

Let’s suppose that is the case. If he wins the next U.S. Open, will he then have won another Grand Slam? After all, it will be his fourth consecutive major victory. Let’s assume he goes on to win this year’s British Open and PGA Championship. He will have won four Grand Slams in one calendar year!

Let’s call his feat of winning four consecutive majors what it truly is: an amazing accomplishment by a superb athlete. But let’s wait until he actually wins them all in the same year before calling it a Grand Slam.

TOM DE LUCA

Manhattan Beach

*

What we all witnessed Sunday at the Masters wasn’t about trying to figure out if this was the cap on a true Grand Slam. It was about tight competition and golfing history unfolding before our very eyes. Why quibble over defining what the slam really is? First and foremost, Tiger was victorious. He beat the best in the world in David Duval and Phil Mickelson, among others. Worrying about if this constitutes a true slam is secondary.

This merely shows us just how special Tiger is. Sure, his last four major wins weren’t over a calendar year. Nevertheless, he has all four current trophies in his possession. He did it his way. Unconventional, but his way. Eventually maybe he will achieve the true slam. Hey, he’s only 25.

One thing for sure, you can’t merely slap a Post-It label on greatness. Grand Slam, Consecutive Slam, Big Slam, Slammin’ Slam, Tiger Slam . . . whatever. He won, and made history. That’s all that counts.

MARK J. FEATHERSTONE

Windsor Hills

*

First of all, Tiger is amazing. It was an honor just watching him. Enough said.

Phil Mickelson showed great class in defeat in acknowledging that he had made a couple of mistakes that cost him the tournament. No excuses.

David Duval. Once again, never willing to admit that he is, at best, second best.

CHARLES RICO

La Puente

*

Jack Nicklaus has become the latest golfer to hail Tiger Woods’ four major golf tournament victories in 12 months as perhaps the greatest achievement in sports history. Perhaps they have been conditioned by the width of their fairways, but these guys seem to have narrow vision.

Can the great Tiger’s triumphs match Johnny Vander Meer’s two successive no-hitters? Ty Cobb averaging .367 over 24 years? Emil Zatopek winning the 5,000 and 10,000 meter races and the marathon during one Olympics? Joe Louis defeating all comers during 11 years as heavyweight champion? Jim Brown averaging 5.9 yards a carry for nine seasons? Cy Young averaging 23 wins a year for 22 consecutive years? Not to mention Henry Aaron and the Babe.

C’mon guys, a little perspective.

GORDON COHN

Long Beach

*

For those of you who just might have watched Matt Lauer’s “Headlines & Legends” on Monday night on the life and times of Tiger Woods, the only thing missing was why does Tiger continue to use bridges on all the water holes, instead of just walking across the water to get to the green?

RON COOPER

La Crescenta

*

I was raised on watching Jack Nicklaus and have admired his tremendous skills and his gentlemanly ways. However, his complaints about the technology of the game today and how it is ruining golf were quite disturbing. So was his timing (minutes after Tiger Woods won the Masters).

When Nicklaus burst on the scene and was hitting 300-yard drives at Augusta, did anyone complain about the golf ball or the steel shafts he was using? I am sure some of the old-timers back then who had used wood shafts and a different ball also could have stepped up and yelped. I think Jack should resign himself to the fact that today’s golfers are stronger and, like he did back then, have better equipment.

ANDREW PEPPER

Sherman Oaks

*

The thing you have to hate the most about Tiger Woods is that he doesn’t have to sneak out of work to play.

GARY DURRETT

Glendale