Monitors on the Range

13»

Comments

  • Krt22Krt22 Members Posts: 6,734 ✭✭
    What about an amateur who has his own and gets lessons?
  • b.heltsb.helts Members Posts: 2,848 ✭✭
    edited Jan 6, 2019 11:22pm #63
    Krt22 wrote:


    What about an amateur who has his own and gets lessons?




    Depends on the skill level. But I think most players would be better off developing an innate knowledge of their swing and tendencies via ball flight rather than launch monitor data.



    Edit to add: that’s not to say both can’t be used. They are not mutually exclusive and I recognize that.
  • GolfjackGolfjack All about the rotation Members Posts: 1,047 ✭✭
    b.helts wrote:



    It amazes me how naive folks are who haven't had access to or are aren't familiar with the many facets of radar technology.



    If anything, range ball or not, having extremely accurate data to give a player yardage gaps and carry #s can't possibly hurt anybody or create a dependency on the monitor. It's amazing how few golfers actually even know their true carry numbers.



    Now in regards to the club data and swing geometry stuff...... that's where IMO a lot of stuff went off the rails initially with the AoA nonsense and trying to create 'iron Byron vacuum perfect world launch conditions'. Monte commented about this in another thread and was spot on, and I saw the exact same thing many years ago when this stuff was still relatively unknown. People get carried away with chasing launch/spin combos that typically worsen their swings.



    Once a player understands how the variables of the swing.... the swing path and face stuff lead to certain ballflights...... it becomes extremely easy to make the adjustments assuming you have certain fundamental control of moving the club. If you don't have control, and or don't understand or are confused at how those variables work, the monitor stuff is useless. That's why you typically only see very advanced players and tour pros using these machines. Not only are they dialing in there gear but they can see if the swing is getting loose and can make adjustments. Their not learning how to swing by numbers.




    I am quite certain, in my case at least, that it isn't naïveté nor ignorance. My point is this: a launch monitor is neither a path to success nor a fix. It is a tool and like all great craftsman, the ones that are good know the tool does not the craftsman make.



    I also feel very strongly that dependence on a launch monitor to give you data can (please note I said can) limit or hinder a players on course ability to diagnose, troubleshoot and fix a problem on the fly. Which of course, is vital to scoring well.




    I absolutely agree. People have to remember that they are not trying to hit a number blindly. They have to do the right moves to get those numbers. However it is still helpful when someone is doing a swing change to get accurate feedback on what they are doing. Distance is great feedback. Advanced trackman stuff like are they hitting the mat a lot further after the ball or before, that's helpful too. Plenty of other complicated stuff I don't know about. Otherwise I think video is helpful to see if you are doing the drill properly to get a result.



    Launch monitor has nothing to do with on course play other than distance control. Everything else is like proof a swing change works. It's like look you did this change now your path is more neutral etc, since a player's feel often is wrong or impossible capture so many feels accurately.
    TM M4 Driver 10.5
    TM M4 3 wood 16
    4H (22) Aeroburner TP
    Mizuno MP-15 4, 5 iron, Project X LZ 6.5
    Mizuno MP-5 6-PW, Project X LZ 6.5
    Wedges Mizuno T7 50, 56, 60
    Honma HP 1002

    Alternate set:
    Callaway Epic Sub Zero 9.5, Nike VR Pro 4-PW DG x100, Titleist AP2 712 DG x100 4-P, Callaway Jaws X Series CC Wedges 52 56 60, , Odyssey Arm Lock Putter, Gauge Design Eldik Putter with Superstroke Fatso 5
  • nevets88nevets88 Members Posts: 787 ✭✭
    For working on the full swing, I find by myself, a launch monitor distracting and more useful to ignore it and then look at the data like halfway through and then at home.



    But for short game, great for gauging distance.
  • Charles.eichmanCharles.eichman ClubWRX Posts: 344 ClubWRX
    nevets88 wrote:
    For working on the full swing, I find by myself, a launch monitor distracting and more useful to ignore it and then look at the data like halfway through and then at home.



    But for short game, great for gauging distance.


    This^. I always divide my practice into groupings and just look after about 40 shots.
  • Lincoln_ArcadiaLincoln_Arcadia We're supposed to be having fun here...yeah, right. Members Posts: 543
    iteachgolf wrote:

    iteachgolf wrote:


    The Mevo gives normalized numbers. So range ball should have minimal effect vs x3 tracking its entire flight.




    Are the initial launch characteristics of limited range balls and tour balls similar enough that you can trust the mevo numbers to translate reasonably on the course?




    Imo yes. Now I havent tested every rangeball made but for instance our range balls give almost the same launch and spin numbers as high end balls on full shots (with occasional outlier) but they travel about 3% shorter with woods. When normalized the numbers are extremely close.



    Mevo is small enough that I’d take it on course and do some testing.




    I’d think that SF numbers could be lower with different compressions?
  • iteachgolfiteachgolf Members Posts: 16,803 ✭✭

    iteachgolf wrote:

    iteachgolf wrote:


    The Mevo gives normalized numbers. So range ball should have minimal effect vs x3 tracking its entire flight.




    Are the initial launch characteristics of limited range balls and tour balls similar enough that you can trust the mevo numbers to translate reasonably on the course?




    Imo yes. Now I havent tested every rangeball made but for instance our range balls give almost the same launch and spin numbers as high end balls on full shots (with occasional outlier) but they travel about 3% shorter with woods. When normalized the numbers are extremely close.



    Mevo is small enough that I’d take it on course and do some testing.




    I’d think that SF numbers could be lower with different compressions?




    Ballspeed makes will be slightly lower generally but again mevo is using normalized numbers
  • Shades234Shades234 Members Posts: 266 ✭✭
    HarryBee wrote:


    Has anybody tried these reflective dots with their Quad or HMT?: https://www.ebay.com...cMTwy:rk:5:pf:0




    Probably not going to find many who've used them, but doesn't Ebay (Paypal) give you a money back guarantee if these don't work?

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file