Jack Nicklaus Called The Modern Golf Swing “Hogwash” In 1974

I originally posted this about Jack Nicklaus back in 2016 after KidCharlemagne had sent me the quote, and Scott from Arizona sent me a screenshot of the actual page taken from Nicklaus’ book “Golf My Way,” so why not re-post?

With all of our talk about Ben Hogan “experts” creating the Modern Golf Swing based on misinterpreting his mechanics and the explanations thereof, here is the G.O.A.T. telling it like it is, probably a few years after that infamous Ben Hogan video began misleading people the golfing world over.

In his own words, Jack had this to say about trying to swing and create power with a restricted hip turn:

I understand that there is a theory in golf today that the hips shouldn’t turn on the backswing.  The idea seems to be that the less you turn your hips, while still turning your shoulders, the more leverage you’ll generate.

It’s hogwash, and here’s why.

Stand erect with your arms at your sides and keep them there. Now hold your hips still and turn your shoulders.

Impossible, right? Even the slightest shoulder turn forces some hip turn. And the more the shoulders turn, the more the hips are forced to turn, right?

… unless he’s incredibly supple or some kind of contortionist.

Thus you should never try to restrict your hip turn if you want to hit the ball a long way.

There’s another interesting quote in that page that is relevant to my assertion a few posts back about Lee Trevino and his “drop” into the down swing and why the “squatting” Modern Golf Swing players can’t recreate this action of Hogan’s.

I said that when you fail to pivot with the hip turn and lifting leading heel, you have nowhere to “drop” back into the down swing because you’ve never detached the leading side.

Jack says so much in the above page:

But there must be a generous hip turn, too, if the golfer is going to move into the ball correctly on the forward swing.

In fact, if I didn’t turn my hips going back, I’d never be able to use my legs correctly coming down.

I literally said this talking about the “squat” versus Hogan’s and Trevino’s transition moves.

When you think of some of the longest players on the PGA Tour in the past couple of generations, and I don’t necessarily mean John Daly-long, you can look at Phil Mickelson, Vijay Singh and Bubba Watson as players who never had any problem getting it out there, all achieving an average of 300 yards driving distance during their day playing with their Classic Golf Swing actions.

Mickelson is the oldest player ever to win a major, Vijay Singh has the record for most wins on the PGA Tour over 40 years of age, and Bubba Watson… enough said, he actually was John Daly-long.

I can not think of any way any person on this earth would produce more speed and power with the Modern Golf Swing over the Classic – it is literally impossible to swing faster with a half-body swing than a fully one.

Plus, your body would last far, far longer, all else being equal.

But for some reason, no one listened to Jack then, and no one is listening to him now.

8 thoughts on “Jack Nicklaus Called The Modern Golf Swing “Hogwash” In 1974”

    1. DJ Watts's avatarDJ Watts Post author

      If you knew how much I despise that forward-leaning hyperextended leading leg finish pose. Want to hit the eye washing station every time I see it.

      1. AK's avatarsilly9ab7a2bd73

        It’s so forced and mechanically pointless.When I look at just the pictures I feel I need spine surgery haha

  2. AK's avatarsilly9ab7a2bd73

    Turning the hips and allowing the left heel to lift is not only natural,but makes the game so much more fun.It brings a joyful and swashbuckling feeling inside of you.

  3. Chief Cowpie's avatarChief Cowpie

    I would like to know how much kickback orthopedic surgeons are paying golf teaching professionals to teach the modern swing to drum up business for them? (Joke)

    1. DJ Watts's avatarDJ Watts Post author

      As tongue-in-cheek as your comment is, Chief, there’s a nugget of probable truth in it – the golf teaching professionals don’t need any outside encouragement because Modern Golf Swing lessons are far more lucrative than Classic.

      You teach someone the Classic Golf Swing and your lose that student very quickly, as I have personally discovered. But it is what it is.

      You teach someone the Modern Golf Swing and you have a client for life as long as they play the game, because it can’t be mastered. So, they need no other incentive than the money involved.

      It’s either that or they are incredibly unintelligent, because the evidence has been there to see.

      Which one it is, I will let others decide for themselves.

      1. Chief Cowpie's avatarChief Cowpie

        You reported once a bunch of years ago how someone codified for the PGA teaching professionals, a quick study guide to golf swing mastery and the governing body of teaching professionals railed against it as a threat to their existence or something like that. The Modern Golf Swing is to the PGA what planned obsolescence is to consumer goods. It keeps them knocking on your door coming back for more.

        1. DJ Watts's avatarDJ Watts Post author

          It was the PGA of America and the visiting British instructor Ernest Jones, Chief – the following quote, from John Christensen’s book “Perfect Swing, Imperfect Lies”:

          According to PGA of America senior writer Bob Denney, the PGA has invited teaching pros to address its annual meeting only twice.

          The first was Ernest Jones…But Jones’ presentation to the PGA in November 1950 alarmed its members because his method was simpler and less time-consuming than body-focused instruction.

          At a time when the average pro was giving 600 lessons a year, Jones was averaging 3,000, and Smith (who served as the PGA president from 1952 to 1954) told Jones that his method was “too simple. We wouldn’t sell enough lessons.”

          Christensen, John (2013-11-24). Perfect Swing, Imperfect Lies: The Legacy of Golf’s Longest Hitter (Kindle Locations 971-975). . Kindle Edition. :

Comments are closed.