Jack Nicklaus – Golf Channel 12 Days of Instruction 2010

Share it with your friends Like

Thanks! Share it with your friends!

Close

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

Comments

Da Moo Goes Cow says:

is his son nick o’leary

UnwantedExplosion says:

Hes a true pimp, “i dont wanna flick em with my fingers, i wanna hit them
with the back of my hand”

Md Rubel Hossain says:

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. 

Wanattasuk Sa-nguansiri says:

Thanks

gary rocco says:

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.

jimmy rockow says:

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

Nabyant Wagner says:

jack could you please take your time and give reagan fitzgibbons a shout
out on his golf channel

dave resko says:

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

DOD03 says:

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

stephen f says:

(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.

stephen f says:

(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)

edzick917 says:

Tiger could win 25 majors and he will never be as good as Jack- Because
Jack has CLASS!!!!!!!!

stephen f says:

(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)

stephen f says:

(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)

alexavwenz says:

not a fan of gripping it in the palm but it obviously wokred for him!

stephen f says:

(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)

stephen f says:

(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)

stephen f says:

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.

dugabrams says:

11 times out of 10, Jack is the greatest!

Nathan Milligan says:

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

Nathan Rhodes says:

What a man..amazing tips

Jonsse says:

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. 😀

stephen f says:

(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)

Paul Hiam says:

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.

stephen f says:

(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.

AFjk1982 says:

Obviously 3 Tiger Woods fans watched this video.

stephen f says:

(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.

stephen f says:

(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…

lonkylaine says:

18 majors, 18 second place in majors. Wow ! Tiger is just lucky he’s not
chasing a 25-30 major wins record !

Paul Hiam says:

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.

stephen f says:

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?

David Schultz says:

And with all the “information” you now know, what’s your handicap?

Andersxman says:

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

stephen f says:

(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)

stephen f says:

(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)

Paul Hiam says:

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.

Bearwood Brown says:

learn to golf from the best Golden Bear jack Nicklaus

Dreama40 says:

19 majors?

stephen f says:

(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.

Write a comment