Rick Shiels M1 Vs Nike Vapor Pro

[300_Straight]

The Nike VFP feels fanastic off the face. Buttery, smooth & very similar to the Cobra LTD on center strikes. It's decently forgiving and I found it to be really easy to swing. I used the stock Diamana Blueboard X stiff shaft, which felt pretty good as well. Wanted to try the Whiteboard, but they didn't have any.

 

I haven't swung the M1 in awhile, but from what I remember, it felt great off the face as well. Not QUITE as buttery, but still a great feel. I believe I hit some with the Kuro Kage stiff and Rogue Silver X, but again, not 100% sure.

 

For the record, neither of these offerings went further than my Callaway X460 Tour 8.5* with Aldila NV 65 Stiff.

 

In terms of Rick, I enjoy watching his videos. He is rather amusing and when he & Pete do videos together, they are fun to watch. His reviews may come off as sliiiiiiiiiightly biased towards TM, but don't forget he did game a G30 LST last year and recently said he may switch to the G LST. He has a great swing and his AoA with the Driver helps his distance immensely. He launches most Drivers between 14-17* with very low spin. Some of the distances seem a bit inflated with 165mph of ball speed, but who cares? If he is doing a club comparison, it doesn't matter if the LM reads 500 yards carry, because it will be consistent. I like his reviews and will continue watching them.

[Luv2bNTexas]

I been saying this for a long time. GC2 is the problem, its not accurate, it has a problem with distance and spin. Low spin = HUGE unrealistic distance. This is obvious, tested, and clear. Shiels cannot carry the ball ~320 with mere 16x ball speed. Its not possible unless its downhill or in a wind.

 

Shiels has gained notoriety from the HUGE, unbelievabnle numbers in his tests. Its not real guys. ALL, ALL...ALL these comparo's done on GC2 are complete nonsense. Ever notice the lowest spin shot usually wins by a huge margin? Wonder how he goes from hitting some drivers ~280 yards, then others ~340? Thats 60 yards with similar launch conditions and similar smash factors, the main, almost sole difference is spin. GC2 is the issue. Shiels is actually purposely trying to FOOL all of us, or he is just really dumb and doesnt know GC2 is way off, like giganticly off. He is not dumb. He knows GC2 is it. He has a flightscope right behind him. But he NEVER uses it? Why? because if he does...he losses ~30 yards or so off some "big hits" that were low spin...

 

This is clear guys. This guy is fooling everyone. He even fooled WRX, he is on here now. Its unbelievable. Its so so simple. We done this test locally. Get a trackman or flightscope and a laser. Put a little flag in ground every 10 yards out to 320. Start hitting balls with either vs gc2. Notice the GC2 will say it carries MUCH MORE on low spin shots? What these guys are going OH MY GOD!! WOW!! ITS GOOD!! carrying over 300..is more like ~280-~290 carry. Come on guys, this guy isn't even 170 ball speed. McE has ~182 ball speed and can't even carry it as far as this guy Shiels?

 

You guys cannot fall for this nonsense. Its nonsense. Get a laser....test it yourself. The software is over exaggerates HUGE for low spin.

 

This is so old. How do people fall for this guy. He is making money off this lie.

[ph00ny]

I been saying this for a long time. GC2 is the problem, its not accurate, it has a problem with distance and spin. Low spin = HUGE unrealistic distance. This is obvious, tested, and clear. Shiels cannot carry the ball ~320 with mere 16x ball speed. Its not possible unless its downhill or in a wind.

 

Shiels has gained notoriety from the HUGE, unbelievabnle numbers in his tests. Its not real guys. ALL, ALL...ALL these comparo's done on GC2 are complete nonsense. Ever notice the lowest spin shot usually wins by a huge margin? Wonder how he goes from hitting some drivers ~280 yards, then others ~340? Thats 60 yards with similar launch conditions and similar smash factors, the main, almost sole difference is spin. GC2 is the issue. Shiels is actually purposely trying to FOOL all of us, or he is just really dumb and doesnt know GC2 is way off, like giganticly off. He is not dumb. He knows GC2 is it. He has a flightscope right behind him. But he NEVER uses it? Why? because if he does...he losses ~30 yards or so off some "big hits" that were low spin...

 

This is clear guys. This guy is fooling everyone. He even fooled WRX, he is on here now. Its unbelievable. Its so so simple. We done this test locally. Get a trackman or flightscope and a laser. Put a little flag in ground every 10 yards out to 320. Start hitting balls with either vs gc2. Notice the GC2 will say it carries MUCH MORE on low spin shots? What these guys are going OH MY GOD!! WOW!! ITS GOOD!! carrying over 300..is more like ~280-~290 carry. Come on guys, this guy isn't even 170 ball speed. McE has ~182 ball speed and can't even carry it as far as this guy Shiels?

 

You guys cannot fall for this nonsense. Its nonsense. Get a laser....test it yourself. The software is over exaggerates HUGE for low spin.

 

This is so old. How do people fall for this guy. He is making money off this lie.

 

Look who's back. #1 Rick Shiels hater on the forum

Does he not get similar numbers on other launch monitors not provided by someone name rick shiels?

 

Like i said before, numbers should be used for comparison reasons and not to be taken at face value thinking that that's what you're going to hit.

[The Chicken Connoisseur]

I been saying this for a long time. GC2 is the problem, its not accurate, it has a problem with distance and spin. Low spin = HUGE unrealistic distance. This is obvious, tested, and clear. Shiels cannot carry the ball ~320 with mere 16x ball speed. Its not possible unless its downhill or in a wind.

 

Shiels has gained notoriety from the HUGE, unbelievabnle numbers in his tests. Its not real guys. ALL, ALL...ALL these comparo's done on GC2 are complete nonsense. Ever notice the lowest spin shot usually wins by a huge margin? Wonder how he goes from hitting some drivers ~280 yards, then others ~340? Thats 60 yards with similar launch conditions and similar smash factors, the main, almost sole difference is spin. GC2 is the issue. Shiels is actually purposely trying to FOOL all of us, or he is just really dumb and doesnt know GC2 is way off, like giganticly off. He is not dumb. He knows GC2 is it. He has a flightscope right behind him. But he NEVER uses it? Why? because if he does...he losses ~30 yards or so off some "big hits" that were low spin...

 

This is clear guys. This guy is fooling everyone. He even fooled WRX, he is on here now. Its unbelievable. Its so so simple. We done this test locally. Get a trackman or flightscope and a laser. Put a little flag in ground every 10 yards out to 320. Start hitting balls with either vs gc2. Notice the GC2 will say it carries MUCH MORE on low spin shots? What these guys are going OH MY GOD!! WOW!! ITS GOOD!! carrying over 300..is more like ~280-~290 carry. Come on guys, this guy isn't even 170 ball speed. McE has ~182 ball speed and can't even carry it as far as this guy Shiels?

 

You guys cannot fall for this nonsense. Its nonsense. Get a laser....test it yourself. The software is over exaggerates HUGE for low spin.

 

This is so old. How do people fall for this guy. He is making money off this lie.

 

Yup. I also comment the same thing on his videos. GC2 is very accurate until spin drops below 2000, then distance is greatly exaggerated. It's annoying because I use GC2 for fittings and it's really hard to convince people they should get a driver that's going "shorter" because if one spins like 1500 it shows a bomb on the screen and people just don't like to listen to reality

[rainkingjr]

My only issue with Rick's head to head comparison with the M1 is that is his gamer that he has been properly fitted by TM. I'd like to see the other manufacturers have the opportunity to properly fit him into their clubs then see the head to head.

[Pure745]

166 ball speed, 311 carry, 333 total. Lol! :censored2:

[The Chicken Connoisseur]

My only issue with Rick's head to head comparison with the M1 is that is his gamer that he has been properly fitted by TM. I'd like to see the other manufacturers have the opportunity to properly fit him into their clubs then see the head to head.

 

It's not really properly fitted. Just the stock Rogue X

[hellebjork]

My only issue with Rick's head to head comparison with the M1 is that is his gamer that he has been properly fitted by TM. I'd like to see the other manufacturers have the opportunity to properly fit him into their clubs then see the head to head.

 

It's not really properly fitted. Just the stock Rogue X

 

Are you sure?

 

[The Chicken Connoisseur]

My only issue with Rick's head to head comparison with the M1 is that is his gamer that he has been properly fitted by TM. I'd like to see the other manufacturers have the opportunity to properly fit him into their clubs then see the head to head.

 

It's not really properly fitted. Just the stock Rogue X

 

Are you sure?

 

 

Yes. I'm sure all 4 of them got fitted to the same shaft out of the 30+ no upcharge options they offer

[Luv2bNTexas]

You could not be more wrong. You are 100% wrong, and your belief of what the numbers say, is factually incorrect 100%.

 

The equation that figures out the distance in the LM, is wrong. Thus every driver comparison is meaningless. If you actually go to a golf course, with a LM, then actually lasered to the actual different balls and compare them to the LM, you will understand completely.

 

This LM Rick uses favors, HUGELY, the low spin drivers, thus, as you notice, the low spin drivers struck similarly to higher, ALWAYS WIN.

 

So to say the TM was 10 yards longer than the Nike, and thus you need to look at this difference and that decides it...

 

its completely wrong. Go use a flightscope or a trackman. Not this POS one Rick uses. He is fooling you to make money man? Can't you see that? Look at the latest test with Nike and Ben Ross. The Ben Ross has MORE BALL SPEED and almost the same launch angle yet the TM carried ~30 yards MORE because its ~500 spin less? That is impossible.

 

In reality, on the planet earth, in a real dimension of truth, if you WALK out and FIND the exact balls from that test in the Ben Ross and the M1, you would see that they would be almost right next to each other.

 

Reality. 500 spin rate does not equate to ~30 yards more carry. Do you understand this simple truth?

 

That LM shows HUGE carry for even shots at 1200 RPM that fall out of the sky. That is the most inaccurate POS LM made in that price category.

 

I have no idea why so many people are so fooled, and do not understand this. Go get that LM, go to a field, HIT BALLS, mark the balls..walk out, see for yourself. ITS WAY OFF. All of Rick's reviews are nonsense. Nonsense. I love all the ew..AH --WOW!! When he hits a low spin one that carries up to 50 YARDS more than a higher spinning one.

 

This is so stupid.

 

Phoney: Honestly, you need to re-evaluate what you are saying. You cannot use GC2 for comparison purposes on drivers. It can't do that, unless you just want to purely evaluate ball speed, launch angle, etc, everything EXCEPT distance. The moment you start arguing you are comparing distances, like you are, then you COMPLETELY do not understand what you are saying, and you are wrong. You cannot use this device to compare 2 drivers distances to one another. One it says is 20 yards longer, for example, COULD BE 20 yards shorter.

 

This is what you do not understand. And you are prideful, and stubborn, and maybe you will never get it. But it is the truth. Just look at the videos where he hits some near 1100 spin and look how long they are. Notice they carried MORE than the same ball speed and launch angle hit on other drivers that had 2500 spin? You think 1100 spin is going to carry long? Please re-evaluate reality.

 

Rick is using UN-informed people like you, to make money. You fell for it. You are easily manipulated it appears.

[The Chicken Connoisseur]

You could not be more wrong. You are 100% wrong, and your belief of what the numbers say, is factually incorrect 100%.

 

The equation that figures out the distance in the LM, is wrong. Thus every driver comparison is meaningless. If you actually go to a golf course, with a LM, then actually lasered to the actual different balls and compare them to the LM, you will understand completely.

 

This LM Rick uses favors, HUGELY, the low spin drivers, thus, as you notice, the low spin drivers struck similarly to higher, ALWAYS WIN.

 

So to say the TM was 10 yards longer than the Nike, and thus you need to look at this difference and that decides it...

 

its completely wrong. Go use a flightscope or a trackman. Not this POS one Rick uses. He is fooling you to make money man? Can't you see that? Look at the latest test with Nike and Ben Ross. The Ben Ross has MORE BALL SPEED and almost the same launch angle yet the TM carried ~30 yards MORE because its ~500 spin less? That is impossible.

 

In reality, on the planet earth, in a real dimension of truth, if you WALK out and FIND the exact balls from that test in the Ben Ross and the M1, you would see that they would be almost right next to each other.

 

Reality. 500 spin rate does not equate to ~30 yards more carry. Do you understand this simple truth?

 

That LM shows HUGE carry for even shots at 1200 RPM that fall out of the sky. That is the most inaccurate POS LM made in that price category.

 

I have no idea why so many people are so fooled, and do not understand this. Go get that LM, go to a field, HIT BALLS, mark the balls..walk out, see for yourself. ITS WAY OFF. All of Rick's reviews are nonsense. Nonsense. I love all the ew..AH --WOW!! When he hits a low spin one that carries up to 50 YARDS more than a higher spinning one.

 

This is so stupid.

 

Phoney: Honestly, you need to re-evaluate what you are saying. You cannot use GC2 for comparison purposes on drivers. It can't do that, unless you just want to purely evaluate ball speed, launch angle, etc, everything EXCEPT distance. The moment you start arguing you are comparing distances, like you are, then you COMPLETELY do not understand what you are saying, and you are wrong. You cannot use this device to compare 2 drivers distances to one another. One it says is 20 yards longer, for example, COULD BE 20 yards shorter.

 

This is what you do not understand. And you are prideful, and stubborn, and maybe you will never get it. But it is the truth. Just look at the videos where he hits some near 1100 spin and look how long they are. Notice they carried MORE than the same ball speed and launch angle hit on other drivers that had 2500 spin? You think 1100 spin is going to carry long? Please re-evaluate reality.

 

Rick is using UN-informed people like you, to make money. You fell for it. You are easily manipulated it appears.

 

The problem is Rick is also just as uninformed as his viewers. I always leave comments on his videos and he never responds to them.

 

The guy is a simpleton, you can just tell from the way he talks.

 

I commented to test the Benross against "premium" drivers that are higher spin. Guess what they won't be any longer. It isn't fair for him to test low spinning drivers vs higher spin drivers, ESPECIALLY on GC2 which, as you said, greatly exagerates results with very low spin

[leftie]

I feel of the three Mark Crossfield's testing is the most reliable. Whilst he doesn't hit it as far he's more consistent and less biased towards any brand. As far as these tests go , don't put too much faith in them. The club has to work for you and no one else.

[oskaru]

You could not be more wrong. You are 100% wrong, and your belief of what the numbers say, is factually incorrect 100%.

 

The equation that figures out the distance in the LM, is wrong. Thus every driver comparison is meaningless. If you actually go to a golf course, with a LM, then actually lasered to the actual different balls and compare them to the LM, you will understand completely.

 

This LM Rick uses favors, HUGELY, the low spin drivers, thus, as you notice, the low spin drivers struck similarly to higher, ALWAYS WIN.

 

So to say the TM was 10 yards longer than the Nike, and thus you need to look at this difference and that decides it...

 

its completely wrong. Go use a flightscope or a trackman. Not this POS one Rick uses. He is fooling you to make money man? Can't you see that? Look at the latest test with Nike and Ben Ross. The Ben Ross has MORE BALL SPEED and almost the same launch angle yet the TM carried ~30 yards MORE because its ~500 spin less? That is impossible.

 

In reality, on the planet earth, in a real dimension of truth, if you WALK out and FIND the exact balls from that test in the Ben Ross and the M1, you would see that they would be almost right next to each other.

 

Reality. 500 spin rate does not equate to ~30 yards more carry. Do you understand this simple truth?

 

That LM shows HUGE carry for even shots at 1200 RPM that fall out of the sky. That is the most inaccurate POS LM made in that price category.

 

I have no idea why so many people are so fooled, and do not understand this. Go get that LM, go to a field, HIT BALLS, mark the balls..walk out, see for yourself. ITS WAY OFF. All of Rick's reviews are nonsense. Nonsense. I love all the ew..AH --WOW!! When he hits a low spin one that carries up to 50 YARDS more than a higher spinning one.

 

This is so stupid.

 

Phoney: Honestly, you need to re-evaluate what you are saying. You cannot use GC2 for comparison purposes on drivers. It can't do that, unless you just want to purely evaluate ball speed, launch angle, etc, everything EXCEPT distance. The moment you start arguing you are comparing distances, like you are, then you COMPLETELY do not understand what you are saying, and you are wrong. You cannot use this device to compare 2 drivers distances to one another. One it says is 20 yards longer, for example, COULD BE 20 yards shorter.

 

This is what you do not understand. And you are prideful, and stubborn, and maybe you will never get it. But it is the truth. Just look at the videos where he hits some near 1100 spin and look how long they are. Notice they carried MORE than the same ball speed and launch angle hit on other drivers that had 2500 spin? You think 1100 spin is going to carry long? Please re-evaluate reality.

 

Rick is using UN-informed people like you, to make money. You fell for it. You are easily manipulated it appears.

 

You don't seem to understand the difference between a closed data LM like the GC2 and a doppler ball tracking radar used in the FlightScope and TrackMan LMs. Should he just stop making videos because the numbers don't match up to real world results? Seems pretty silly. They have a FlightScope unit at the Quest Golf studio as well by the way. Maybe you should ask him to show numbers from both LMs so you can feel a little more satisfied.

 

It's not like he's doing some kind of industry standard test determining which driver is the "best" anyway. It's just a guy hitting clubs and talking about them. I wouldn't base any purchase decisions off of that anyway, so I just watch because it's entertaining. Oh, and it's quite obvious that he'd be biased towards the stuff he's actually using himself - who wouldn't be?

 

If his videos causes your pants to get tangled up maybe you should just... I don't know, not watch them.

[The Chicken Connoisseur]

You could not be more wrong. You are 100% wrong, and your belief of what the numbers say, is factually incorrect 100%.

 

The equation that figures out the distance in the LM, is wrong. Thus every driver comparison is meaningless. If you actually go to a golf course, with a LM, then actually lasered to the actual different balls and compare them to the LM, you will understand completely.

 

This LM Rick uses favors, HUGELY, the low spin drivers, thus, as you notice, the low spin drivers struck similarly to higher, ALWAYS WIN.

 

So to say the TM was 10 yards longer than the Nike, and thus you need to look at this difference and that decides it...

 

its completely wrong. Go use a flightscope or a trackman. Not this POS one Rick uses. He is fooling you to make money man? Can't you see that? Look at the latest test with Nike and Ben Ross. The Ben Ross has MORE BALL SPEED and almost the same launch angle yet the TM carried ~30 yards MORE because its ~500 spin less? That is impossible.

 

In reality, on the planet earth, in a real dimension of truth, if you WALK out and FIND the exact balls from that test in the Ben Ross and the M1, you would see that they would be almost right next to each other.

 

Reality. 500 spin rate does not equate to ~30 yards more carry. Do you understand this simple truth?

 

That LM shows HUGE carry for even shots at 1200 RPM that fall out of the sky. That is the most inaccurate POS LM made in that price category.

 

I have no idea why so many people are so fooled, and do not understand this. Go get that LM, go to a field, HIT BALLS, mark the balls..walk out, see for yourself. ITS WAY OFF. All of Rick's reviews are nonsense. Nonsense. I love all the ew..AH --WOW!! When he hits a low spin one that carries up to 50 YARDS more than a higher spinning one.

 

This is so stupid.

 

Phoney: Honestly, you need to re-evaluate what you are saying. You cannot use GC2 for comparison purposes on drivers. It can't do that, unless you just want to purely evaluate ball speed, launch angle, etc, everything EXCEPT distance. The moment you start arguing you are comparing distances, like you are, then you COMPLETELY do not understand what you are saying, and you are wrong. You cannot use this device to compare 2 drivers distances to one another. One it says is 20 yards longer, for example, COULD BE 20 yards shorter.

 

This is what you do not understand. And you are prideful, and stubborn, and maybe you will never get it. But it is the truth. Just look at the videos where he hits some near 1100 spin and look how long they are. Notice they carried MORE than the same ball speed and launch angle hit on other drivers that had 2500 spin? You think 1100 spin is going to carry long? Please re-evaluate reality.

 

Rick is using UN-informed people like you, to make money. You fell for it. You are easily manipulated it appears.

 

You don't seem to understand the difference between a closed data LM like the GC2 and a doppler ball tracking radar used in the FlightScope and TrackMan LMs. Should he just stop making videos because the numbers don't match up to real world results? Seems pretty silly. They have a FlightScope unit at the Quest Golf studio as well by the way. Maybe you should ask him to show numbers from both LMs so you can feel a little more satisfied.

 

It's not like he's doing some kind of industry standard test determining which driver is the "best" anyway. It's just a guy hitting clubs and talking about them. I wouldn't base any purchase decisions off of that anyway, so I just watch because it's entertaining. Oh, and it's quite obvious that he'd be biased towards the stuff he's actually using himself - who wouldn't be?

 

If his videos causes your pants to get tangled up maybe you should just... I don't know, not watch them.

 

No you're wrong. You can put closed settings on Flightscope as well. It's just spin sub 2100 on GC2, distance is exaggerated. That's all

[oskaru]

You could not be more wrong. You are 100% wrong, and your belief of what the numbers say, is factually incorrect 100%.

 

The equation that figures out the distance in the LM, is wrong. Thus every driver comparison is meaningless. If you actually go to a golf course, with a LM, then actually lasered to the actual different balls and compare them to the LM, you will understand completely.

 

This LM Rick uses favors, HUGELY, the low spin drivers, thus, as you notice, the low spin drivers struck similarly to higher, ALWAYS WIN.

 

So to say the TM was 10 yards longer than the Nike, and thus you need to look at this difference and that decides it...

 

its completely wrong. Go use a flightscope or a trackman. Not this POS one Rick uses. He is fooling you to make money man? Can't you see that? Look at the latest test with Nike and Ben Ross. The Ben Ross has MORE BALL SPEED and almost the same launch angle yet the TM carried ~30 yards MORE because its ~500 spin less? That is impossible.

 

In reality, on the planet earth, in a real dimension of truth, if you WALK out and FIND the exact balls from that test in the Ben Ross and the M1, you would see that they would be almost right next to each other.

 

Reality. 500 spin rate does not equate to ~30 yards more carry. Do you understand this simple truth?

 

That LM shows HUGE carry for even shots at 1200 RPM that fall out of the sky. That is the most inaccurate POS LM made in that price category.

 

I have no idea why so many people are so fooled, and do not understand this. Go get that LM, go to a field, HIT BALLS, mark the balls..walk out, see for yourself. ITS WAY OFF. All of Rick's reviews are nonsense. Nonsense. I love all the ew..AH --WOW!! When he hits a low spin one that carries up to 50 YARDS more than a higher spinning one.

 

This is so stupid.

 

Phoney: Honestly, you need to re-evaluate what you are saying. You cannot use GC2 for comparison purposes on drivers. It can't do that, unless you just want to purely evaluate ball speed, launch angle, etc, everything EXCEPT distance. The moment you start arguing you are comparing distances, like you are, then you COMPLETELY do not understand what you are saying, and you are wrong. You cannot use this device to compare 2 drivers distances to one another. One it says is 20 yards longer, for example, COULD BE 20 yards shorter.

 

This is what you do not understand. And you are prideful, and stubborn, and maybe you will never get it. But it is the truth. Just look at the videos where he hits some near 1100 spin and look how long they are. Notice they carried MORE than the same ball speed and launch angle hit on other drivers that had 2500 spin? You think 1100 spin is going to carry long? Please re-evaluate reality.

 

Rick is using UN-informed people like you, to make money. You fell for it. You are easily manipulated it appears.

 

You don't seem to understand the difference between a closed data LM like the GC2 and a doppler ball tracking radar used in the FlightScope and TrackMan LMs. Should he just stop making videos because the numbers don't match up to real world results? Seems pretty silly. They have a FlightScope unit at the Quest Golf studio as well by the way. Maybe you should ask him to show numbers from both LMs so you can feel a little more satisfied.

 

It's not like he's doing some kind of industry standard test determining which driver is the "best" anyway. It's just a guy hitting clubs and talking about them. I wouldn't base any purchase decisions off of that anyway, so I just watch because it's entertaining. Oh, and it's quite obvious that he'd be biased towards the stuff he's actually using himself - who wouldn't be?

 

If his videos causes your pants to get tangled up maybe you should just... I don't know, not watch them.

 

No you're wrong. You can put closed settings on Flightscope as well. It's just spin sub 2100 on GC2, distance is exaggerated. That's all

 

What part of my post is incorrect?

[Golfer from MO]

You could not be more wrong. You are 100% wrong, and your belief of what the numbers say, is factually incorrect 100%.

 

The equation that figures out the distance in the LM, is wrong. Thus every driver comparison is meaningless. If you actually go to a golf course, with a LM, then actually lasered to the actual different balls and compare them to the LM, you will understand completely.

 

This LM Rick uses favors, HUGELY, the low spin drivers, thus, as you notice, the low spin drivers struck similarly to higher, ALWAYS WIN.

 

So to say the TM was 10 yards longer than the Nike, and thus you need to look at this difference and that decides it...

 

its completely wrong. Go use a flightscope or a trackman. Not this POS one Rick uses. He is fooling you to make money man? Can't you see that? Look at the latest test with Nike and Ben Ross. The Ben Ross has MORE BALL SPEED and almost the same launch angle yet the TM carried ~30 yards MORE because its ~500 spin less? That is impossible.

 

In reality, on the planet earth, in a real dimension of truth, if you WALK out and FIND the exact balls from that test in the Ben Ross and the M1, you would see that they would be almost right next to each other.

 

Reality. 500 spin rate does not equate to ~30 yards more carry. Do you understand this simple truth?

 

That LM shows HUGE carry for even shots at 1200 RPM that fall out of the sky. That is the most inaccurate POS LM made in that price category.

 

I have no idea why so many people are so fooled, and do not understand this. Go get that LM, go to a field, HIT BALLS, mark the balls..walk out, see for yourself. ITS WAY OFF. All of Rick's reviews are nonsense. Nonsense. I love all the ew..AH --WOW!! When he hits a low spin one that carries up to 50 YARDS more than a higher spinning one.

 

This is so stupid.

 

Phoney: Honestly, you need to re-evaluate what you are saying. You cannot use GC2 for comparison purposes on drivers. It can't do that, unless you just want to purely evaluate ball speed, launch angle, etc, everything EXCEPT distance. The moment you start arguing you are comparing distances, like you are, then you COMPLETELY do not understand what you are saying, and you are wrong. You cannot use this device to compare 2 drivers distances to one another. One it says is 20 yards longer, for example, COULD BE 20 yards shorter.

 

This is what you do not understand. And you are prideful, and stubborn, and maybe you will never get it. But it is the truth. Just look at the videos where he hits some near 1100 spin and look how long they are. Notice they carried MORE than the same ball speed and launch angle hit on other drivers that had 2500 spin? You think 1100 spin is going to carry long? Please re-evaluate reality.

 

Rick is using UN-informed people like you, to make money. You fell for it. You are easily manipulated it appears.

Powerfully passionate. And accurate, just tested 2 balls 29 yrds apart on the gc2 low spin shots on a trackman and 483rps wall 13 yrds....thats 16 ghost yards off..

 

Im now off the gc2 testing bandwagon and didnt know any better....sadly neither does Rick tho

[The Chicken Connoisseur]

You could not be more wrong. You are 100% wrong, and your belief of what the numbers say, is factually incorrect 100%.

 

The equation that figures out the distance in the LM, is wrong. Thus every driver comparison is meaningless. If you actually go to a golf course, with a LM, then actually lasered to the actual different balls and compare them to the LM, you will understand completely.

 

This LM Rick uses favors, HUGELY, the low spin drivers, thus, as you notice, the low spin drivers struck similarly to higher, ALWAYS WIN.

 

So to say the TM was 10 yards longer than the Nike, and thus you need to look at this difference and that decides it...

 

its completely wrong. Go use a flightscope or a trackman. Not this POS one Rick uses. He is fooling you to make money man? Can't you see that? Look at the latest test with Nike and Ben Ross. The Ben Ross has MORE BALL SPEED and almost the same launch angle yet the TM carried ~30 yards MORE because its ~500 spin less? That is impossible.

 

In reality, on the planet earth, in a real dimension of truth, if you WALK out and FIND the exact balls from that test in the Ben Ross and the M1, you would see that they would be almost right next to each other.

 

Reality. 500 spin rate does not equate to ~30 yards more carry. Do you understand this simple truth?

 

That LM shows HUGE carry for even shots at 1200 RPM that fall out of the sky. That is the most inaccurate POS LM made in that price category.

 

I have no idea why so many people are so fooled, and do not understand this. Go get that LM, go to a field, HIT BALLS, mark the balls..walk out, see for yourself. ITS WAY OFF. All of Rick's reviews are nonsense. Nonsense. I love all the ew..AH --WOW!! When he hits a low spin one that carries up to 50 YARDS more than a higher spinning one.

 

This is so stupid.

 

Phoney: Honestly, you need to re-evaluate what you are saying. You cannot use GC2 for comparison purposes on drivers. It can't do that, unless you just want to purely evaluate ball speed, launch angle, etc, everything EXCEPT distance. The moment you start arguing you are comparing distances, like you are, then you COMPLETELY do not understand what you are saying, and you are wrong. You cannot use this device to compare 2 drivers distances to one another. One it says is 20 yards longer, for example, COULD BE 20 yards shorter.

 

This is what you do not understand. And you are prideful, and stubborn, and maybe you will never get it. But it is the truth. Just look at the videos where he hits some near 1100 spin and look how long they are. Notice they carried MORE than the same ball speed and launch angle hit on other drivers that had 2500 spin? You think 1100 spin is going to carry long? Please re-evaluate reality.

 

Rick is using UN-informed people like you, to make money. You fell for it. You are easily manipulated it appears.

 

You don't seem to understand the difference between a closed data LM like the GC2 and a doppler ball tracking radar used in the FlightScope and TrackMan LMs. Should he just stop making videos because the numbers don't match up to real world results? Seems pretty silly. They have a FlightScope unit at the Quest Golf studio as well by the way. Maybe you should ask him to show numbers from both LMs so you can feel a little more satisfied.

 

It's not like he's doing some kind of industry standard test determining which driver is the "best" anyway. It's just a guy hitting clubs and talking about them. I wouldn't base any purchase decisions off of that anyway, so I just watch because it's entertaining. Oh, and it's quite obvious that he'd be biased towards the stuff he's actually using himself - who wouldn't be?

 

If his videos causes your pants to get tangled up maybe you should just... I don't know, not watch them.

 

No you're wrong. You can put closed settings on Flightscope as well. It's just spin sub 2100 on GC2, distance is exaggerated. That's all

 

What part of my post is incorrect?

 

The part where you think GC2 is wrong BECAUSE it's closed data. That's not the point. It's wrong because it's algorithm grossly exagerrstes distance when spin drops.

 

You can use Trackman and Flightscope in closed data settings. And they tell you a more accurate result of how far the ball actually goes given those low spin settings

 

GC2 is very accurate for literally any other shot above 2100 spin

[oskaru]

I will agree that TrackMan or FlightScope are superior in terms of accuracy when it comes to distance - I never claimed otherwise. I was just stating that you can't hit balls on the GC2 and expect the distance displayed to be what the ball actually travelled. It's not designed to do that either. For a fitting I would prefer to use TrackMan or FlightScope over the GC2. For coaching applications though I prefer the information GC2 with the HMT provides.

[Golfnut801]

It's so funny how worked up you guys get evertime Rick comes out with a video.

[Golfer from MO]

It's so funny how worked up you guys get evertime Rick comes out with a video.

 

I can undertand it tho. Many watch his vids and rely on his ability to get clubs and test head to head and almost take it as gospel that the machine is accurate, to me this is very bothersome even tho I knew the #s were off.

Love the dude just change machines....itll hurt the ego but back to earth

[ph00ny]

It's so funny how worked up you guys get evertime Rick comes out with a video.

 

I can undertand it tho. Many watch his vids and rely on his ability to get clubs and test head to head and almost take it as gospel that the machine is accurate, to me this is very bothersome even tho I knew the #s were off.

Love the dude just change machines....itll hurt the ego but back to earth

 

How would it hurt his ego? His numbers on other LM are not too far from what he gets on his LM. Look at his numbers from Cobra video on trackman. He was hitting 314, 301, 317, 312 yards. Look at his numbers from the TM video. Same deal

 

I think some of you guys take his numbers uber serious. He doesn't represent us. He doesn't sell clubs for living. He's a teaching pro who happens to have access to these clubs. No one should be taking it at face value and purchase a club based on how Rick is hitting it. It should just give you an idea how they differ from each other

[The Chicken Connoisseur]

It's so funny how worked up you guys get evertime Rick comes out with a video.

 

I can undertand it tho. Many watch his vids and rely on his ability to get clubs and test head to head and almost take it as gospel that the machine is accurate, to me this is very bothersome even tho I knew the #s were off.

Love the dude just change machines....itll hurt the ego but back to earth

 

How would it hurt his ego? His numbers on other LM are not too far from what he gets on his LM. Look at his numbers from Cobra video on trackman. He was hitting 314, 301, 317, 312 yards. Look at his numbers from the TM video. Same deal

 

I think some of you guys take his numbers uber serious. He doesn't represent us. He doesn't sell clubs for living. He's a teaching pro who happens to have access to these clubs. No one should be taking it at face value and purchase a club based on how Rick is hitting it. It should just give you an idea how they differ from each other

 

The average person who watches his videos is not as knowledgeable as those on here. Rick himself isn't either

[DatSliceDoe]

GC2/HMT = great for coaching and playing around on the software games/golf range.

 

Trackman/Flightscope = great for all applications, particularly fittings.I fit at GG for a few years before a career transition and using GC2 was nice because you could do it all year, but every Joe Schmoe who came in and hit anything under 2000rpm suddenly saw their distance jump like mad. Launch angle/ball speed be damned, the machine has a flaw at low spin rates.

 

I remember once case in which someone came in, probably a WRX'r because the first thing he asked for was a Whiteboard in 92X. We didn't stock one...duh. So he got the stiffest thing we had, I think it was a 95g X Proforce V2, insanely stiff. He hit everything off the top of the club towards the toe (a low spin position) with no launch angle...but caught one with 16* and 1100spin that miraculously went 320. The rest of the shots were short of 260 carry. He said it wasn't stiff enough and left without buying because we didn't have the Whiteboard. Poser.

 

Anyway, enough of my rant on this fool.

 

The cool new software is a smokescreen and unfortunately Rick Shiels has NO IDEA that he cannot hit drives a million yards, even though in test after test he hits above tour average with below tour clubhead speed and ball speed??? I appreciate Crossfield more for the simple fact that he hits with a healthy spin rate and always says YMMV. Rick is a great guy and has a great following, but he is obviously not up to standard with the software/hardware he uses. If someone from Foresight would give him a rundown on how to use the LM properly, I think he would change the style of testing in his videos. I distinctly remember that the Flightscope they have is for Peter Finch to use, not Rick. Don't know the logic behind that decision.

 

However, Pete did get a proper rundown on the Flightscope and how to use it, on video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKzovZHeKfs?t=1m30s

 

Perhaps Rick should use both LMs in his videos to put this issue to bed.

[drbonesvt]

Broadly speaking there are two types of launch monitor. One’s that track the ball after impact using Doppler Radar technology and one’s that use Camera technology to record the data at impact. The systems then use the data they record and their own algorithms to provide a range of data measurements and projections about the golf shot that has just been hit.

 

Doppler Radar Launch Monitor

 

Radar based launch monitors use a scientific principle called the Doppler Effect. The monitor generates microwave signal that is then radiates out of the device. This signal is interfered with by a moving object, in this case the golf ball, that causes some energy to be reflected and a sensor in the unit detects the reflected signal. This is the same technology used widely in the defence industry for uses such as missile tracking.

Radar based systems track the flight of the ball and using assumptions project details of the clubhead movements through the software. The leading proponents of radar based launch monitors are Trackman and Flightscope.

 

 

Photometric Camera Launch Monitor

 

Led by the GC2 Smart Camera System, these launch monitors use a series of advanced high definition cameras to capture club and ball data at impact and then project the flight and distance performance through the software. The GC2 also offers Head Measurement Technology to run alongside their launch monitor to provide analysis of the club head. Stickies applied to the club head are detected by the cameras and give information such as where on the club face the ball was struck.

 

 

Damn a post that's based on actual fact!!!!!!! Thanks for posting, this thread was in need of some much needed reality

[Luv2bNTexas]

Let me just say, it is an absolute DISGRACE WRX works with this guy Shiels. It discredits the entire web site.

 

Its so elementary, and so obvious, so easily provable, that I have concluded that people just don't care about the truth, they love the EWW AHH WOW..."I bombed it 300+ cards carry only swinging ~114 MPH!! WOW!!"

 

Latest video comparing Callaway drivers...guess what driver won that comparo? the lowest spinning one. Guess which driver had ~3 MPH LESS ball speed and LESS launch angle and still carried farther? The one that was a couple hundred RPM lower./... You guys are straight up delusional. Especially the guy arguing about closed data. MAN..you are so clueless, and so uninformed, and so just, ridiculously wrong...its laughable. And Phooney arguing he hit it over 300 on a trackman, thus everything is fine...is kindergarden nonsense.

 

THE MATH INSIDE GC2 IS WAY OFF. EVERYTHING TESTED ON IT FOR DISTANCE IS WILDLY WRONG and irrelevant for comparisons.

 

Do you guys get this yet? Admit it now, because I am telling you the truth. Or hold on to lies and be fooled, like a tool.

[robrey85]

As for Shiels... It's great that he's contributing on here, but until he stops juicing his LM and gives us some realistic numbers I'm not going to trust a single word he says.

 

Explain this please. His numbers on GC2 are pretty close to his Game Golf stats. Also, GC2 is closed data. The only thing you could "juice" is roll out distance since that's calculated based on how hard the fairway or driving range is set to be.

 

Have you ever used a GC2 and played with the software? There's a local place here in town that has the bigger Foresight machines and you can adjust the elevation settings to whatever you want. We all know the higher up you go, the longer the ball flies. Combine this max with hard/fast roll out and bounce and you have Rick.

 

I agree with Bomber. No way 167 ballspeed is carrying 309 yards and rolling out another 30.

[Luv2bNTexas]

Yes. And no, playing with elevation doesnt fix the massive internal math problem it has with lower spinning spots flying ridiculously unrealistically farther.

 

And if you agree with Bomber, you are in the camp that COMPLETELY doesn't understand what you are talking about, and are totally wrong. he said since the monitor is juiced, and both drivers were under same effect, it doesnt matter. This is COMPLETELY WRONG. And you do not understand, even the slightest. Way way wrong. It does matter.

 

The lower spin one has GIANT advantage. Its so simple...don't you get it? This is so easy to understand. Just so you understand, let me explain simply.

 

Ball speed, launch angle all the same in this example. Here is an example of how it calculates distance.

 

Spin: Carry

2500 250

2000 265

1500 280

1000 295

 

So both have same ball speed and launch angle, same ball, same conditions of air...wind..everything is the same. But the GC2 massively exaggerates low spin distance, even with the spin is so low the ball falls out of the sky. This is merely an example, not actual, but you should understand now why GC2 cannot be used for distance testing WHATSOEVER and is completely wrong.

 

In reality spin does not affect carry that much, as proven on a field, or a trackman, or a flightscope, just get a laser and try it yourself. You will see for low spin shots on a GC2, that the CARRY yardage could be off as much as:

 

~50 yards.

 

So what it is saying is carrying 320 could actually be 270, and the driver that was higher spinning carrying 290, could actually be LONGER in reality by 20 yards.

 

So GC2:

Driver 1: Carry 320

Driver 2: Carry 290

 

Reality:

Driver 1: could be 270

Driver 2: could be 290 because it was spinning higher and GC2 reads pretty good for shots near 2500, which is why Mark Crossfield's videos all seem to come in near 260, because he hits most drivers in the spin range of ~2400 RPM. Notice the lowest spin shots Mark hits go near 280 with the same exact ball speed and launch angle?

 

IT DOES MATTER. GC2 is junk. Shiels knows this, uses it to make money off you.

 

He fooled WRX real good.

[robrey85]

Yes. And no, playing with elevation doesnt fix the massive internal math problem it has with lower spinning spots flying ridiculously unrealistically farther.

 

And if you agree with Bomber, you are in the camp that COMPLETELY doesn't understand what you are talking about, and are totally wrong. he said since the monitor is juiced, and both drivers were under same effect, it doesnt matter. This is COMPLETELY WRONG. And you do not understand, even the slightest. Way way wrong. It does matter.

 

The lower spin one has GIANT advantage. Its so simple...don't you get it? This is so easy to understand.

 

You seem to have some strong feelings about this so let me treat you how I treat a woman who doesn't know how to give up regardless if she is right or wrong.

 

Okay. You are right. I am wrong because of such and such. I love you and let me make some you food.

[Bomber_11]

Yes. And no, playing with elevation doesnt fix the massive internal math problem it has with lower spinning spots flying ridiculously unrealistically farther.

 

And if you agree with Bomber, you are in the camp that COMPLETELY doesn't understand what you are talking about, and are totally wrong. he said since the monitor is juiced, and both drivers were under same effect, it doesnt matter. This is COMPLETELY WRONG. And you do not understand, even the slightest. Way way wrong. It does matter.

 

The lower spin one has GIANT advantage. Its so simple...don't you get it? This is so easy to understand. Just so you understand, let me explain simply.

 

Ball speed, launch angle all the same in this example. Here is an example of how it calculates distance.

 

Spin: Carry

2500 250

2000 265

1500 280

1000 295

 

So both have same ball speed and launch angle, same ball, same conditions of air...wind..everything is the same. But the GC2 massively exaggerates low spin distance, even with the spin is so low the ball falls out of the sky. This is merely an example, not actual, but you should understand now why GC2 cannot be used for distance testing WHATSOEVER and is completely wrong.

 

In reality spin does not affect carry that much, as proven on a field, or a trackman, or a flightscope, just get a laser and try it yourself. You will see for low spin shots on a GC2, that the CARRY yardage could be off as much as:

 

~50 yards.

 

So what it is saying is carrying 320 could actually be 270, and the driver that was higher spinning carrying 290, could actually be LONGER in reality by 20 yards.

 

So GC2:

Driver 1: Carry 320

Driver 2: Carry 290

 

Reality:

Driver 1: could be 270

Driver 2: could be 290 because it was spinning higher and GC2 reads pretty good for shots near 2500, which is why Mark Crossfield's videos all seem to come in near 260, because he hits most drivers in the spin range of ~2400 RPM. Notice the lowest spin shots Mark hits go near 280 with the same exact ball speed and launch angle?

 

IT DOES MATTER. GC2 is junk. Shiels knows this, uses it to make money off you.

 

He fooled WRX real good.

 

Relax pal, we get that you are the self proclaimed launch monitor guru around here.

 

If you look at my other post, I clearly state the difference between the two launch monitors. All of your exclamation marks and ranting may or may not support the factual science behind how a launch monitor works, but I assure you my post does. That being said, insulting everyone that isn't as abundantly wise as you doesn't do much good. Some people just wanna watch a guy w/ a funny accent hit drivers and tell us how they feel/perform.

 

Whether he hits them 200 yards or 400 yards - they're highly unlikely to perform the same for anyone else. So I think you underestimate people's intelligence by believing we all blindly follow his reviews like sheep.

 

If anyone is actually going out and buying clubs because Rick Shiels supposedly hits them 330 yards, they have too much money and are welcome to send some my way.

 

Please proceed now with calling us all clueless, uninformed, moronic - preferably in all caps.

[Luv2bNTexas]

The difference means nothing. You do not get it. You are so stubbornly blind. Its the equations inside that matter, not whether one is radar this or that.

 

Keep your ignorance up, you are so blind