Jack Nicklaus - Golf Channel 12 Days of Instruction 2010
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 08. 2024
- Jack Nicklaus with David Marr III in Golf Channel's 12 Days of Instruction. Jack discusses several aspects of playing golf including mental toughness, grip, alignment, and features a tip from Golf My Way DVD.
Golf My Way DVD is now available on Amazon.com or at golfmyway.nickl...
11 times out of 10, Jack is the greatest!
Until someone gets to 18 majors, 19 second places, 54 times in the top 5, and 73 times in the top 10. Amazing record against really tough competition, many future Hall of Famers!
He's just a class act both on and off the golf course!
Luke Mcgarty
but boring though.
Jack, at age 77, shot par 72 at Augusta after two hip replacement surgeries. The guy is/was/and always will be amazing. Jack could work the ball anyway he wanted to although he was a natural fader. I watched him do it many times on the course. He was just as good of ball striker as Hogan. IMO
His explanation is so perfectly simple and effective and he articulates so well. His explanations truly make sense and it’s no wonder why he was so successful. His fundamentals are so ingrained and his swing didn’t really allow for any catastrophic error - no wonder this dude was so dominate for so many years!
He actually gives some of the best advice a person is capable of giving. In his book "Golf My Way" he clearly states that nobody should try to emulate his swing or techniques but to use his advice to help yourself create your own swing. Everyones swing should be unique in his/her own way. Learning about yourself is the most important quality of a golfer in my opinion
Jackbuck, That tip from Arnie was the greatest. You are the BEST ever. Thanks, Jim G.
Jack ,I was my uncles caddy when you beat him in the district amateur late 50's ,cols.
Carl Mengali my uncle and I truly admired your abilities.
Hi Randolph, I'm Jack's nephew. He says he remembers your uncle Carl and thought he was a good competitor. Wanted you to know!
@@moderoy My wife went to Arlington HS with Jack and we lived in Arlington until 79 when we moved to Corpus, the last time I saw Jack was University hospital his dad and my dad were in the hospital and we met on the way to see our dads.Still remember he gad his yellow golden bear sweater on.The last time I saw Barbara was at the Dairy Queen on West Fifth ave. she was driving a red and white Ford convertible and was as pretty as a picture.I also used to watch Jack practice at Scioto C C after I finished the day as a caddy. I have a lot of good memories of those years in Cols and
feel fortunate to have been there at that place and time.If you are ever near Corpus let me know.
Randolph Snyder
956 605 1904
Fascinating insight into Jack's way of playing/thinking.
This guy definitely is the greatest. He learned everything by feel and trial/error.
I've watched so many videos... only to give myself some-what of an idea of basics.
Once you get those basics, you have to put in the time. Overcome the frustrations.
The result is utterly amazing. Put your heart into it, and you'll be rewarded beyond anything money can buy.
That was fun to watch any time you can pick up a little knowledge from Jack Nicklaus is a good day in my book ..Thanks
Yup, that's part of the brilliance. Which is why it's the fundamentals that matter. Any great teacher or player-teacher will tell you not to try to make your swing look like theirs superficially, but to adhere to the core fundamentals and not worry whether the result looks similar. That's the problem with so much position-oriented instruction today; the point seems to be to give the swing a specific "look," with the quality of ballstriking being secondary or altogether forgotten.
Jack's aiming method is my favourite golf tip too, simple but very effective.
Love the Arnold Palmer story, that's what makes golf the great game that it is ☺
Great Sage Practices!
(part 4:)
A great teacher is usually balanced, and usually refuses to be pinned to any version of a "method" that focuses on one aspect of the swing to the exclusion of the others. But a great player may have something he's really working on at any given point in his career, to the exclusion of other things, just because that's what he needs at the moment. Nicklaus typically avoided such imbalances, but there will always be nuances with any player that need to be adjusted periodically.
Notice at 7:41 he starts the back swing by moving his right hip back. It moves before the club starts to move. Ben Hogan did the same thing.
Teaching is an art and a skill in itself. Everyone has to make a living. But I rather listen to a player, Nicklaus or Woods no less, over most teachers.
(part 2:)
...where he was too upright and released the club too little with the hands, so his swing had become more of a shove, off-plane and steep, with little "snap" to it. So he went through a period of consciously releasing earlier and more fully. Then, within a few years, he had to readjust a little back the other way, when he thought he was getting too handsy.
If you ask him in two more years, he might say he's trying to tone down the right hand. It's a game of constant adjustments.
Solid with the left and touch of the right. Yahoo!
Nice video; interesting advice on putting off the green arnold gave him years ago; i remember watching a video where Lee's advised chipping
jack nicklaus really putting the heat on a shot
(part 4:) Point is, it doesn't matter how good they look, how uniform the swings tend to be now, how the rough hardly ever embarrasses them (once in a while at a U.S. Open, usually not even then). It matters how well the top competition plays the courses. And when you look at comparative scores on similar courses, factoring in conditions (particularly rough and greens), game-improvement aspects of equipment, try to control for similar irons hit into greens... (ct'd)
Faldo, Azinger, Price all admitted to quitting because they could not compete with Tiger. Yes they were all older, but you didn't see Arnie use that excuse even though he was in the same position in his career as those three when it came to Jack. Jack himself has stated that the fields today are much better overall than any he faced. Perhaps there aren't "stars" but when there is this much talent it's hard to pick one.
Yeah, there's a lot of apparent contradictions with any great player or teacher like that. If you read him enough, I think you'll find that the resolution on this particular matter is that he doesn't feel himself using the hands to release actively _by themselves_, without the other parts working.
It's also true that you're taking comments from two different points in his career. He famously had a midcareer swing change in which he had to admit that he had gotten to the point... (ct'd)
I don't think anyone has more 2nd place finishes than Jack. Not only did he win all those tournaments check out how many times he came in second.
For example...?
I do think you have a kernel of a point there, mostly because great players struggle to describe what it is they do; sometimes they feel something different than what's there, often that's because they have certain natural tendencies that they have to fight against that other players may not have, etc. And, as with Jack, they might center on one idea at one time in their career and then have to go back the other direction if they overdo whatever it was. (ct'd)
learn to golf from the best Golden Bear jack Nicklaus
Absolutely true, and it's also true that there are far more casual players in the game, and far too many who count on equipment to solve their problems for them rather than attaining any real level of skill. Also a lot of ridiculously stupid contradictory "method" teachers who will leave people totally confused, rather than a more-or-less accepted set of fundamentals.
I mean, it's also true that several top pros of the last 40 years cite Golf My Way as the book they cut their teeth on.
ニクラウスのゴルフマイウエイによって、ゴルフを覚えました。又昔に戻ります。色々やり過ぎました。ニクラウスは最高です。魚住。
Jack Nicklaus.... American Badass!!
(part 3:)
It's like saying a guy driving a car is "inconsistent" because he turned left one time and turned right another time, but to the driver he's just trying to get to the same place.
However, you'll find less _apparent_ inconsistency if you go straight to a great teacher rather than a great player. E.g., read whatever you can find from Jack Grout. (ct'd)
(part 4:)
Jones was just on a different planet, both technically and mentally, and he dominated the era in the same way Woods has dominated this one, both of them like a lion among sheep. Nicklaus, Hogan, Snead, and Nelson were lions among lions. Every time Trevino won a major, he had to do it against Nicklaus et al.; nearly every time Snead teed it up, he had to try to win against Hogan, Demaret, and for a while the spectacular Nelson. Quite a difference.
Of course Woods has a higher chance of winning. That's exactly my point. Who's he beating? Unless you're willing to say that his top four, or five, or ten competitors were at the level of Nicklaus's, or Hogan's, or Snead's, you're just blowing smoke. What all-time great has Woods had to beat? Which _four_ or _five_ all-time greats? Also, you seem to be implying that Nicklaus didn't play Trevino, Palmer, Player, Casper, Miller, Watson, et al. in their prime. Are you serious?
What a man..amazing tips
(part 6:) And that's how you really measure it -- player against course.
None of this is to disparage Woods' ability to score. It's just that he is really the only person out there with the kind of competitive ability and mental strength, week in and week out, that the top five or 10 guys used to have. He breathes on them, mostly they fall down, for the past 17 years. I could go into incidents like the U.S. Open at Torrey Pines et al. as illustrative, but anyway. (ct'd)
He would hit it a mile and had a slightly weak grip. Amazing
Yeah, true. If you intend to hit a bit of a block-fade as your stock shot, it helps, but if not, then not so much. For the average amateur who already doesn't release the club well, who already hangs on too much through impact, it's almost certainly going to be counterproductive.
If anybody remembers Dave Marr -- a really fine player in his own right -- you'll see how much his son sounds like him and even reminds you of him in profile (not so much face-on).
(part 2:)
Jack is better than most in that regard, I think, but what he says about the swing is best understood in the context of his whole career, what was going on with instruction when he started, and _especially_ in the context of what Grout was teaching him.
In other words, I think it's usually less a matter of real inconsistency and more a matter of trying to arrive at the right feel, and sometimes that takes one form and sometimes another. (ct'd)
(part 6:) And you can't take away the record because the competition wasn't any better than it was. That's not his problem. He beat who was in front of him. He dominated his generation. That's all you can do. My problem is with the people who think this necessarily makes him as good as a Nicklaus, Hogan, or Snead, who think nobody ever really played golf until Woods came along, who have the adolescent attitude that nobody was a real athlete until this generation, etc. (ct'd)
(part 5:) ...which you can do some of the time because of the lengthening of some courses (e.g., at the Masters, where because of absurd equipment changes, you had players hitting 8- and 9-iron into #15 instead of 4 or 5), and the no-fear all-exempt birdiefest structure, and you ought to have course records and tournament records set every week, but you don't. The leaders in stroke average are something like one and a half strokes lower than 40 years ago. (ct'd)
(part 3:) "Athletically"? What's your standard? Nicklaus was a sprinter who ran a time that still would've been 5th in the state LAST YEAR. He was a basketball star who played freshman ball at Ohio State. Also was very good at football and baseball (a catcher). Snead was offered scholarships in five sports and could run the 100 in ten seconds flat, a time that would've put him into an Olympic training camp if that had been his aim. So, yeah, glad you brought up "athleticism." (ct'd)
(part 3:) I mean, unless somebody wants to take Woods' top four rivals and play Jack's top four, ten times for your house and car. You get Mickelson, Singh, McIlroy, Els. I get Palmer, Trevino, Watson, and maybe Casper (51 wins during the prime years of Nicklaus, Palmer, and Trevino). I'm not saying Woods' top rivals aren't talented. They are. But as competitors, as for mental toughness of player-on-course, it's not close.
(ct'd)
(part 7:) And secondarily, it's with the people who don't think character matters in this game, and give him a pass on that count, applying the "who cares?" standard used in every other professional sport to a game whose roots are not in mass-media-and-money-driven pro sports, as if there were some reason to do that. (ct'd)
The left hand grip instruction is the most important. Amateurs always get the left-hand grip too much in their fingers.
Also lucky he doesn't have Palmer, Player, Casper, Trevino, Watson, et al. to beat. The "deep field today" talk is just a bunch of breathless marketing hype. (What else is the PGA Tour gonna do -- tell you there are about 70 to 100 marginal players who are able to have careers only because the money runs so deep now, because of equipment improvements, etc.?) It doesn't matter how many Tag Ridingses and Daniel Chopras there are in that "deep field"; (ct'd)
(part 8:) ...which still matters to those who care about the best traditions of the game. But strictly as a scorer and winner of tournaments, yeah, you'd have to put him with the all-timers, even if he doesn't surpass Snead for total wins or Nicklaus for majors, simply because he's won all four majors and clearly been the best player of his generation -- a talented but soft generation, but that's not his fault.
Say and think what you want about Jackie but he sure knew how to kick ass on the golf course
(part 3:)
...We'll play 10 matches and see how things turn out.
Woods' career is more like Bobby Jones' in terms of the level of competition. Jones' competition had some talent, of course, but they were mostly a bunch of rich amateurs in a society they liked, without any particular urgency to win. (ct'd)
Agree on most points but Bobby had Cyril tolley Walter Hagen gene sarazen Francis quemet wrong spelling Tommy armour. I could go on. Jones retired at age 28 so well never know how great he could have been
The Greatest.........The End
funny about the grip mo Norman had a palm grip who is right two great players with palm grip ?
Yeah, I just love all those categories that absolutely nobody ever talked about in the history of the game (win rate, higher percentage, tied with age and majors, on and on), until categories needed to be invented for people who insisted that Tiger _must_ be thought of as the best ever.
Part of the problem with this kind of analysis is that it presumes an at-least-even quality of field between then and now, which just isn't true at all. It completely ignores the fact.. (ct'd)
@4:38 mike malaska spotted.. great teacher..
What Jack says here at 10:30 and following is exactly why Norman lost the Masters in '96 and why Nicklaus almost surely would've won it from the same position. Norman is underrated among great players as far as I'm concerned, and I'm a fan, but the "I can tell the difference between 105 and 107, I can make one happen rather than the other, and I don't need any margin for error" approach just killed him on that day and on others from time to time. That level of confidence is good in a way, but it can destroy you in a situation where a sober, objective evaluation of reality is needed.
Thanks
ehh...I know. what are you getting at? there was no mention of tiger, i was talking about jack.
Which all-time greats gave up when Tiger hit the stage, exactly?
I don't even know what point you're making when you say you'd match these guys "athletically" with the great names. You have missed the point anyway. I'm not equating Jerry Kelly with Els et al. I'm saying that the "deeper" fields so constantly referred to by the Tour marketing staff include mostly guys who are _not_ Woods' top competition, and that it's really only the top competition that matters.
"I chipped just cause he was there." Hahaha that's why he's the greatest!
Jack never ducks a question, or "big times" anyone (unlike Greg Norman). Such a sincere, plainspoken man. Great.
Mid Western roots!
jack could you please take your time and give reagan fitzgibbons a shout out on his golf channel
I watched the "Golf My WAy" videos and they drove me nuts. They are not bad instruction, but just don't make the mistake of trying to swing so very upright as Jack does I tried Jack's swing for 3 years until I finally wised up and got on the Hogan train of thought.
+dedicated2WHOiLove
And in those videos it shows how Jack doesn't go "down the line" at all after impact, which is proof that he was the king of tempo and timing. So I'd advise most of us to go with a trap down the line rather than go crazy trying to do something that only pros with thousands of practice balls can do.
+dedicated2WHOiLove basically the male Mikey Wright
dedicated2WHOiLove
He does say not to copy his swing, but apply the fundamentals to what you are able to do within your physical abilities. Lot's of people can't swing like Hogan suggested either. His book "5 Lessons" were better suited for those fighting a bad hook.
He swings so hard
@Dreama40 he won a us amateur which is also considered a major by some
Once you have a solid foundation then you are on your own finding your swing there are no rules how to swing but rules how to build a solid foundation.
(part 2:)
...it matters only who the top competition is. It's a talented and skilled bunch, but it's a soft bunch compared to the guys Nicklaus, Hogan, and Snead used to have to beat. Woods is the only guy out there with the kind of mental toughness and urgency to win that used to be seen in _all_ of the top 15 or 20 players. Bring the top four rivals from Woods' career -- maybe Mickelson, Singh, Els, and McIlroy? -- and I'll take Palmer, Player, Watson, and Trevino... (ct'd)
(part 2:) ...that Jack's top competition was far better, and that's the relevant comparison, because it doesn't matter how many Jerry Kellys and Kevin Streelmans and Bob Estes there are today who can become multimillionaires while being nowhere near as tough or as good as even a Floyd or Irwin, let alone a Trevino, Palmer, Player, or Watson. All the money in the game does is to make it more possible for the field to be bigger, not better, for the pay to extend further. (ct'd)
(part 5:) ...I don't even think it's the right question to ask. If Woods passes Nicklaus for most majors, then he has the title of record-holder for most professional majors. If he passes Snead for total PGA wins, then he'll have that. Whether somebody is "better" or not is indeterminate. All you can measure is who wins. That's part of the beauty of the game. If Woods passes both of them, then he'll own the records, period. It's not his fault that the field is so soft. (ct'd)
The aiming bit only works if you are trying to hit a dead straight shot....surely?
In your adolescent-level dreams.
He's right about the hook it's an awful disease.
I've always thought for some reason that the players with the most potential are still the ones that hook the ball over the ones that slice it. I think it is definitely easier to fix a slice over a hook, but as far as which player has more potential, I have to say it is the ones that hook it.
If you hear from the best golfers of all time, they often say they had a bad hook that they had to correct.
It is hard work to correct, but once you get there...
@3:33> "Lemonade Left" really?!?!...how do i switch off the sub-titles??
18 majors, 18 second place in majors. Wow ! Tiger is just lucky he's not chasing a 25-30 major wins record !
Doesn't matter it could be 15 he still gonna be short
Actual records in majors are as follows. Something that will never be equaled again.
1st - 18 times
2nd 19 times
Top 5 - 56 times (that's almost 14 years worth of majors)
Top 10 - 73 Times (that's almost 18 years worth of majors)
Case closed as to who is the greatest champion ever!
is his son nick o'leary
+Da Moo Goes Cow his grandson
He's just saying he wants his hands in a powerful position, not that he's advocating a handsy swing.
i made👍Like 999!!..
(part 4:) Or are you talking about how Tiger et al. "look like" better athletes, maybe?
I have no idea what you mean by "pure number of how many are that good." If you're talking about the number of players who can get rich playing golf without actually becoming anywhere near top players, I've already covered that.
It is you who don't know what you're talking about. Sorry. And they are not equals. Removing the character question for the moment (which is wrong in the end), ... (ct'd)
i love how he contradicts ALL modern grip theories, best golfer EVER but they think he is wrong.....................answer's on a postcard.
+Enrico Palatzo he's nearly 80 lol
+Enrico Palatzo Freddie couples bad shot is a hook . And he doesn't have 18 majors, but you think jack doesn't grip it properly ........LOL
+Enrico Palatzo Freddie couples is 21 years younger
+Enrico Palatzo aaah I see! It appears I'm conversing with a contradiction to Darwins theory . Never mind , and keep away from your immediate gene pool.
+Enrico Palatzo Well you see , that doesn't really relate to anything I said, good luck , I hope you get your ice-cream!
(part 7:) It's not his fault, of course. All he can do is beat who's in front of him. But he doesn't have to beat Arnold Palmer in his late prime, or Player, or Watson. He hasn't had to do that for the first 25 years of his career. He's had to beat occasional good runs from Els, Mickelson, etc., and then...oh, Rocco Mediate, and such. And he has certainly not proved himself superior against the golf courses. In that class, yes. Not superior. Not in character, certainly...
Jack grips the golf club similar to a samurai sword.
Imagine calling yourself David Marr The Third......
When will people accept that there is NO ONE WAY to do virtually anything in the golf swing. It is an idiosyncratic game. Apart from some basic similarities...so many great golfers are soooo different.
(part 8:) The conclusion is this: I am not disparaging Woods merely because I don't think he's automatically the best ever, because I think his fields were softer, or because I think there is no reason why the behavioral standards that apply to him shouldn't be the same ones that apply to every other great player in history. And the fact that his top competitors weren't of the quality that Nicklaus's were, or Hogan's or Snead's, is both provable and not Woods' fault.
stephen f I personally think it's impossible to compare generations. I suppose u could go on stats alone but that's only part of the story. Tiger Woods brought in a whole new look when it came to golf from a preparation stand point. I'm not talking just practicing. I'm referring to diet, lifting, mental toughness, and so on. However every great golfer in history has elevated the game to new levels. I've heard many of the old greats say that they aren't sure if they could compete with this new generation of golfers. I however disagree, from an equipment stand point alone they had to b far more precise than today's golfers. Tiger Woods did something nobody has done before, made the game more desirable to play, that's just my opinion of course. I loved watching Tiger play but I find myself watching old videos of Tom Watson, something about that man and his game is really enjoyable for me to watch. Winning that many opens, arguably the toughest test of golf, says a lot about the man's mental state and ability.
Stephen you are right on both points jack Nicklaus and Bobby Jones are the two best golfers of all time
can't wait to see tiger whorly-bird a golf club into the crowd after a bad shot. trust me, it's coming!
Well, let's take one thing at a time, shall we? No, it doesn't matter how much "better" these guys are swingwise, because the object of the game is to shoot low and win tournaments. Besides, if you think you're going to make the case that, say, Hogan, Snead, or Nicklaus had an inferior swing to these guys, it's pretty much you who have the extreme burden of proof. Almost everything taught about the swing these days has its roots in Hogan, Nicklaus, et al. (ct'd)
19 2nds
no wonder average handicaps have not come down in decades.In Jacks book "Golf My Way" he makes a point of saying that in his swing the hands are "free agents" , just "along for the ride. "I do not consciously use them to apply power".Given the chance they "are limelight hoggers" and will "ruin the swing".In this video (at about 4min20sec) he says that he tries to hit the ball as hard as he can with the right. Grrrrrrrrrrrrr
G
oh so Jacks won 19 majors, that means Tigers won17, only 2 to equal him and 3 to surpass his record.
Tiger record in majors are as follows
1st place - 15 times
2nd place - 7 times
Top 5 - 33 times
Top 10 - 41
As you can see, Jack clearly has out performed Tiger in the most important golf tournaments, not even close!
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
All tournaments are just another tournament and your going to win if you have the touch that week even with your long drives...indianjimmy on youtube
thanks boss 4:0 mi in
so? tiger has 3 us amateurs....
Stay away from the gimmick instructions commonly found on CZcams, watch old pros giving instructions - probably save you 2 years of frustration
19 majors?
(part 2:) This "great swing" obsession is ridiculous anyway. I used to see (when I was teaching) endless swings that were "good" in terms of how they looked, from guys who couldn't hit the ball at all; or if they could, they couldn't score; or if they could score sometimes, they couldn't win. An effective swing is an entry-level requirement, not a standard. There are more _similar_-looking swings today, sure. More orthodox swings. Again...just check the scores, and adjust for conditions.
He explains one thing and does another. All the respect for Nicklaus for his achievements as a golfer, but as a teacher I would not want lessons from him. :D
Good grief, whiner. How am I "not allowing the conversation to happen"? I'll refute whatever "hard data" you think you have, but you won't be open to it. I'm not blindly stating anything. The actual statistics of performances on specific golf courses support my point, not yours. I'm absolutely willing to post all of it on a "public message board" and have you embarrass yourself, if you want.
So? Tiger is better
His ugly swing gets a lot of leeway for the results it produced. #aesthetics dont win tourneys.
Ugly swing? You need to see an Optometrist.
steep swing, flying elbow, collapsing knees, closed clubhead, circling clubhead on the follow thru.....lots of respect but lots of asskissing going on.
Why do some people insist on reaffirming their stupidity? The golf swing of Jack Nicklaus throughout his career was incredible. Flying elbow? Yes. Nothing unappealing in seeing a flying elbow. Jack's swing was a power swing. Head still, hips cleared, parallel at the top. Certainly not a damn closed club head, nor a circling club head. I take it back. You don't need to see an optometrist, rather a neurologist.
still ugg
You are an absolute moron.
Shame he was such a boring personality.
Dick
@@stevejackson9173 He's not boring. You just worship stupid narcissists