Courteous Debate-Jack Nicklaus Early Extension

[PowderedToastMan]

Hey everyone,

 

The golfer with the greatest record of all-time, Jack Nicklaus, employed early extension in his swing. This move has been deemed "destructive, swing killing, inconsistent" etc.. I don't disagree that most golfers can't be consistent with such a motion, but how did Jack make it work? He was probably the most consistent golfer ever, and won majors spanning almost 25 years apart.

 

If he addressed this issue, do you think he would have been better? Why did he have early extension? What about his swing neutralized the flaw? Lastly, dare I say, are the dangers of early extension over-exaggerated?

 

I have my own theories, but am curious what you all think. Have fun!

[Ghost of Snead]

Sorry ... don't see it.

 

[media=]

[/media]

[PutterKilledTheDream]

Jack went from from a wide connected turn to very upright and across the line at the top.

 

He didn't shallow early from P4 but rather had to late and with such active powerful leg drive the EE was inevitable.

[bph7]

Who said the quote "destructive, swing killing, inconsistent"? Most people who complain about it about 10-20 caps with other major issues. It's not necessarily an issue in and of itself. It just so happens that most who do it are steep and otherwise have bad swings. I also don't see much of it, if any, in jacks swing either. People who know what they are talking about know there's a lot more to it than tush line. I respectfully disagree with about every premise in OP, and in fact think the types of assumptions being made are what made for bad teachers imo.

[Hawkeye77]

Next, Sam Snead and over the top.

 

Depending on what you think is the "perfect" swing, most everyone will have elements of whatever isn't "perfect".

 

 

 

 

[PowderedToastMan]

Jack went from from a wide connected turn to very upright and across the line at the top.

 

He didn't shallow early from P4 but rather had to late and with such active powerful leg drive the EE was inevitable.

Great explanation, thank you.

 

To the other posters, it's widely accepted that Jack had some early extension, and also widely accepted that early extension is a swing fault. The point of this thread is to discuss how Jack made it work, and work exceptionally well. To those who don't see the early extension, you are probably in the camp that believes proper spine angle in the swing can exist within a range. Many believe you either early extend or you don't, with no room for error. Keep this in mind.

[RBImGuy]

Jack went from from a wide connected turn to very upright and across the line at the top.

 

He didn't shallow early from P4 but rather had to late and with such active powerful leg drive the EE was inevitable.

Great explanation, thank you.

 

To the other posters, it's widely accepted that Jack had some early extension, and also widely accepted that early extension is a swing fault. The point of this thread is to discuss how Jack made it work, and work exceptionally well. To those who don't see the early extension, you are probably in the camp that believes proper spine angle in the swing can exist within a range. Many believe you either early extend or you don't, with no room for error. Keep this in mind.

 

hip replacement, answers that

[Chief Cowpie]

IMO, Jack just got lucky every time he hit the ball. There is no other way to account for his success with so many swing flaws

[dap]

Sorry ... don't see it.

 

[media=]

[/media]

He tended to early extend a lot more with the driver for some reason. Not so much with irons.

[dap]

[TB07]

Jack went from from a wide connected turn to very upright and across the line at the top.

 

He didn't shallow early from P4 but rather had to late and with such active powerful leg drive the EE was inevitable.

Great explanation, thank you.

 

To the other posters, it's widely accepted that Jack had some early extension, and also widely accepted that early extension is a swing fault. The point of this thread is to discuss how Jack made it work, and work exceptionally well. To those who don't see the early extension, you are probably in the camp that believes proper spine angle in the swing can exist within a range. Many believe you either early extend or you don't, with no room for error. Keep this in mind.

 

No one position in isolation makes or breaks a swing. I've said that many times. Some ppl think EE and shallow shaft in transition is the holy grail. It's not, although it might help a ton of ppl. More players EE than just Jack. Paul Casey comes to mind as several others.

[Fort Worth Pro]

 

That's not early extension. It's lateral motion from a bad camera angle.

[dap]

 

That's not early extension. It's lateral motion from a bad camera angle.

How about this one?

 

[Fort Worth Pro]

 

That's not early extension. It's lateral motion from a bad camera angle.

How about this one?

 

 

Yeah. Old man jack Nicklaus with a bum hip probably had some EE. That's not quite the player who won 18 majors.

[Hawkeye77]

 

That's not early extension. It's lateral motion from a bad camera angle.

How about this one?

 

 

How about I'll take that swing all day long?

[dap]

 

That's not early extension. It's lateral motion from a bad camera angle.

How about this one?

 

 

Yeah. Old man jack Nicklaus with a bum hip probably had some EE. That's not quite the player who won 18 majors.

 

I've seen younger Nicklaus early extend more than that. Jack sees the swing as straight back and straight through rather than the rotary action of Hogan. A bit of early extending is natural for this type of swing.

 

[Llortamaisey]

Jack went from from a wide connected turn to very upright and across the line at the top.

 

He didn't shallow early from P4 but rather had to late and with such active powerful leg drive the EE was inevitable.

and also widely accepted that early extension is a swing fault.

 

I don't think it's widely accepted as a swing fault. The vast majority of instructors I've talked to think it's a symptom of a swing fault, like being too steep or too shallow. I would say it's widely accepted as a compensation, but it isn't usually the actual swing fault.

 

 

[Fort Worth Pro]

 

That's not early extension. It's lateral motion from a bad camera angle.

How about this one?

 

 

Yeah. Old man jack Nicklaus with a bum hip probably had some EE. That's not quite the player who won 18 majors.

 

I've seen younger Nicklaus early extend more than that. Jack sees the swing as straight back and straight through rather than the rotary action of Hogan. A bit of early extending is natural for this type of swing.

 

There might be some earlier swings where he does. I haven't seen every swing of his on the internet. You just have to be very careful about what you are looking at and what angle you are looking from. You also have to define EARLY extension since everyone extends as they rotate.

[dap]

Yea I understand everyone extends at some point but early is just that. Extending too early. Jack loses waist bend and stands up well before impact especially when he goes after a big drive. It obviously can't be a huge fault otherwise he wouldn't have won 18 majors. I could be wrong but that is how I see and understand his swing.

[Hawkeye77]

 

That's not early extension. It's lateral motion from a bad camera angle.

How about this one?

 

 

Yeah. Old man jack Nicklaus with a bum hip probably had some EE. That's not quite the player who won 18 majors.

 

I've seen younger Nicklaus early extend more than that. Jack sees the swing as straight back and straight through rather than the rotary action of Hogan. A bit of early extending is natural for this type of swing.

 

You may have some selective quotes somewhere, but your suggestion he sees the golf swing as SBST is complete BS.

 

He stresses hip turn, shoulder turn, rotation and arc. His two seminal books couldn't be any more clear about that.

[dap]

Hawkeye77, I wasn't referring to hip turn or shoulder turn. I was referring to how Jack sees the path of the club going back and through.

 

Page 108 Golf My Way he says the one piece takeaway sets up a straight back path which will be reciprocated by a straight through path at impact. His words, not mine.

[Hawkeye77]

Hawkeye77, I wasn't referring to hip turn or shoulder turn. I was referring to how Jack sees the path of the club going back and through.

 

Page 108 Golf My Way he says the one piece takeaway sets up a straight back path which will be reciprocated by a straight through path at impact. His words, not mine.

 

Selective quote, and accurate but only to a limited point. You said he sees the SWING as SBST - not true. His thoughts on his one piece takeaway are not his thoughts on his swing.

 

You said this SBST view of the "swing" was contrary to "rotary" view of Hogan - not true. No space to quote or cite approximately 1/3 of the book which makes clear his views of the golf swing, not just the takeaway. He stressed upright plane/wide arc and TURN and how he accomplishes and importance of turn, wide arc and sources of power (to him), so yes, you make two statements that are totally wrong about his views on the golf swing and cite the snippet about path at the bottom of the swing in reference to the takeaway. Out of context in terms of your original statements.

 

Not trying to start any big argument, but need to be more accurate on his views of his golf swing and how he "sees" it.

[naval2006]

Great footage to see how powerful Jacks hip an shoulder turn were: British Open 1977. Out of this world power. And the way he went at the ball under the most pressure is simply genius material.

[dap]

Hawkeye77, I wasn't referring to hip turn or shoulder turn. I was referring to how Jack sees the path of the club going back and through.

 

Page 108 Golf My Way he says the one piece takeaway sets up a straight back path which will be reciprocated by a straight through path at impact. His words, not mine.

 

Selective quote, and accurate but only to a limited point. You said he sees the SWING as SBST - not true. His thoughts on his one piece takeaway are not his thoughts on his swing.

 

You said this SBST view of the "swing" was contrary to "rotary" view of Hogan - not true. No space to quote or cite approximately 1/3 of the book which makes clear his views of the golf swing, not just the takeaway. He stressed upright plane/wide arc and TURN and how he accomplishes and importance of turn, wide arc and sources of power (to him), so yes, you make two statements that are totally wrong about his views on the golf swing and cite the snippet about path at the bottom of the swing in reference to the takeaway. Out of context in terms of your original statements.

 

Not trying to start any big argument, but need to be more accurate on his views of his golf swing and how he "sees" it.

How is it not true? He said it in so many words. Of course there are other parts of the swing that he saw as rotary but anyone can see Jack had an upright swing typical of a straight back straight through action. This is all off topic anyway. We need to establish first if Jack did early extend. There are some people who obviously thinks he doesn't and if they can show a good angle of a young Jack swinging a driver I am happy to be proven wrong.

[chrisgilly09]

Stop stealing conversation starters from the maestro

[PutterKilledTheDream]

Can you imagine how many more events the bear would have clinched if he would have sat into his right butt check in transition and externally rotated his trail knee?

[Hawkeye77]

Hawkeye77, I wasn't referring to hip turn or shoulder turn. I was referring to how Jack sees the path of the club going back and through.

 

Page 108 Golf My Way he says the one piece takeaway sets up a straight back path which will be reciprocated by a straight through path at impact. His words, not mine.

 

Selective quote, and accurate but only to a limited point. You said he sees the SWING as SBST - not true. His thoughts on his one piece takeaway are not his thoughts on his swing.

 

You said this SBST view of the "swing" was contrary to "rotary" view of Hogan - not true. No space to quote or cite approximately 1/3 of the book which makes clear his views of the golf swing, not just the takeaway. He stressed upright plane/wide arc and TURN and how he accomplishes and importance of turn, wide arc and sources of power (to him), so yes, you make two statements that are totally wrong about his views on the golf swing and cite the snippet about path at the bottom of the swing in reference to the takeaway. Out of context in terms of your original statements.

 

Not trying to start any big argument, but need to be more accurate on his views of his golf swing and how he "sees" it.

How is it not true? He said it in so many words. Of course there are other parts of the swing that he saw as rotary but anyone can see Jack had an upright swing typical of a straight back straight through action. This is all off topic anyway. We need to establish first if Jack did early extend. There are some people who obviously thinks he doesn't and if they can show a good angle of a young Jack swinging a driver I am happy to be proven wrong.

 

That's it? Now you are reduced to saying his swing was relatively upright so he must have seen it that way. You put all this into the topic.

 

I recommend a thorough reading of the entire book and other of Jack's thoughts on the golf swing.

 

Now back to EE?

 

Again, give me some of Jack's action!!!!!!

[Hawkeye77]

Can you imagine how many more events the bear would have clinched if he would have sat into his right butt check in transition and externally rotated his trail knee?

 

Those 19 seconds would have turned into 37 majors! Who is Tiger Woods again? Wait, let's turn his seconds into wins - who is Tiger Woods again?

 

Sorry.

[dap]

Hawkeye77, I wasn't referring to hip turn or shoulder turn. I was referring to how Jack sees the path of the club going back and through.

 

Page 108 Golf My Way he says the one piece takeaway sets up a straight back path which will be reciprocated by a straight through path at impact. His words, not mine.

 

Selective quote, and accurate but only to a limited point. You said he sees the SWING as SBST - not true. His thoughts on his one piece takeaway are not his thoughts on his swing.

 

You said this SBST view of the "swing" was contrary to "rotary" view of Hogan - not true. No space to quote or cite approximately 1/3 of the book which makes clear his views of the golf swing, not just the takeaway. He stressed upright plane/wide arc and TURN and how he accomplishes and importance of turn, wide arc and sources of power (to him), so yes, you make two statements that are totally wrong about his views on the golf swing and cite the snippet about path at the bottom of the swing in reference to the takeaway. Out of context in terms of your original statements.

 

Not trying to start any big argument, but need to be more accurate on his views of his golf swing and how he "sees" it.

How is it not true? He said it in so many words. Of course there are other parts of the swing that he saw as rotary but anyone can see Jack had an upright swing typical of a straight back straight through action. This is all off topic anyway. We need to establish first if Jack did early extend. There are some people who obviously thinks he doesn't and if they can show a good angle of a young Jack swinging a driver I am happy to be proven wrong.

 

That's it? Now you are reduced to saying his swing was relatively upright so he must have seen it that way. You put all this into the topic.

 

I recommend a thorough reading of the entire book and other of Jack's thoughts on the golf swing.

 

Now back to EE?

 

Again, give me some of Jack's action!!!!!!

The only argument I seem to be getting from you is selective quoting to try and convince me Jack did not see the swing as sbst. You have completely ignored what he said on page 108 of his book and the fact his swing is one of the most upright in the history of golf especially in his early years. He did try to flatten it during the 80's but he won 16 of his 18 majors with an upright backswing.

 

I might be selective quoting but it's a damn good one.

 

And I'll take some of his action too!

[Hawkeye77]

Hawkeye77, I wasn't referring to hip turn or shoulder turn. I was referring to how Jack sees the path of the club going back and through.

 

Page 108 Golf My Way he says the one piece takeaway sets up a straight back path which will be reciprocated by a straight through path at impact. His words, not mine.

 

Selective quote, and accurate but only to a limited point. You said he sees the SWING as SBST - not true. His thoughts on his one piece takeaway are not his thoughts on his swing.

 

You said this SBST view of the "swing" was contrary to "rotary" view of Hogan - not true. No space to quote or cite approximately 1/3 of the book which makes clear his views of the golf swing, not just the takeaway. He stressed upright plane/wide arc and TURN and how he accomplishes and importance of turn, wide arc and sources of power (to him), so yes, you make two statements that are totally wrong about his views on the golf swing and cite the snippet about path at the bottom of the swing in reference to the takeaway. Out of context in terms of your original statements.

 

Not trying to start any big argument, but need to be more accurate on his views of his golf swing and how he "sees" it.

How is it not true? He said it in so many words. Of course there are other parts of the swing that he saw as rotary but anyone can see Jack had an upright swing typical of a straight back straight through action. This is all off topic anyway. We need to establish first if Jack did early extend. There are some people who obviously thinks he doesn't and if they can show a good angle of a young Jack swinging a driver I am happy to be proven wrong.

 

That's it? Now you are reduced to saying his swing was relatively upright so he must have seen it that way. You put all this into the topic.

 

I recommend a thorough reading of the entire book and other of Jack's thoughts on the golf swing.

 

Now back to EE?

 

Again, give me some of Jack's action!!!!!!

The only argument I seem to be getting from you is selective quoting to try and convince me Jack did not see the swing as sbst. You have completely ignored what he said on page 108 of his book and the fact his swing is one of the most upright in the history of golf especially in his early years. He did try to flatten it during the 80's but he won 16 of his 18 majors with an upright backswing.

 

I might be selective quoting but it's a damn good one.

 

And I'll take some of his action too!

 

Page 108, Page 108!

 

I can't help it you can't comprehend the difference between Jack's description of his one piece takeaway idea and his view of the golf swing (which you are now intentionally misconstruing). It's just silly.

 

He understood and believed in and understood the club moving on an arc, not conceptualizing a swing that is SBST. His primary mantra was swinging open to closed , club moving on an arc back away from the ball (again, the one piece takeaway is easily distinguishable, but also easily understood - by most anyway, in this context). Here's what he said about the view of SBST (square faced action): "Well, I haven't read anything about the so-called "square methods" - I've never read a golf instruction book or article in my life. But as I interpret what I've head about these theories, they mean that the clubface remains square to the target line and the ball throughout the swing. Maybe if someone could show me how it's possible to do that in an action involving a large arc and a tilted plane, and still swing the clubhead through at 120 mph, I'd try it. Until then, I simply don't believe it's possible."

 

He talks specifically about the the club head being along the target line AT IMPACT (the point you are missing in saying that is his view of "the swing"). His discussion of takeaway relates to bottom of swing at impact.

 

Right or wrong use of "centrifugal force" he is clear in how his swing achieves leverage: "First, I comprehend, without knowing the precise technicalities involved, how clubhead speed derives ultimately from centrifugal force - the force that pulls an object outward from its center of rotation . . ." His swing, he believes, is a rotation around a fixed axis which is the top of his spine, base of the neck.

 

Dozens of more examples in the same book.

 

You've accurately defined his concept of the takeaway, that is not his view on the swing and that is that. Enough already.