Golf lesson

Jack Nicklaus – Golf Channel 12 Days of Instruction 2010

Posted on by Pedro Dodson

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 http://golfmyway.nicklaus.com

You may also like

39 thoughts on “Jack Nicklaus – Golf Channel 12 Days of Instruction 2010”

  3. hi everyone ,if anyone else needs to find out about online golf instruction
    try Boshapra Instant Golfer Boffin (do a search on google ) ? Ive heard
    some super things about it and my cousin got amazing results with it. 

  5. Interesting! He has adopted Moe Norman’s grip!!!

    The only time I have ever hit a long ball, 290 yds straight, was using the
    Moe (and Nicklaus) grip. Can’t yet duplicate it but this is the one I’m
    going to use from now on.

  6. 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

  8. Nice video; interesting advice on putting off the green arnold gave him
    years ago; i remember watching a video where Lee’s advised chipping

  10. (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.

  11. (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)

  13. (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)

  14. (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)

  16. (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)

  17. (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)

  18. 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.

  20. 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

  22. 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. 😀

  23. (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)

  24. Higher percentage of wins, more total wins, 23 more wins through 300
    starts, 9 cuts missed to 85, higher percentage of top 3, higher percentage
    of cuts made, many other stats that could be talked about. Aside from total
    majors won (they are currently tied with age and majors), Tiger does look
    to be the better golfer. Jack was great, I think we could call it 1 and 1A.

  25. (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.

  27. (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.

  28. (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…

  30. On top of that, with those stats it proves that with every tournament Tiger
    plays he has a higher chance of winning then did Jack, even with slightly
    weaker fields. And yes, it’s nice to reminisce about the older players, but
    everyone groups them together like they were all playing at the same time.
    That was simply not true, they were not only not playing at the same time,
    but nowhere near prime playing condition at the same time. Simply un-true.
    I was giving you an out by saying 1 and 1A.

  31. 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?

  33. Hey, uncalled for you brute bastard? I am a ***FREE INDIVIDUAL***
    expressing my ***free minds*** . you should RESPECT THAT and my faith in
    ALLAH

  34. (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)

  35. (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)

  36. 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.

  39. (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.

Leave a Reply