One Under Par

A Newsletter from KeyGolf..... August, 2001

Who's LEARNING What?

Sometimes, we wonder who's learning what. About twenty years ago, give or take a couple, Peter Kostis authored a featured article in either Golf Magazine or Golf Digest (we could only find our notes which omitted the name) discussing playing styles and their effect on the game. Style information was just beginning to be noticed in a general way at about that time and it loomed as a nice, new, "pop" theme being "discovered," by an occasional golf writer. (We note that the information has been available since 400 BC when Hippocrates found and described it).

Looking back, the article was apparently intended to provide a new look at ourselves as we played. So far, so good. Several years later, Golf Digest featured Peter (again?) in their cover story for July '92, called "3 Keys to Distance."

In that article, it was suggested that there are two kinds of distance - "quality" and "quantity," which, Kostis said, you get from two different approaches to the swing. He then illustrated what was meant by "quality" with players like Nick Faldo and Ian Baker-Finch. "Quantity," he said, came from players like Ed Humenik and John Daly. He put Steve Elkington in the "middle" with a balance of quantity and quality.

Finally, he indicated that what golfers should do is decide which category s/he wants to adopt. The rest of the article implies that any of us may choose the style we want, just by deciding to go that way. That, we find to be a faulty premise.

Since Faldo and Finch (Ian was still active at the time) displayed (and still do) a combination of the two behavior styles known as Craftsman with some Analyzer, Daly showed mostly Persuader, Humenik: Driver/Persuader, and Elkington: Craftsman, all Peter did was describe the typical approaches to swinging that go with the behavior styles he treid to describe much earlier.

Kostis apparently knew the styles twenty years ago, so we wonder why he neglected to mention that it would be in the best interest of each player to approach distance through their styles, and call the observable distinctions something other than "quality" and "quantity," which are value judgments. And that's only two, where there are, indeed, four. Once we understand behavior and the four basic styles, the mystery disappears. Drivers tend to "hit," or "rip," the ball. Craftsmen swing the club. Analyzers strike the ball. Persuaders, for reasons not known, have two moves: sometimes they "rip" the ball," and sometimes they swing the club. Since they never know which one is coming, they tend to spray the ball all over the lot, but they have the most feel and creativity, so they get it up and down from anywhere better than anyone else..

A problem arises because we are all so heavily influenced by what gets into print, on TV, and subsequently in our heads. Unfortunately much of what is reported is fragmented and distorted by reporters attempting to be "clever," leaving the rest of us confused about how much is pure entertainment and how much is useful in other ways. Our systems are unable to distinguish the difference on their own. They depend on our ability to make conscious distinctions, which requires at least minimal basic understanding of the styles.. If we have no clue which is which, there's little alternative to a residual problem.. At some point, even though being clever may be appropriate, it is important to get to the real issues with integrity and evaluated principle, in order to eliminate any problem.

Most recently, attention of a style related nature has tuned in on David Duval's demeanor. For a moment, everyone may even leave Tiger's style related demeanor alone long enough to "discuss" David. Suddenly, as he wins The Open, the guy who was being chastized for his "sour countenance" is being praised for smiling. It comes across that he has somehow changed. First of all, he is not "sour," and never has been. He is in the group known as Analyzers, who are, by natural traits, reserved, detailed, sober, cool (sometimes cold) and very low responsive. That's who they are. They tend to look, like Ben Hogan, totally focused to the point of over-concentration even when they aren't. But what the writers, promoters, observers, and media experts seem to want are the more charismatic types. They foster the impression that all others are just being rude and inappropriate. We suppose that's their response to the the uncommon desire to promote the easiest routes to commercialization of everything. Don't want anything that won't instantly sell, and if it will sell itself, that's even better. Another myth, or collection of same.

Our "beef" on this one goes one step further. If we really know something, as in behavior styles and those who talk and write about them, we use it resourcefully. When we fail to utilize effectively the things we talk about, it indicates that we didn't really grasp them in the first place. So those who may have had an opportunity to help create a clear and meaningful picture of those in public view, and who have often failed to do that, deserve no kudos.

The frequency with which those who announce and do the commentary for golf events and reporting, talk as though there is a particular way in which the "ideal" golfer should behave leaves a residue of inaccurate impressions. Tiger, for instance, who is a Driver, should not pump his fist and mouth "those" words. Never mind that that's exactly what Drivers do. They are fist pumpers. Sergio's behavior - as a Persuader - is OK because he only expresses youthful exuberance. That'w what Persuaders do, but they are so entertaining and exuberant that everyone loves them. David is a cold fish. That goes with the impression that most folks who are not Analyzers, have of those who are Analyzers. Justin Leonard is an Analyzer, too, but he gets less negatives because he has a little of the Craftsman's amiable trait, to go with his Analyzer, whereas David's "back-up style" is Driver (Drivers are "cool," Craftsmen are warm and Analyzers are more cool than Drivers. Persuaders are warmer than Craftsmen).

The point here, is that almost no one is taking into consideration an inescapable reality - that behavior style is not a choice. It is a given and must be acknowledged in the mix of trying to understand what we believe we need to apply to our games, not to mention life. Leave style out and we make it virtually impossible for truly accurate, viable, meaningful choices to be made for any action or set of behaviors coming from any of us. It no longer surprises us at KeyGolf that so many players complain that "they can't keep it going." Getting the style issues straight is a step in the right direction, and a prerequisite for allowing our games to integrate fully.

===============================
Let us know if you have questions or comments.