- Audio version at the end of this post –
Jack Nicklaus turned 70 years old this week and The Golf Channel celebrated his birthday with a documentary about his life and career. The show theme focused around a 12 day business trip he took checking out courses he designed that we under construction all over the world. The course check out, evaluation and recommendations segments were intertwined with plenty of Nicklaus family history as a child and his adult family, amateur golfer and playing career highlights. There were also interviews in which Jack gave us some personal insights into his life, his thought process and his present views on his golf game. He even talked about his tennis game, which seems to get more attention now than golf.
What particularly caught my attention was the revelation where he talked about that from about 60 years old, he was always asked about how long he would play on the Champions Tour and would he even venture back to the PGA Tour. He said he would like to keep playing, but as he gets older he is losing distance. This loss of distance, he explained, even playing the Champions Tour, was reaching the point where he was unable to compete on an acceptable level with the new 50 year olds coming up every year. So, with less to no chance to win on the Champions Tour, he stated with confidence and finality that playing PGA Tour events was not even a fleeting thought.
What really struck home to me was his one and only reason for the foundation of his decision. It was all about hitting it shorter. Loss of distance, especially with the driver, as well as all the rest of his clubs, determined his decision. He mentioned that he still hits the ball well with all his clubs and putts as well as ever. But his distance loss can’t really be made up playing with the long-hitting younger guys from the same tees. (Note: Unlike amateurs, Jack can’t move up a set of tees or two or three out on tour.)
Jack, looking straight into the camera said that now, his best power drive, hit as good and solid as he can will barely reach 100 MPH, and if lucky, may reach a maximum with roll out of 250 yards . (WOW, I am now right there with Jack except I am 10 years younger. As few as 5 years ago my max club head speed was in the range of 105 to 108 MPH. I have lost 8 to 10 MPH and unfortunately I know it will only keep getting slower.) Jack has accepted his fate as an aging golfer and I guess, as the saying goes, now plays for fun, enjoyment, exercise and still for the challenge as well as playing more tennis.
I read about another famous golfer still much in the limelight on the PGA Tour. Kenny Perry, is 49 years old and is turning 50 August 10th this year. He made some revealing comments in the January 15th issue of Golfweek Magazine on page 27 in an article titled. “Perry to Ease into Retirement.” The first sentence states, “At the tail end of 2009, Kenny Perry talked of semi-retirement and many laughed.” The article then details his early 2010 schedule which has him flying all over the world playing week after week. But then, the article goes into some revealing quotes from Kenny about himself.
Kenny said, “I feel like I lost another 4 or 5 yards (off the tee). The ball’s not coming off the (club) face. I need to start working out and start doing something. I can tell my body’s starting to decline all of a sudden. I never felt that ever in my life until the end of last year to now. I can tell I’m changing.”
Kenny is a youngster compared to Jack. But he is already feeling and seeing the effects of growing older. And he sees it big time playing on the PGA Tour from the same tees as the rest of the players. Young GUNS, some of whom are now younger than Kenny’s son, are out there BOMBING drives past his. We all know that Kenny Perry is a big, strong guy and has in the past been able to hang in with most of the longer hitters.
Time is catching up with Kenny Perry as it has caught up to Jack Nicklaus, me and for that matter, all of us. Kenny Perry is just experiencing it more drastically and realistically than most of us because of whom he plays against from the same tees on the PGA Tour.
The moral of today’s article about Jack Nicklaus, Kenny Perry, and the few points I made about myself is that life goes on and can still be great as we age, including our golf game. On January 10th 2010, my daily article was titled, “We Are…What We Are.” Below is one of the closing paragraphs that I think sums up the moral of that article and one which is a good message for all of us to embrace. I will add one point that is not mentioned. That is, I already have accepted “my loss of distance.” Now, I always play from forward tees that give me a course distance in the 6500 to 6700 yard range. Playing 7000 yard courses are a part in my past. And I know that 6700 yards will also soon be too long. When that happens, I will move to more forward tees that fit my distance as I want to still shoot the best scores I can for my age and my abilities.
“The issue is we have to accept our new and unfortunately ever changing physical abilities as we age and or have some physical issues jump up and bite us. I wish I was 30 again and had my 105 to 108 MPH club head speed with a driver. I am now on my best drive likely to not reach 100 MPH any more and, as life goes on, it will continue to diminish. But I will guarantee and promise that I will never get bogged down in pity and cry over lost distance. What I will do is work on hitting it more solid and straight becoming the most boring driver of the ball and iron player hitting the green. I will also be the wizard of the short game because now I have be the master of around and on the greens. Golf for me is no longer about power, which I never really had a lot of and now even a lot less, but of control, touch and feel. My focus is getting the ball into the hole.”
We are what we are now and what we will become. The key to enjoying life and golf is paying attention and working at living a healthy life style, trying to stay fit so we can live life to the fullest. To this we have to accept change in our bodies and abilities and loss of strength and speed. We have to make adjustments in our lives and our golf games that give us challenges that we can meet and feel good about ourselves reaching our new goals.
Jack Nicklaus and Kenny Perry have seen, felt and experienced the changes in their bodies and golf games. Let the example of these two great professional golfers be the guiding light for the rest of us who play golf.
The Surge!
- Use these controls for the audio version of this post –
Get Flash to see this player.
Tell me what you're thinking... and what part of the golf swing, or this great game... you'd like to know more about. If you want your pic to show with your comment, go get a 
Ok, Roy, here goes. Firstly, the old-timers taught me that the true test of a golf swing is a long-iron off the turf. I was taught to practice that shot more than any, because if the swing is good enough to hit that shot well, it is good enough to hit any club in the bag. In my own experience, I have learned that they were right, except that I would add the 3-wood off the turf in with the longest iron, because the 3-wood has a deeper center of gravity in the clubhead, which changes the dynamics a little bit. So when I practice, I will wear out my 3-iron and 3-wood. Some of the greats, like Seve, Jack, etc. would practice a lot with the long iron off the soft sand. If your swing is good enough to hit that shot, it will be even better, IMO. So the main test is the results with a long iron. I’m going to make several short posts, in order to avoid confusing myself.
Now here goes my “theory” … First, to describe what I would consider to be my ideal straight golf shot, with that long iron. (a driver swing off the tee is a completely different animal altogether) If I were to ever make an ideal golf swing and hit what I consider to be an ideal shot (which has never happened), the club would be perfectly square about 1-inch beyond impact (beyond the ball), the club would be moving level and straight through impact, the bottom of my swing would be right at that same 1-inch location just past the ball, and the club would also obviously be moving as fast as possible. So those are four basic and very simple requirements that I need to all occur AT THE SAME TIME, in order to produce that ideal shot. Make any sense so far? Ok, so these four basic requirements are the problem that has to be solved. They are pretty much the only problem that has to be solved. It is that simple. But if I only have 3 of those requirements, and do not have all 4 happening at the same time, I have some problems. And if any one of those 4 are missing, I am going to lose distance. …any four. …I will lose both distance and accuracy.
Now when I say I want the club to be square, I mean the whole club, shaft and all. The reason for that is because the less forward lean I have in the shaft, the more likely that one swing will work with every club in the bag, and produce a consistent line all throughout the bag. If I have too much forward lean, my less-lofted and longer clubs are going to glance off to the right (unless I compensate), and my shorter more-lofted clubs are going to tend to go left. (like a baseball bat glancing shots to right or left field, the shots with the lesser-lofted clubs are influence quite a bit by the squareness of the shaft, in addition to the face) The end result of that adjusting would be that I have to align myself by feel, according to a particular club, adjust other things for that particular club, and thus playing the game well becomes a significantly more difficult task. I also know from experience that my ball flight is much better when the shaft is more square through the shot. Now that may be just a feel, and not reality, or it may actually be reality. I don’t really care which it is, because I’m not going to be out there filming myself, and the feel of my swing is all I’m going to have to go on when I’m out there on the course.
So far it seems fairly easy. Right? Just set up square, turn level, and the job is done. But it is not quite that easy. I know that if I swing with any amount of force whatsoever, centrifugal force is going to pull my left arm and club into a straight line, whether I like it or not. And since my left shoulder joint is not located at the center of my body, that is going to put the shaft of the club pointing away from the center of my body at impact, which will without any compensation produce a glancing blow. There are two levers (or segments) in the golf swing, which people often forget, when they are trying to piece together a swing theory. The first is the lever from the left shoulder joint to the center of the body. The second is the lever from the center of the shaft to the center of gravity of the clubhead. The significance of that second one is something you can easily feel by turning a club upside down, with the toe pointing toward the ground, and swinging it. In any event, the fact that the shaft of the club wants to point to my left side at impact, instead of back to the center of my swing, is pretty much the entirity of the problem that has to be solved in the golf swing, aside from generating speed. That’s it. My shoulder joints are about 18 inches apart, which puts that lever at about 9 inches. Since my ideal bottom of the swing is about 1 inch in front of the ball, there is 7 inches of offset and error already built into my golf swing before I even draw back the club. If my shoulder joints were only 1-inch offset from my spine, then accuracy would not be a problem, whatsoever. So to make a straight and long golf shot, I’m going to have to do something to adjust and compensate for that error. …and there are several ways to get that accomplished.
To make a note here: when Jack Nicklaus talks about “One basic swing” it is my opinion that this is what he is talking about. …a swing that will work well with every club in the bag.
Some of the ways to make that compensation include: —– closing the clubface with the wrists (the flat left wrist) (does not solve the shaft problem, but it will work with a lot of practice); —– staying behind the ball, which puts the left shoulder on the ball all the time. …but introduces a tilt, still requires a closed clubface, and because of the tilt, tends to make the path too far inside-out and/or too much upward through the ball. (not level and straight); —– Making a leaner swing, where the back of the left shoulder is leaned toward the target, causing the shoulders to make a quick spin, and the clubhead to flip past the hands (which makes most people hit a flip hook — especially if the left hip works away from the target and you get over the top); —– Several other moves which cause the club to flip past the hands; —– Attempting to put the center of the swing closer to the left shoulder joint…which is basically the essence of the stack-and-tilt; —– Slowing down and just flipping the club through (if you have strong forearms like Hall Sutton, you can make a good living with that approach); —– A rotational swing, like Zach Johnson, where the left wrist stays more cupped, and the club is forced to rotate around the hands. (forces the right wrist to make a throwing action and wrap over the left); —– And many, many, many others, that come to mind. …just about as many ways to compensate as there are golfers.
Also, I forgot, there are several approaches to give the swing a whipping action, such as holding the angle and firing down the butt of the club, etc. …there are just a ton of different ways people have found over the years, all of which basically are ways to accomplish the task of compensating for the built in error and produce speed at the same time.
So it is still fairly easy to understand and comprehend. We just need to make a square blow, with as much speed as possible. It is that simple.
There are some other ways to make that compensation, which I forgot to mention: —– the figure-eight swing (like Lee Trevino), which basically changes the path of the club to make it square with the left shoulder joint; —- Just setting up with the left shoulder and club in a straight line (just building the compensation into the setup, which still does not fix the problem of the glancing blow); —– Making the old “connected” swing where you swing slow and hold the shaft pointing in toward the center, try to keep it there, and fight the laws of physics all day long; — etc., etc. …as mentioned, there are many.
Ok, so I said that in my 25 years of golf, I have tried just about every possible approach there is. Some will work well with certain clubs in the bag, and not very well with others. You can play the game fairly well, if you choose to stop at this point, and figure out a few different swing techniques (ways to make that compensation) that will work well enough with the various types of clubs in the bag. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with that.
If, however, you want to learn what I have found to be an easier way to make that compensation, that could help give you that square contact, a level path, and maximum speed, all at the same time, do what I recommended, and study the swing of Fred Couples. It has worked for me. It is very, very easy to repeat, once you get the hang of it, and a lot of your distance you thought you had lost due to age will most likely come back. You will be striping those long irons and driver like you haven’t done in years, most likely. The reason I recommended earlier that you should study Freddie’s swing is because he makes the moves in a little more exaggerated fashion, that you can more easily see with the naked eye. Once you figure out what is going on, you will know what to look for, and will start seeing it in other successful players’ swings, who hit the ball both long and straight (which is of course our goal, right?), such as Hogan, Daly, Nicklaus, and the other players I mentioned. I won’t completely ruin it for you, but I will tell you that Freddie’s action through the ball has already been determined and set up by the time he gets to the top of his swing. From there, it is all pretty much automatic. Ken, and some others, got fairly close when talking about the right elbow. But that elbow raises for an entirely different reason. It does not supply any power. When you figure out what that is, you will see the motion, even in video of Hogan’s flatter swing. So that is pretty much it. It is very, very easy. If you are like me, you will be kicking yourself for a solid year, for not seeing it sooner. Just consider what I said about the four basic requirements to hit a good golf shot, and then study Freddie’s swing.
One more comment on my “theory”: One reason some golfers don’t have to do as much to solve that compensation problem when they are younger, more flexible, haven’t yet developed back problems, and have less mass in their chest and upper arms, is because they can turn their shoulders all the way through, have them pointing pretty much to the ball at impact, and the shoulders are turned so far through the shot that the left shoulder is basically that 1 inch in front of the ball just because it has turned almost all the way around back behind their head. That is one way to make the compensation for built-in error, which us stiffer guys with more “mass” don’t have the luxury of using. It is still not a perfect compensation, even then, because some manipulation with the wrists is still needed to sqauare the face, due to that extra extension. But the need for compensation is reduced quite a bit for people that flexible. I think Larry Mize had a swing like this when he was younger. So that is my 0.02. Take it or leave it. Hope it helps.
BTW, Roy, there are other “real” requirements (or things that would be nice to have), that are not necessary for that “ideal” swing, because we are all imperfect human beings: A technique that works well and produces similar results regardless of how you feel (tired or not, strong or weak that given day, stiff, sore, etc.) Stability through the bottom would make consistent contact a bit easier a proposition. It needs to be simple and easy to repeat, as I have mentioned too many times already, …mostly because of mental and emotional requirements. It needs to work well with different stances (uphill, downhill, sidhill, etc. — part of the reason a big sway or pronounced weight shift can be difficult to reproduce day-in and day-out). It has to be well-suited to different types of lies (I.e., too much of an upward strike won’t get the job done). Etc., etc., etc. Whenever I’m trying to figure something out in golf, I try to keep all these sorts of necessities in mind also. I’m no expert, by any means. So please take what I say with a grain of salt. I think I’m probably done here. I’ve already made too many posts as it is.
Don,
I’m honored to say that I went through the USGA Junior golf with Deane Beman,and ,believe it or not,I actually played in several of the same tournaments as Jack . Enough Gloating…….I have finally forced myself to step down to the senior tees.Thanks for the reminder to do so…..