Here’s something neat that I’ve recently worked out about the Nicklaus head turn before he began his back pivot – it wasn’t a shift, just a turn.
If you already knew that, here’s the catch – it wasn’t to “get his head out of the way of the shoulder turn” as people have stated in their analysis – it was simply that his final setup component was to put his head where it was supposed to be at impact.
I made mention of Jack’s grip a little while back and that I was still looking into it, and I believe I have just figured out what made him so powerful and yet so accurate simultaneously.
Take a look at his 1963 grip at a time where he was becoming dominant – he won six events that year and the only year in which he won more events was in 1973, video of which I’m trying to hunt down to look at his stance and grip for a comparison.
I should perhaps at the outset of this posting provide a caveat of sorts – when I say that Jack Nicklaus’ swing model was the closest I’ve seen to the optimal Classic Golf Swing, I mean a certain version.
His swing changed over the years with regards to his setup and sometimes it was not even a good one, let alone close to optimal – yes, even the Golden Bear strayed away from his principles at times, by his own admission.
You’ll all remember my dive into Jack Nicklaus’ stance and grip in recent times, and if someone were to ask me right this moment what the “optimal setup” to which I referred yesterday, I’d say, “It’s Jack Nicklaus’ 1963’s stance, adjusted for width.”
I’ve been going over the 3 swing models performed from the same setup, and other than the head cock in Nicklaus’ picture below, this is how I’m setting, with perhaps a slightly stronger right hand grip.
It never ceases to amaze me how the modern media do backflips over anything a modern player does, as if today’s best player is the greatest ever.
Here’s yet another point, where Tiger Woods apparently is a god because when he was at his best, he didn’t take divots with his irons.
Have you ever heard the concept of, “so close to being great, but one omission makes it a failing grade?”
That’s my opinion on the Golf.com article featuring Kellie Stenzel, outlining the top ten fundamentals needed for a great golf swing.
You all know my opinions on the Modern Golf Swing, the primary three being that a) it’s mechanically unsound, which is the only disqualifier one should need, b) it’s not as efficient in generating power through leverage and 3) it requires nonstop practice to maintain.
I can show you with a simple gif. moving image whence the leverage derives in the Classic Golf Swing, and why the Modern swing mechanics fall short of it.
I wrote a post a few weeks ago about how I’d been looking at Jack Nicklaus’ very vigorous and aggressive leg action and that I think it’s the way one must perform one’s leg and hip action for maximum efficiency.
In the intervening two months, I’ve been looking at the setup and the pivot itself (not the leg action, but the back swing pivot angle with regards to arms and hands going back), and while doing that, I re-affirmed the overwhelming importance of that leg and hip action.
I got a fresh look at Bryson DeChambeau’s driver swing from the weekend when he drove a 384 yard Par 4 green, and it looks pretty good, form-wise, compared to what he’s been doing before when I’d have a look.
I don’t know if there was a stiff following breeze (there is a good breeze and I doubt it was against, but it could have been a cross-wind) or if it was significantly downhill, but 384 in any conditions is a pretty good pop!
Back in 2016, I had a swing that largely resembled John Daly’s with regards to the back swing length and top position, and I’m curious about one thing.
That thing would, could I match the club and ball speed I was generating back then with the new, rebuilt swing upon which I’ve been working the last year?
WAX Golf 