A Round with the SkyCaddie SG5 and GolfbuddyPro

First I want to say, thank you for all of the great information on this site, I did a lot of reading here before I selected the finalists for my experiment. I was trying to decide which GPS to purchase. Lasers are not great for me as I am one of those scramble golfers, my drives are seldom on the fairway but I usually manage to scramble to a par from behind trees and bushes.

I made arrangement to play with my buddy who already purchased a SG5 ($430). I picked up a brand new Golfbuddy Pro ($350) and we decided to have an experiment. There are a few Skycaddies in play at our course so I know they are reliable. I like the Golfbuddy because of its 20,000 course storage capability. Since I travel quite a bit for work and for golf, it would be nice not to have to switch courses when I travel.

Both GPSs were powered up at the same time. My observation is that the SG5 booted up slower but acquired the satellites faster so it was first to start giving yardage, the Golfbuddy Pro was not far behind so I would call it a draw.

Both screens were easy to read with the bright afternoon sun. It may sound wierd but I actually prefer the black & white Golfbuddy Screen to the color SG5 screen.

My home course's first hole is a 540 Yard Par 5 from the Whites. When we arrive on the tee, the SG5 showed 542 at the white marker. The Golfbuddy Pro showed 640, wait, it was 630, wait..., wait... 625 still going down... What the... Chalk one up for SG5.

Next stop, the 150 marker, the SG5 showed 150 exactly. The Golfbuddy Pro showed 275, wait..., wait... (the yardage is doing down like the space shuttle countdown), wait...; 235... eventually settled around 210. My conclusion is that whoever mapped Hole #1 of my course for Golfbuddy did a crappy job. 60 yards off! Our guess is that whoever mapped for the Golfbuddy (probably form satellite pictures) may have mistaken the spare green for the 1st green.

My second observation is that the Golfbuddy Pro takes a good 2-3 seconds to zoom in on distance, the SG5 seems to be able to do it much faster. In addition, the SG5 seems to be fairly precise with very little flucuation, +-1 yard if there is no movement. With the golfbuddy, even with no movement, the yardage flucuates up and down +-5 yards.

The second hole, both SG5 and Golfbuddy Pro were dead on with starting distance and 150 marker.

The third hole, the SG5 was dead on at the 150 mark but the Golfbuddy Pro showed 162. I was losing faith with the Golfbuddy.

The fourth hole, both SG5 and Golfbuddy Pro were pretty close, within 5 yards of each other.

The fifth hole is a 142 yard Par 3 from the White. The Pin is dead center on the green. Standing over the white marker, SG5 showed 141, then 142. The Golfbuddy showed 153. Pretty sure that the Golfbuddy was wrong as my 135 club (PW) left me about 5 yards in front of the pin.

I was scrambling at the sixth so didnt have time to consult the GPSs.

On the seventh, the exact moment when a GPS is needed. A monster drive puts me within the 100 yard marker but close to the next fairway. I need to put the ball high over a roll of trees and a large bunker. The trees would have prevented the use of lasers. The golfbuddy showed 100 yards exactly. My buddy and his SG5 was nowhere near me. My gut tells me that I am closer than a 100 but not certain enough to dismiss the Golfbuddy. I pulled out my trusted 54 degree sandwedge (95-100 yard full swing) and hit the ball perfectly at the pin. The ball was tracking, no fade, no draw, it was sailing straight at the pin. Then my heart sank, either I hitted a 120 yd. SW or the Golfbuddy was wrong again, my ball sailed right over the pin and into the back bunker. My buddy came over with his SG5 and it registered 85 yards.

That was the end of the experiment, the Golfbuddy was switched off for the rest of the round. The next day, the Golfbuddy Pro went back to the store and I picked up a SG5.

Since the Golfbuddy numbers were consistently HIGH but not always, I am attributing the errors to bad mapping but I am not sure; I may have received a faulty unit as well. We were getting good satellite locks on both GPSs. It was a short one round test at one single golf course. One cannot conclude (globally) that the Skycaddie SG5 is better than the Golfbuddy Pro but for my home course, the Skycaddie was the clear winner that day.

I have the golf buddy plus version and it has been very consistant with a sky caddie comparison, many variations with sprinkler heads that were lazered in about 10 years ago on our course. But head to head with gpps very accurate.

Thanks Tumster.

Good information for guys like me in the market for one of these.

I was looking at the GolfBuddy but I am just a little skeptical after reading this on their site in regard to GPS accuracy:

1. How accurate is GPS?

Generally GPS error range is announced as 10m radius or over. Actual GPS data has wide spread distribution in a center point with recording GPS data change in fixed point. In normal environments, the error range is within 5m radius and the error range in wide open area such as golf club is in 1∼5m radius more accurate than city area. But in this case, actually sporadic error can be happened over 10m radius. GPS error correction in software programming means clearing of this kind of actual error or filtering of sporadic data change. Actually, the application of well-programmed filtering is very effective for clearing the GPS sporadic error and can provide more accurate coordination. But the principal weakness for application of filtering is a slow process for calculating the coordination. However, this kind of weakness is almost nothing for golfers because this time range is enough for considering golfer's movement in golf club. Actual error range announced by famous GPS companies such as Trimble and Surfer includes errors mentioned above. The important thing is that users consider this kind of error as a normal condition, and it has no effects on playing the game. In conclusion, GPS error ranges can be diminished in normal conditions such as wide-open area and can provide the accurate distance information for enjoying your round.

Some golf GPS guys don't even talk about accuracy or claim all devices are the same. I don't think that is true. The number of satellites that can be acquired, the use of WAAS and other error correction software can have an impact. I have found from my personal experience the SkyGolf products to be fairly accurate (it helps to have courses mapped by an individual "on the ground" instead of using aerial/satellite photos). The most accurate I have found, again in my personal experience, is the Golf Guru as far as measuring to points you map yourself. They, too, are limited in accuracy by using aerial/satellite photos for their maps.

Reading Phil75070's post above makes me want to mention that

1: My home course is a mature course with lots of tall trees which potentially impact GPS reception; the Golfbuddy Pro has an internal antenna which may be its downfall.

2: I expect that GPS will have a +-3 yard variance. I am not a pro and can't really hit my clubs that precisely anyway but a 10+ yard variance is too much, that is a full club difference. I do believe that a variance of anything less than 1/2 a club gap, say a 1/4 of a club gap is acceptable. For me, 1/4 of a club gap is about 3 yards.

Reading Phil75070's post above makes me want to mention that

 

1: My home course is a mature course with lots of tall trees which potentially impact GPS reception; the Golfbuddy Pro has an internal antenna which may be its downfall.

 

2: I expect that GPS will have a +-3 yard variance. I am not a pro and can't really hit my clubs that precisely anyway but a 10+ yard variance is too much, that is a full club difference. I do believe that a variance of anything less than 1/2 a club gap, say a 1/4 of a club gap is acceptable. For me, 1/4 of a club gap is about 3 yards.

you are absolutely DREAMING if you think any civilian gps is going to be repeatable to a 10 foot circle. the best military gps can barely do that. civilian gps is good for 10 to 20 METERS a 30 to 60 foot circle.

now... if you are using downloaded maps , you are asking for trouble. they are done, as mentioned above, thru aerial survey , google earth and who knows what else but the bottom line is that the resolution from those while VERY good isn't great. i think the comparative error noted in the initial post is , in fact, a mapping error. i believe that if you ran the simple test between those two or any two of these units where you stood on a sprinkler head and punched in zero, and then walked to the center of the green, you would see that they two devices would be almost identical in their measurement and VERY close to what the sprinkler head says. thats because the total error as a function of that "30 ft circle" is essentially negated because the device is measuring a DELTA change from where you WERE to where you ARE... not a function of some lattitude and longitude that could be wrong by that "civilian error."

thats why , when i got the sono caddie, i mapped my course by hand. walked it... marked the tee boxes, bunkers and big land marks. wrote them in my notebook for tournaments. then when playing for fun, i would get to a spot, pull out the notes, make my yardage guess ( no sprinklers on my course... just 100,150,200, markers) and then check old mr sono to see if im right... and it is right all the time. for all intents and purposes perfect consistancy...

because i

1) eliminate the map errors

2) give it time for find 9 sats while at the first tee, before i start.

when i went to the big time 7000 yard course a few weeks ago, i brought it with me and in the practice rounds before the tournament, i checked the sprinkler heads... and they were spot on.

its a valuable tool for understanding what you need to do. the mistake is trying to use it to do something it can't do.... and that is asking it to do your thinking for you.

First off, I have no intention of being critical of anyone but I hate being criticized.

In response to stevesxm:

1. I have no intention of mapping my own courses. I play golf for fun, I play at over 50 different courses a year. I play when I am on vacation which may be in Hawaii, Mexico, Southern California... If I have to play a practice round ahead of time, match the yardage against each and every sprinkler head, before using my gps, it is well... useless to me. PS: Why would I pay good money to a company who claims to deliver a 14,000 course database to me if I am not going to use it.

2. If gps equipment cannot be repeatable to within 10 ft., it is also useless. Would any golfer keep a caddie that says: "you are 150 yards from the green, give or take 10 yards". I also fail to see how mapping your course makes a difference. Your map is only as accurate as your gps. The next time you come to play the same hole, the same chance for a 10 yard error is there again. What is worst is that by mapping your course, you create 2 chances of errors: 1. your gps may be off when you mapped the target initially, and 2. your gps may be off at your current location. Skygolf does not map off satellite images so that's why many readers here prefer them.

I understanding the "delta" concept, but I fail to see how it applies to playing golf; if I am to pace out the yardage, do I really need a gps? The only way the delta concept makes any sense is that if one assumes that the next time you turn your gps on, it is "out" by the exact same error amount. I would suggest that that is not a good assumption to make because each time you turn on your gps, it will be locking into a completely different set of satellites, recalculating its position from scratch.

3. Most new civilian gps devices (especially WAAS equipped ones) claim to have accuracy to within 3 meters. So by asking a gps device to be precise to within 3-4 yards, I am only asking the device to do what the manufacturer claims it can do.

4. I am not asking my gps to do the thinking for me, gosh, I am only asking it to do what its manufacturer claims it can do (>95% of the time anyway).

5. 9 satellites before you start... hmmm... ever played Nicklaus North in Whistler, in the middle of the Rockies, surrounded by mountains and tall trees? I wonder how many satellites you would get there on the first tee. Under optimal conditions, you should get a median of 9 satellites, depending on where they are at any point in time, you may get only 6 even under optimal conditions. If I have to wait for 9 satellites each time I play, I may have to schedule my rounds based on the gps satellite rotation model.

Reading Phil75070's post above makes me want to mention that

 

1: My home course is a mature course with lots of tall trees which potentially impact GPS reception; the Golfbuddy Pro has an internal antenna which may be its downfall.

 

2: I expect that GPS will have a +-3 yard variance. I am not a pro and can't really hit my clubs that precisely anyway but a 10+ yard variance is too much, that is a full club difference. I do believe that a variance of anything less than 1/2 a club gap, say a 1/4 of a club gap is acceptable. For me, 1/4 of a club gap is about 3 yards.

 

you are absolutely DREAMING if you think any civilian gps is going to be repeatable to a 10 foot circle. the best military gps can barely do that. civilian gps is good for 10 to 20 METERS a 30 to 60 foot circle.

If this is true you better not get on another commercial airliner operating in any severe weather because it's could very easily be using GPS to land. The new generation of aircraft can take off and land with very little human input. And they can land on the centerline.......not 10 meters left or right...........right on the money. Depending on the airport they're probably using three sats. Been there done that........may times.

I've been using Skycaddie for a couple of years now. I also use a Pinseeker to laser the actual pin, not the center of the green. In my experience, for the most part Skycaddie is very close once I factor in the center of the green and where the pin is on the green. Certainly better than a 30 to 60 foot circle.

How good is the pinseeker Red?

If this is true you better not get on another commercial airliner operating in any severe weather because it's could very easily be using GPS to land. The new generation of aircraft can take off and land with very little human input. And they can land on the centerline.......not 10 meters left or right...........right on the money. Depending on the airport they're probably using three sats. Been there done that........may times.

Any commerial airliner that auto-lands today does not use GPS. It's still not accurate enough to hit the centerline, although WAAS gets it pretty close. It will use the ILS (Wikipedia - ILS) for the runway in use. (Remarkably, ILS is about 70 years old, although planes couldn't auto-land until much later.) According to Wikipedia, there is a new augmentation system, LAAS, in development that will finally provide enough precision to allow full auto-landings using GPS.

Now, if you are just talking about flying a precision instrument approach with GPS, sure that's done, but not all the way to the runway. The pilot must have a view of the runway (or approach lights) by a certain point, and the landing itself will be conducted by the pilot.

I have done some research on GPS accuracy and a lot of the comments about relatively "poor" accuracy of GPS are based on "old data" found on the 'net. What I have found indicates that accuracy of GPS systems is far more accurate than most people give them credit for:

- 10m lateral is the Differential GPS (DGPS) worst-case accuracy. According to the 2001 Federal Radionavigation Systems (FRS) report published jointly by the U.S. DOT and Department of Defense (DoD), accuracy degrades with distance; it can be < 1 m but will normally be < 10 m

- 7.6m is worst-case accuracy that WAAS must provide

- 2.5m is the actual measured accuracy of GPS based on the NSTB's findings.

- .9m is the actual measured accuracy of the WAAS system based on the NSTB's findings.

- the Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) Specification, used to provide Category III ILS capability, allows aircraft to land with zero visibility utilizing 'autoland' systems and indicates a very high accuracy of < 1 m.

So a GPS that uses WAAS, should, 95% of the time, equal the stated accuracy by the manufacturers of laser rangefinders (1 yard).

If this is true you better not get on another commercial airliner operating in any severe weather because it's could very easily be using GPS to land. The new generation of aircraft can take off and land with very little human input. And they can land on the centerline.......not 10 meters left or right...........right on the money. Depending on the airport they're probably using three sats. Been there done that........may times.

 

Any commerial airliner that auto-lands today does not use GPS. It's still not accurate enough to hit the centerline, although WAAS gets it pretty close. It will use the ILS (Wikipedia - ILS) for the runway in use. (Remarkably, ILS is about 70 years old, although planes couldn't auto-land until much later.) According to Wikipedia, there is a new augmentation system, LAAS, in development that will finally provide enough precision to allow full auto-landings using GPS.

 

Now, if you are just talking about flying a precision instrument approach with GPS, sure that's done, but not all the way to the runway. The pilot must have a view of the runway (or approach lights) by a certain point, and the landing itself will be conducted by the pilot.

Yeah, you got me there :russian_roulette: ....you can't do an autoland CAT III approach without a precision approach operable. Having said that, in my experience GPS on an ADF or VOR approach will get you on centerline. And in keeping with this thread, also in my experience, the Skycaddie is much more accurate than 10 meters which I have confirmed numerous times with a Pinseeker Laser. Now, there have been times when the Skycaddie has been off more than 10 meters, but I think that may have more to do with the mapping????? :friends:

First off, I have no intention of being critical of anyone but I hate being criticized.

 

In response to stevesxm:

 

1. I have no intention of mapping my own courses. I play golf for fun, I play at over 50 different courses a year. I play when I am on vacation which may be in Hawaii, Mexico, Southern California... If I have to play a practice round ahead of time, match the yardage against each and every sprinkler head, before using my gps, it is well... useless to me. PS: Why would I pay good money to a company who claims to deliver a 14,000 course database to me if I am not going to use it.

 

2. If gps equipment cannot be repeatable to within 10 ft., it is also useless. Would any golfer keep a caddie that says: "you are 150 yards from the green, give or take 10 yards". I also fail to see how mapping your course makes a difference. Your map is only as accurate as your gps. The next time you come to play the same hole, the same chance for a 10 yard error is there again. What is worst is that by mapping your course, you create 2 chances of errors: 1. your gps may be off when you mapped the target initially, and 2. your gps may be off at your current location. Skygolf does not map off satellite images so that's why many readers here prefer them.

 

I understanding the "delta" concept, but I fail to see how it applies to playing golf; if I am to pace out the yardage, do I really need a gps? The only way the delta concept makes any sense is that if one assumes that the next time you turn your gps on, it is "out" by the exact same error amount. I would suggest that that is not a good assumption to make because each time you turn on your gps, it will be locking into a completely different set of satellites, recalculating its position from scratch.

 

3. Most new civilian gps devices (especially WAAS equipped ones) claim to have accuracy to within 3 meters. So by asking a gps device to be precise to within 3-4 yards, I am only asking the device to do what the manufacturer claims it can do.

 

4. I am not asking my gps to do the thinking for me, gosh, I am only asking it to do what its manufacturer claims it can do (>95% of the time anyway).

 

5. 9 satellites before you start... hmmm... ever played Nicklaus North in Whistler, in the middle of the Rockies, surrounded by mountains and tall trees? I wonder how many satellites you would get there on the first tee. Under optimal conditions, you should get a median of 9 satellites, depending on where they are at any point in time, you may get only 6 even under optimal conditions. If I have to wait for 9 satellites each time I play, I may have to schedule my rounds based on the gps satellite rotation model.

gee... you don't have sky where you are ? the sats are geosyncronous... they are in the same place all the time. and there are at least 9 visable from everywhere... thats why the system works. and the delta is simple. if it knows where you are, then it knows how far anything ahead is. it is simply a matter of how well it knows where you are. i have the very best civilian gps money can buy on my boat made by the same people that make the mil spec stuff. its good to 50 ft. but im sure that all of these 250 buck hand held devices are better than that all day. geeze... im surprised they aren't using them in iraq. why rely on all that hi buck military stuff ?

if you map manually, it knows where you are every time you pass there because you told it. if you rely on someone elses map then you are at the mercy of their accuracy. i can understand completely your desire for plug and play. but if you rely on other peoples data then you don't get to complain about the accuracy.

waste of time and key strokes.

gee... you don't have sky where you are ? the sats are geosyncronous... they are in the same place all the time. and there are at least 9 visable from everywhere... thats why the system works. and the delta is simple. if it knows where you are, then it knows how far anything ahead is. it is simply a matter of how well it knows where you are. i have the very best civilian gps money can buy on my boat made by the same people that make the mil spec stuff. its good to 50 ft. but im sure that all of these 250 buck hand held devices are better than that all day. geeze... im surprised they aren't using them in iraq. why rely on all that hi buck military stuff ?

 

if you map manually, it knows where you are every time you pass there because you told it. if you rely on someone elses map then you are at the mercy of their accuracy. i can understand completely your desire for plug and play. but if you rely on other peoples data then you don't get to complain about the accuracy.

 

waste of time and key strokes.

You are right about the waste of time and key strokes part. GPS satellites are NOT geosyncronous, otherwise GPSs cannot function near any of the poles. They are all medium orbit satellites. The way they are aligned, the only guarantee is that at least six can be seen from any one spot. If you have tall trees, mountains and other obstructions, you may be down to 3 or 4. The fact that you don't know the basics of how GPS systems work pretty much tells me exactly how little you know about the subject.

My brother is in the market for a GPS device, and I was going to direct him to this thread, but after reading your second point of waiting for a yardage, it doesnt leave a 'warm and fuzzy' feeling with me. I have never had a prob with my SG3 with rechargeable batteries, I dont have to worry about plugging the unit in to charge it.

Thanks Tumster for posting this review. I was on the market for the GolfBuddy Pro but after reading I might have to look for more reviews.

I am with you on the "I play golf for fun." I am not going to spend $350 and then spend I don't know how many additional hours mapping all the courses I play. Kind of defeats the purpose of buying a golf gps unit. I am not asking for a dead on accuracy but something close. 10 yards is NOT acceptable. I don't need a gps to make that kind of mistake/decision. I can do that all on my own. :russian_roulette:

I did email golfbuddy about my problem with the Golfbuddy Pro before I returned it. They did email me back a few days later. I thought I would add it to this string:

1. With respect to the "countdown" type of problem, i.e. the device is at 150 but it starts at 180, 179, 178.... slowly but eventually ends up somewhere close to 150. They say that upgrading to the latest firmware should fix the problem. From the responsse, it sounds like it is a known problem and it has been fixed.

2. With respect to certain greens not being mapped properly, they suggest that I call their 1-800 number when I am on the course and they will walk me through how to check for mapping accuracy and re-map the greens if necessary.

I have absolutely no problem with the first point, I am not sure about the second one. At least their service people do respond to questions.

PS: I have just given my SG5 away as a gift and bought its smaller brother SG2.5; I am very happy with it.

I'm a Sky Caddie SG3 user ... and I can't say enough positive about it. Love it!

Obviously, playing rounds at your home course doesn't require too many looks at the unit. But going to different courses around the area and out of town is where the sky caddie is now a necessary piece of equipment. I can tell by looking at the green if the flag is towards the middle, front or back so the Laser to the flag isn't all that important to me. But having Front - Center - Back yardages is what gives you confidence in all of your shot options, provided that you know how far you hit your clubs.

Do I really want to sit on the tee and laser 3-4 things to get carry distances, nope. I'd much rather just look down at a screen that is already displaying those yardages for me. As for the GPS +/- tolerances, I doubt that any of us on this board are good enough to control our irons anywhere near what the GPS tolerance is, and if you are ... you should be out on tour making $$$ with those irons.

For anyone who cares, I have a SkyCaddie SG-5 and also a Leica CRF 1200 laser rangefinder. The Leica is generally accepted as one of the most accurate lasers available. Pricey too! ($699)

http://us.leica-camera.com/nature_observat...aster/crf_1200/

Anyhoo...

I've compared the measurements several times and on several different days, and they are consistently no more than 1-2 yards different, and frequently read exactly the same. The Leica website claims that their unit has accuracy of +/- 1 yard up to 400 yards.

Additionally, I've stood on the teebox yardage markers on 3 different courses and usually get a readout of exactly the yardage on the scorecard or marker. Again, maybe 1-2 yards maximum difference.

IMHO, there is no argument that the Skycaddie is not accurate to within a few yards, tops.

I just picked up my first GPS system today, the SG5. Given it's extremely pricey tag I'm wondering if I should try something less expensive. The color doesn't do much for me and I was anticipating it mapping out the entire hole say tee to hazard, more of a yardage book more instead it just gives me A-B distance, for $430, come on.