Nicklaus

Rating:
Summary: Jack Nicklaus comes alive in this great biography.
Review: For me, the best thing about this gawd-awful little book is the fact that I borrowed it from the library. Had I wasted so much as a ball marker I would have felt ripped off.

Was this a quick hack job? Or what? The author, Mark Shaw, is apparently a successful writer. I wondered, reading "Nicklaus", if this book was a rush job, the Domino's of biography. If you don't know anything about Nicklaus and you don't know anything about golf (not the sort of reader Shaw intended for the book I presume) you still need only stay awake, if you can, to notice the sloppiness.

One example out of many, from p. 243: "By the time he reached the seventh hole, Nicklaus had collected four more birdies, coming at four, five, six and seven." Trust me. When Nicklaus "reached" the seventh hole he had not yet birdied it.

As I say, this is only one example of many. Even more annoying is Shaw's inability to note contradictions within the text. In two consecutive

paragraphs, p. 175, Shaw quotes Nicklaus on the subject of pressure. In the first paragraph Nicklaus says: "There are not degrees of nervousness. I'm as nervous over a $5 bet as over a tournament prize." In the very next paragraph Nicklaus says: "I don't get nervous unless I'm in a major and in a position to win."

I suspect the first quote was from early in Nicklaus' career and the second quote from much later in his career. But who knows? There are no footnotes so how can you tell? The various contradictions in this book, back to back or separated by many pages (e.g. Nicklaus takes golf advice from no one/Nicklaus was always good at taking advice or Nicklaus hates the limelight/Nicklaus loves the limelight) might have been interesting to explore. But Shaw doesn't seem to even notice. It's like he's got a pile of quotes and shoves them all into the pot indiscriminately.

On top of all this Shaw is, simply, a terrible writer. A minor irritant is that he seems not to be a 'word person', committing such sins as confusing 'regiment' with 'regimen.' The big problem is that he strains too hard to write like a good writer. Instead of making it look easy Mark Shaw makes it look hard.

A sand wedge becomes "the club Gene Sarazen invented." Wait - let me pick a page at random for another example. Here we are, p. 233: "Somehow, through pure resolve and fighting spirit, Nicklaus dislodged his ball from its nasty spot and sped it towards the green." Did his publisher lay off all its editors?

On a more general level, if this book has anything new of any significance I couldn't find it. And I couldn't find the point of the odd way he organized the book, as Shaw mysteriously returns to bits and pieces of Nicklaus' outstanding 1972 season. Plain old chronology still hits the spot.

Unless and until a professional biographer, with plenty of time to read what he has written comes along, if you want to know about Nicklaus you should read his own books, starting with the 1968 "Golf - The Greatest Game of All." When Nicklaus refused to cooperate with this project was he just lucky?

Rating:
Summary: Tom Shaw should take a mulligan with this book
Review: For me, the best thing about this gawd-awful little book is the fact that I borrowed it from the library. Had I wasted so much as a ball marker I would have felt ripped off.

Was this a quick hack job? Or what? The author, Mark Shaw, is apparently a successful writer. I wondered, reading "Nicklaus", if this book was a rush job, the Domino's of biography. If you don't know anything about Nicklaus and you don't know anything about golf (not the sort of reader Shaw intended for the book I presume) you still need only stay awake, if you can, to notice the sloppiness.

One example out of many, from p. 243: "By the time he reached the seventh hole, Nicklaus had collected four more birdies, coming at four, five, six and seven." Trust me. When Nicklaus "reached" the seventh hole he had not yet birdied it.

As I say, this is only one example of many. Even more annoying is Shaw's inability to note contradictions within the text. In two consecutive

paragraphs, p. 175, Shaw quotes Nicklaus on the subject of pressure. In the first paragraph Nicklaus says: "There are not degrees of nervousness. I'm as nervous over a $5 bet as over a tournament prize." In the very next paragraph Nicklaus says: "I don't get nervous unless I'm in a major and in a position to win."

I suspect the first quote was from early in Nicklaus' career and the second quote from much later in his career. But who knows? There are no footnotes so how can you tell? The various contradictions in this book, back to back or separated by many pages (e.g. Nicklaus takes golf advice from no one/Nicklaus was always good at taking advice or Nicklaus hates the limelight/Nicklaus loves the limelight) might have been interesting to explore. But Shaw doesn't seem to even notice. It's like he's got a pile of quotes and shoves them all into the pot indiscriminately.

On top of all this Shaw is, simply, a terrible writer. A minor irritant is that he seems not to be a 'word person', committing such sins as confusing 'regiment' with 'regimen.' The big problem is that he strains too hard to write like a good writer. Instead of making it look easy Mark Shaw makes it look hard.

A sand wedge becomes "the club Gene Sarazen invented." Wait - let me pick a page at random for another example. Here we are, p. 233: "Somehow, through pure resolve and fighting spirit, Nicklaus dislodged his ball from its nasty spot and sped it towards the green." Did his publisher lay off all its editors?

On a more general level, if this book has anything new of any significance I couldn't find it. And I couldn't find the point of the odd way he organized the book, as Shaw mysteriously returns to bits and pieces of Nicklaus' outstanding 1972 season. Plain old chronology still hits the spot.

Unless and until a professional biographer, with plenty of time to read what he has written comes along, if you want to know about Nicklaus you should read his own books, starting with the 1968 "Golf - The Greatest Game of All." When Nicklaus refused to cooperate with this project was he just lucky?

Rating:
Summary: Jack Nicklaus comes alive in this great biography.
Review: Jack Nicklaus is the greatest golfer who ever lived and this book tells everything about him. I especially like the comparisons with the rest of the great golfers and the author's insight into Jack the family man.

Rating:
Summary: This is one of the finest biographies I have ever read.
Review: Mark Shaw has done a superb job in describing the greatest golfer who ever lived. Filled with little known information and exciting anecdotes, the book chronicles the life and times of Nicklaus as never before.