What Intimidation Factor?

If you haven't heard this one, you probably don't spend much time reading the journals, listening to the commentators, or reviewing what's posted on forum boards. (The latter, by the way, is a great way to keep up with what and how the general avid golf population is thinking about the game itself, the players on tour, and, in particular, their own games - good, bad and sideways. Forums may be better than the others, since writers and sportscasters tend only to promote the biases in their own minds, or those of their editors ).

In any event...A popular conversation piece these days is trying to examine "Tiger's Intimidation Factor." Even Earnhardt ("The Intimidator") and Ali didn't get as much discussion on the matter as Tiger does. We suppose it's "in," so here goes.

Tiger does not have an intimidation factor!

That's our view. One may be ascribed to him, but he doesn't bully anybody, drive them off the road or belittle them in any way. Sure, he spits, cusses occasionally, pumps his fist, points at the hole when the putt drops, twirls his club when he really likes the shot or gestures to the gallery with a sort of "if-you-liked-that-you're-gonna-love-the-next-one" look. But if you are a close observer, you know that he's not arrogant about it. He doesn't have to say it. He does it with his clubs, his game and his presence, (except when he over-extends his style, which doesn't happen very often).

Take into consideration that he has a landscape behind him like no other. He's been in public view almost since he was born - always pointed toward golf and greatness. His name is "Tiger" (at least, his handle), not "pussy cat." Virtually every player is either openly in awe of his ability and perseverance, or they are making what comes out as an unemotional, flat-line statement, like "He's just another player in the mix," which is a lot like walking through a cemetery at night and saying out loud, "Me? I'm not scared of the dark!"

Now add his style - we see him as a combination of Driver/Persuader. And throw in a thing called "the rule vs. the exception," and you have quite a mix. It is no wonder he is both feared and revered for his game. We have noticed for a long time (20 years), but without doing hard research, that Drivers and Persuaders tend to score less well in the first two rounds and their best on Saturday and Sunday. Craftsmen and Analyzers tend to score best up front and do less well on the weekends. Doesn't always happen that way, but often enough to show a pattern in that respect. Generally, when Tiger doesn't play well, it's an exception. When some of the others do shoot lights out, its an exception (they typically find a zone and just don't fall out of it). The rule is for Tiger to go low while all the others flirt up and down with it. Now think about what that does to Craftsmen and Analyzers. At least, those who don't know their styles are apt to have concerns about "fading" in the stretch. It certainly won't do much for their confidence. But suppose they understood their patterns. Now their expectations have a different look and they don't fear the weekends. That, alone, would gain them a few shots over time.

No offense to any player is intended here, but an important insight is available, which sadly has gone virtually unexamined. If players knew and understood their styles, they would likely change their approach to what appears to them to be, but really isn't, "the rule." It would allow them to move in keeping with their own style (which is the rule), making their expectations and approaches more in sync with those styles. That, in turn would alter their perception. At present it is their perception that creates the voice of intimidation, powered by a whole bunch of undeniable reinforcements.

Tiger doesn't engineer the "intimidation." He doesn't engage in a process of sticking pins in dolls that look like other players, at least so far as we know. He doesn't carry himself with some arrogant bearing that causes other players to step aside when he comes along. We find it interesting that almost every player, when asked, not only acknowledges that Tiger is way out front as #1 in the world, but that it will take a poor showing on his part coupled with an extraordinary showing on some other player's part, to beat him. They are awed by his game. And that, indeed, has been the rule, not the exception.

Other players have popped big ones. Beem did it. Clarke did it. Singh did it. Maggert, Toms, Els, Love, Weir and Couples have done it (though not necessarily when Tiger was playing). But none of the above have been able to repeat the deal or sustain the performance (Beem did win two in a row, and Ernie got off to a racy start this year while the Tiger was mending). And, we also have Phil waiting in the wings. Now, make a comparison of styles. There are no Drivers in the group mentioned above.

That is not to say that Drivers are sure to be better players. Any style can play well or win, if the player sees his/her own style, comprehends its meaning and adapts commensurate management skills.

As best we can see and describe, without having Tiger's own perception to generate a profile, he appears to us, as we said, to be a combination of Driver and Persuader. He shows considerable (well-managed, as a rule) assertiveness and urgency (a Driver trait that is opposite of Craftsman), and plenty of non-conformity (opposite of Analyzer). He makes the best of the Persuader's passion and creativity, as a rule (seen in his short game talent and the occasional "army golf," left-right shot). He is what we have come to know in composite, as a "Velvet Hammer." He will hit you over the head with his driver, but he will leave the club cover on while he does it. (This, by the way - since half the population are Craftsmen - laid back, routine, very traditional, and 20% more are Analyzers - is why Tiger takes much flack over his sometimes flagrant verbal outbursts. It's natural for him. It's opposite of that for 70% of the population, though).

Interestingly, we observed from the profiles done with the PGA, that 85% of the PGA of America (years ‘85 - ‘99) were Craftsmen and Analyzers (85% of 26,000 in the PGA is a huge number compared to 70% of millions in the general population). How did that happen? Apparently because those two styles have a ready-made capacity for learning and developing their golf swings and games, and the love affair with swing mechanics plays precisely into the hands of the Analyzer especially. It's just easier, in default, for them to learn the game than it is for Drivers and Persuaders. Where the major misread comes in is that Craftsmen and Analyzers are too often "reminded" that they should be more "aggressive," which is incorrect in two ways. One: "aggressive" is an over-extension of assertiveness, and two: Craftsmen and Analyzers are, by nature, "low assertive," where Drivers and Persuaders are "high assertive." That means that the former two will be in much more trouble with that advice than Drivers and Persuaders, even though it can cost both a bunch.

Natural styles paint a portrait for everybody else to observe. So the so-called "Intimidation Factor" attributed to Tiger (and not generally to others) is in the eye of the beholder, plain and simple. It is NOT something Tiger is doing to others. It's what they do to themselves as they watch him. Tiger has a double dose of high assertive traits. Most of those who watch him (70%, Analyzers and Craftsman) are the opposite of that. To them "high assertive" is "unnecessary" and "over-cooked," at least to the portion of people who have little or no knowledge about behavior styles and how they work. In fact, the only times we have seen Tiger "leave" his style has been when, under pressure, he goes into the over-assertive (extended) mode and makes either bad shot decisions or tries to hit it too hard. When that does happen, it tends to double up against him since he has both sets of "high assertive" traits. In those moments, he tends to overshoot greens or get ahead of his best swings and lose it right.

The ready vulnerability of Craftsmen and Analyzers to an "intimidation factor," doesn't come from others, but from within themselves. That's not an indictment of them or their style. It's a natural part of being "low assertive," and tends to create a problem unless they have benefit of style knowledge. Listening to them reveals a quietly subtle rendition of personal doubt measured against Tiger's "gift."

Tiger has no more gift in life than any other Driver, Persuader, Craftsman or Analyzer. (All are "gifted," albeit in different ways). He just uses his "gift" more effectively. He can thank his mother and father, who taught him the "quiet mind" of the eastern world (Mom) and the "never give up" of the western world (Dad), thus reinforcing the style he brought with him. There is nothing to hint that he was ever asked to be gentle, sweet or loving, which would have opposed his natural style, so he got full value in the strengths of the style he owns - from day one, or so it appears. And it was laid onto the naturally receptive Driver/Persuader platform. It was a thorough "fit." There is not even a hint that he "rebelled" as a teenager. He just made a fairly smooth transition from youth to young adult, though we are sure, not all would see it that way.

We insert here for those who may have missed it in our past words - one must be careful when talking about "teen-aged rebellion" since it is quite likely that what we have all seen in that light is more a bid to return to one's own style, after having been "bent" out of shape by their world, friends, environment, etc. It may well be that "rebellion" has been our "word" for something we did not fully understand. Hence, it is our view that "Tiger" got style support where others may have found it necessary to struggle with that issue. The latter can certainly put a hole in self-confidence if not leak all of its juices, while the former puts the rubber squarely on the road.
 

Certainly the fact that Tiger seems to have the "complete game" - no weaknesses to speak of, is a help, but that just magnifies the distance between his confidence and the doubt that seems to surface in almost all of his adversaries. He's almost always making a move forward and they are almost always either folding in the crunch, or barely holding on, which often is not enough. Sure. That will bring on "Intimidation." But it's not a silver bullet from Tiger's gun. It's a self-inflicted blank from a beholder's pop-gun.

The above would have been the end this month's issue, but a postscript on the Masters is in view. Mike Weir and Len Mattiace deserve accolades for this year's tourney. Mike is a quintessential journeyman, an Analyzer, we suspect. He won't fold many times, but it is doubtful that the title "Intimidator" will ever be laid on him. Len hit the "Big" zone on Sunday, just like Davis Love III did at the Players on another Sunday, and Freddie did the same a couple or so years back at the Players, too. None of those are likely to be granted such a moniker, either.

And, of course, Tiger got into exactly the "funk" we described earlier. Made a bad choice on #3, and thereafter over-extended his style contributing to his hitting shots and chips uncharacteristically in "over-done" fashion. But nobody in their right mind will see that as the "new Tiger," the one who "lost it." He'll still be seen as the Intimidation Author the very next time he tees it up.

And that inspires another issue that we will leave for later address. Just put this in your hopper: The "Big Zone" is more than we have been conditioned to believe. It is a continuum, starting on the left with "Full Negative" on the far end, and working to the right, with "Full Positive" on the other end. In other words, you can get into a "bad" zone (where nothing seems to go right) just like you can get into the good one (where everything seems to go your way). We just like to talk only about the good one, don't we? So we may have a lot left to learn about "zones." As for us, we'll stick with the "everyday" variety that is a by-product of correctly applying clear keys. There is no "downside" to that practice, other than just not doing it.

See you on the course or the learning tee!