the COAM myth

Re: the COAM myth

Postby mandrin » Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:09 pm

lagpressure wrote:COAM,

Getting to the issue of definitions, which is really what this thread is about.. meaning.. is COAM the proper term to describe the downswing?

Conserving.. what we are doing is conserving the angle of a lever... so we load the lever (wrist cock and wrist rotation)
then we deliver or move that lever to a place where we trigger it like a mouse trap.

It's not that complicated.

COAM may not be the right term but is certainly a well understood implied term. You might flunk the physics exam, but win the blue ribbon at the physics fair exhibit.

“ What is good in Homer's Golfing Machine”

“ I think a good thing is an attempt to standardize terminology.. “


lagpressure,

You are of the opinion that one of the major merits of Homer Kelley is his impressive efforts to standardize terminology. Hence you value very much the value of clear well defined terminology as a means of useful communication.

It took hundreds of years to come to grasp with concepts such as mass and force and various other related derived concepts and to finally ponder the corresponding definitions as we find them in text books nowadays. Are you really serious preaching that we can nevertheless change well established scientific definitions to suite our purpose?

There is clearly a dichotomy. Clear definitions are welcome in golf but well established scientific definitions can be taken and changed as desired. ;)
User avatar
mandrin
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:21 pm

Re: the COAM myth

Postby CaptainChaos » Tue Dec 22, 2009 6:08 pm

mandrin wrote:...

That can only be because you are really interested in the subject. Hence you entertain a rather ambivalent discourse. ...


Mandrin,

I think TwoMasters (and I am speaking only from knowing him through his posts) posted Dante, uploads pictures of many other golfing greats, and shares other old/obscure tomes of golf with us because it reinforces how far instructors have fallen from what it takes to teach golfers a solid swing. His posts also reinforce how "classic" the instruction is here. It's old school, but it's a path that has been lost through too many computers, slow motion capture, teaching pro philosophers and snake-oil salesmen.

TwoMasters is a pro...he's learning to trust instincts again. For many, dissecting each bit of information is a trap. We're learning to avoid that trap and train our bodies/minds to forget the garbage and instill the good stuff. Banter is good. Questioning is good, but for God's sake...some of you guys are tedious at best!

My apologies to 2M if I'm *way* off base.

Cheers,
Capt. Chaos
User avatar
CaptainChaos
 
Posts: 986
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:38 am

Re: the COAM myth

Postby mandrin » Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:10 pm

CaptainChaos wrote:
mandrin wrote:...

That can only be because you are really interested in the subject. Hence you entertain a rather ambivalent discourse. ...


Mandrin,

I think TwoMasters (and I am speaking only from knowing him through his posts) posted Dante, uploads pictures of many other golfing greats, and shares other old/obscure tomes of golf with us because it reinforces how far instructors have fallen from what it takes to teach golfers a solid swing. His posts also reinforce how "classic" the instruction is here. It's old school, but it's a path that has been lost through too many computers, slow motion capture, teaching pro philosophers and snake-oil salesmen.

TwoMasters is a pro...he's learning to trust instincts again. For many, dissecting each bit of information is a trap. We're learning to avoid that trap and train our bodies/minds to forget the garbage and instill the good stuff. Banter is good. Questioning is good, but for God's sake...some of you guys are tedious at best!

My apologies to 2M if I'm *way* off base.

Cheers,
Capt. Chaos

CaptainChaos,

I agree with the gist of your post. Science indeed has little to do with the art of hitting a golf ball and much more with selling expensive high tech stuff. But I do like the simple truth being it related to science or otherwise.

Explain to me why the proud and arrogant self congratulatory bunch at LBG glorify themselves in their 'science' and yet are scared of me as if I could spread some ignominious sickness. Why are the bunch at iseekgolf banning me?

Because in their heart of hearts, whilst glorifying their idol and his 'science', they are still very insecure about the validity of all their fancy pseudo science stuff. Nobody should be allowed to scratch even the surface.

Progress is through putting things on the table and not by hiding things in secret dark secluded places. Is advanced ball striking advanced in this respect? Or again is only acceptable that what fits in nicely and does not rock the boat? ;)
User avatar
mandrin
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:21 pm

Re: the COAM myth

Postby BomGolf222 » Tue Dec 22, 2009 8:28 pm

Mandrin,
By acceptance do you mean that people will just agree with you? I can't see any other form of acceptance that you could have a problem with on this site. You, me and everyone here are free to roam with their ideas, but that doesn't mean that they should be just accepted as fact. I can't understand why you would be asking if ABS is welcoming of ideas and free thought. In fairness, you've been peddling your anti COAM ideas for a few months now, to the point that it's actually humourous. You even have your own thread for gods sake- it's un-ironically called, "the COAM myth". How much more openness and acceptance of outside ideas do you need? I'm going on the record by saying that I fully believe that you don't advocate for the presence of COAM in the golfswing, and that I don't really know what it means :) I really enjoy ideas being thrown around, and you are clearly as free as a bird to express yours here as often as you like. Long may it continue!
Cheers,
B
User avatar
BomGolf222
 
Posts: 1794
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2009 11:54 pm

Re: the COAM myth

Postby twomasters » Tue Dec 22, 2009 9:24 pm

...if golf really was reliant on science like we are lead to believe by so many who are scientists and not golfers then it should go without saying that the golfers of today shouldn't be missing fairways or greens and all should be shooting 63 every day-- going by the supposed advancements the game has undertaken with tuition and with equipment... however the days of 14 out of 14 fairways and 18 greens in regulation are still reverberating around Merion or somewhere back in the 1980's

Capt Chaos...you are correct.... I had no idea who Dante was until 3 days ago. I pulled a book from my shelf. I flicked through and lo and behold there was an entire chapter about COAM. A subject I had never even heard of until this thread was started the day before i pulled the book. Co-incidence I thought- why not post some of it for reference.
I posted it for pure observation for the members of the site as i am one of lag's contributors and helpers. I honestly don't know who mandrin is and how he came up with his tests and all the red lines and blue lines and torques that he laid out in his thesis either...it meant nothing to me.....so who should we believe about COAM?.... WHO CARES
If you polled the top 200 on the World ranking and asked what is COAM? I bet less than handful would know and less than that would really care..if science really doesn't mean much...as was stated...then why do people dwell on it and worry so much about it all and think the magic formula to good golf is locked up inside it all somehow?
User avatar
twomasters
 
Posts: 7736
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 3:20 pm

Re: the COAM myth

Postby BPGS1 » Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:18 pm

Just my two cents...the Dante book is one of my all time favorites and in fact is required reading for every new Balance Point student who signs up for one of our golf swing schools like Great Shot! They read Dante, Boomer, Clampett's book, the new Haney book, Hebron's "Secrets and Lies", Rotellas "Golf of Your Dreams" and a few others. All reading to be done prior to attending the school.

I think Mandrin has it right from a technically correct definition standpoint and since he is a scientist I can respect his concern over the proper use of language. I am the same way in how we use terms and language here at Balance Point. Words matter. For example, I never use the term "shoulder" as I don't believe the shoulder as the term is commonly understood has any role whatsoever in a good golf swing. It has a role in a very bad swing to be sure. We prefer the term "shoulder girdle" or the top of the torso, a part of the Pivot.

My take is that Dante was trying to explain - way back in 1962 I think - what today we call the kinetic chain. He is describing the transfer of momentum from one body segment to the next, and finally to the club. I dont think that was an improper description - just the wrong term, ie COAM. And why is that so important to learning how to strike a golf ball better? Easy...its in the book and my own teaching experience backs it up. He was advocating what some call a "late hit" or late wrist cock angle release. Late is a misnomer, it is actuallly a "right on time" release of the angle.

Many of his golf students, like my own, just could not comprehend how such a "late release" could happen and still square up the clubface. It looks to be - from a common sense perspective - physically impossible. And yet the photographic evidence shows that the pros do indeed square the face up from the ABS P3 position, to impact, and most of that is achieved by simple Pivot Thrusting and then letting the momentum feed into the wrist joint to open up the angle. Or - you can actively use the forearm muscles to assist the momentum in opening up the angle even faster, like Lag prefers. Both ways can work, I prefer the passive way for most of my students. Everything else is identical between ABS and B Point regarding this part of the swing: tight arms, hands and club moving left, post-impact pivot, frozen right arm, etc.

So - Dante was using science (even though he got the term wrong) as a way of CONVINCING his many skeptical students that this Magic Move he was attempting to teach them was real, and concrete and not only possible to learn how to do well, but that even one's intellectual mind could comprehend why that was so. My guess is that - like me and Lag and many teachers in the "modern" era, he had a lot of very analytical students who literally would not accept the concept and train with it, UNTIL and UNLESS you could convince them scientifically that the concept was 100% correct.

Which gets me to Two and some others' points here. I can explain the WHY as well as anybody teaching in the game today - Manzella, Lag, Doyle, Bennet and Plummer, O' Grady, Grober, HK, Leadbetter, Hebron, etc. But as the years go by I find myself having much better success with the analytic type students, to get them to throw away their mental crutches, ie the dependence on so-called 100% verifiable scientific truth, that actually is BY FAR the biggest obstacle to their ability to learn how to hit a golf ball well. Basically, I say something like this: "Do you want to spend your time and your money having a long, detailed debate over everything I am asking you to do - (at $130 hour or $1200 day for a Private School )- or would you like to make some really rapid progress here and start to really learn something that will help you to develop the skill of better ballstriking?" Most will say, yes to that new course. Then I test them for two things: mental focus ability and the ability to feel their body. I ALWAYS find that the analytic types have both poor mental focus and poor body awareness. No wonder they thought that the golf swing is an intellectual mystery, a puzzle, an enigma that has an intellectual solution!

Here is a real work example. I had a new student come to work with me this year who has been to pretty much every "name" instructor in this country over the past five years of taking up the game, including somevery well know names from Internet golf forums. His average score was still in the 105-115 range after all of that instruction and a ton of practice both at home and at the range. He was extremely intellectual and very well read and possessed more intellectual knowledge of swing theory than most golf teachers I know. The problem was that he had no sensory feel-based awareness for his own body and club motion during the swing. In essence, he was not present - awake and alive inside his swing. So even though he knew intellectually that he was succumbing to the Hit Impulse and several other Fatal Flaws, he never had actually experienced those flaws in his body. The flaw was literally only in his mind. Because his mind and body were split - light years apart from each other. We did a lot of body awareness drills and mental focus drills and very quickly he was able to actually do a lot of the body moves that the other teachers has wanted him to do, but which he simply could not do - because of his mind/body split and lack of awareness. As a result, his ballstriking improved dramatically - much better than I had expected.

My point is that the more I hang out at Internet golf forums and read some of the long-winded debates about the most incredibly tiny details of what may or may not occur during a swing segment that might last for a tenth of a second or even much shorter time duration, or with this body part or that body part, it makes me wonder if at least some of the people participating in those debates on a regular basis, are really just completely missing the point about what golf is all about and what learning golf is all about.
BPGS1
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 5:19 pm

Re: the COAM myth

Postby lagpressure » Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:44 pm

BPS1,

That was a wonderful post.. I could not have said it better. I hope a few can take that to heart.
User avatar
lagpressure
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:50 pm

Re: the COAM myth

Postby lagpressure » Tue Dec 22, 2009 11:48 pm

Mandrin,

I do like us all speaking the same language as much as possible.

What in your mind is the correct scientific term for holding the angle created by wrist cock from the top of the backswing down to P3... ready to be released (actively or passively)

I personally don't use the term COAM with my students because when I do they get a glazed look in their eyes.. which does no one any good.

What do you call it?
User avatar
lagpressure
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8191
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:50 pm

Re: the COAM myth

Postby Styles » Wed Dec 23, 2009 3:44 am

mandrin wrote:Explain to me why the proud and arrogant self congratulatory bunch at LBG glorify themselves in their 'science' and yet are scared of me as if I could spread some ignominious sickness. Why are the bunch at iseekgolf banning me?



because you keep starting threads about something that has little relevance at all to golf and then are rude to anyone who takes issue with it?

Seriously, as many people have pointed out, this COAM myth really makes nop difference to how I hit a golf ball. Whether it is there or not, I hit the ball.

Would you be happy if everyone just agreed with you? Would that make you stop banging on about this? This is a golf forum not a science forum.
Styles
 
Posts: 598
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 6:29 am

Re: the COAM myth

Postby CaptainChaos » Wed Dec 23, 2009 7:24 am

mandrin wrote:Explain to me why the proud and arrogant self congratulatory bunch at LBG glorify themselves in their 'science' and yet are scared of me as if I could spread some ignominious sickness. Why are the bunch at iseekgolf banning me?

Because in their heart of hearts, whilst glorifying their idol and his 'science', they are still very insecure about the validity of all their fancy pseudo science stuff. Nobody should be allowed to scratch even the surface.

Progress is through putting things on the table and not by hiding things in secret dark secluded places. Is advanced ball striking advanced in this respect? Or again is only acceptable that what fits in nicely and does not rock the boat? ;)


Mandrin,

I appreciate your point of view. However, we aren't LBG or iseekgolf. Many that are here learning were also banned, warned or "attacked" in some manner at those forums as well. Rock the boat all you want, but it seems like you are trying to get everyone to validate your views. Your method of questioning is akin to a prosecuting attorney and I'm certain that makes people feel uncomfortable or distrustful of your motives.

I'm an engineer and I know we have plenty of scientific people here, but my suggestion is to tone down the inquisition style and move slowly. You'll find everyone more receptive and more apt to participate and digest what you are trying to say.

For example, putting an emoticon after your last comment isn't appropriate. You've essentially make the suggestion that advanced ball striking may be of the same "clanish" ilk as LBG or iseekgolf....no emoticon softens that blow. *And* you couldn't be more wrong. No cliques here, only golfers hungry to learn and share.

I've said my piece...

Cheers,

Capt. Chaos
User avatar
CaptainChaos
 
Posts: 986
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:38 am

PreviousNext

Return to Top Threads (2000 Club)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron