PS. Krosero...as to the historical debate, while I appreciate your info, my concern is not with the origins, but with the "value" today. It is of course, all arbitrary. It could have been decided at the begining, that the "grand slam" would be something else entirely..lets say...starting at wimbledon and winning all 4 from there. That is fine, but the fact remains that winning 4 in a row, is entirely different, and statistically (and psychologically) much more probable and easier. So one can't equate the two rationally.
I hear you. The origins of the term are of interest to me as an interesting question, in itself; and because in the debate today, you often hear about how the term has been used historically.
so I'll see what else I can find historically: but I wouldn't simply say that whatever was done in the 30s is what we should do now. The origins are relevant, and tradition matters, but ultimately we have to decide for ourselves the value, as you say, of these two things: non-calendar Slams and calendar Slams.
I wouldn't say they have equal value. Winning all four titles within a calendar year is more rare than simply winning four in a row at any time (because of the calendar year requirement). And there's more pressure around a calendar Slam.
I used to wonder why the calendar year was made into such an all-important factor -- and I still understand those who feel it is arbitrary; or those who feel that too much is being made of the traditional structure of a Grand Slam. However, I find one point by Urban very persuasive: the concept of the Grand Slam is the perfect season. And the reason I think this matters is that in tennis we always talk about seasons. We're always talking about calendar years -- who was #1 for 1997, for 2003, for 1980, etc. Who had a great year, who didn't. And so on.
Anyway, that particular concept of a Grand Slam has a long history behind it in tennis. So I think that's important.
However, in sports we also talk across years. We talk about winning 5 Wimbledons in a row, for example. Not everything is about the calendar year. One season ends, and you go into the next one still the "defending champion" of certain titles; you're still thought of as the "holder." From that concept (holding a title), you can speak of holding all the titles at once, and it's a special achievement even without reference to the calendar.
You can win the USO in September, then the AO in January, and everyone can acknowledge that a streak is taking place. Even the hardcore traditionalists about the Grand Slam acknowledge that -- although I guess they do it reluctantly because they don't want to see the term "Grand Slam" suddenly being applied to a lesser achievement.
And I understand that, but the term has historically been applied across calendar years, right from the start, before Budge. What Budge did was to achieve something even beyond capturing all four titles at once: he created a perfect single season. THAT became, apparently, the exclusive definition of a Grand Slam thereafter, or at least for many decades after Budge. Which essentially left the 4-in-a-row achievement without a name.
That's where I see a problem, and I don't think it's going away. I'm happy with the modifying terms, "calendar Slam," and "non-calendar Slam." Well, they're not ideal terms. But I think it's far preferable to some other approaches. The approach that says, essentially, "there is only one way to think of the term Grand Slam", does not strike me as persuasive or productive.