Krt22

Hitting area is likely larger than the GC2, but smaller than the quad. The quads hitting area is shaped a bit different as well

If you have a strong grip and were closing the face further early in the swing, that can cause issues. But without video it's hard to say, since we all know feel is not real.

If it was producing good repeatable results, he would already be close to his goal of scratch. Plus the ball flight was a pretty obvious pull draw, likely struggles with a two way miss when his compensations are a bit off.

Imagine missing a 6" putt.

The same exact argument can be used about those who don't believe the numbers since they don't align with that persons "calibrated eye" (*cough* EGO *cough*). The notion that 15k-25k pieces of equipment, with millions in RnD behind them, which are used by just about every single PGA touring pro to help polish their games, are somehow more wrong than they are right is laughable. For every 250 yard yard guy that hits it "300" on a monitor with the ground set to rock hard, there is another guy who says the monitor is wrong when it spits out 250, because he normally "drives it 300" on the course. Completely forgetting the one time he had 100 yards in on a 400 yard par 4 the tees were up, the flag was up, and he cut off the dog leg skipping off the cart path. And you are actually 100% wrong that the distance estimations are just computer calculations. Radar based units track the entire ball flight so they give you true distance, including any environmental or aerodynamic impact. Camera based units give normalized data, which is just as important to many folks since conditions change all the time. Either way getting caught up solely in distance numbers is silly, those are the end result. The devices are called launch monitors for a reason, to monitor all of the launch conditions. All of the launch parameters are important (ball speed, spin, launch angle, etc) and are measured extremely accurately when the units are setup right, so it's really not just the absolute distance. Who cares if you hit a jacked loft 6i 200 yards if it doesn't have any stopping power. In reality this thread boils down to one launch monitor, with 1 club, with very specific launch characteristics. As long as you avoid that small window that 95% of golf isn't even played in, they are incredibly accurate

It's the other way around IMHO. The flaws are always there, but perhaps not as extreme on the range or you compensate better because you are getting in a groove. During a round, under pressure, when the results matter, it's easy to fall back into old habits or simply not compensate as well. Try playing solo practice rounds where you really exaggerate whatever feel you typically use on the range. When you "play" on the range, do you use the same routine and pick very specific targets? Your pass/fail criteria of a "good" shot needs to be more stringent on the range than it does on the course. Without a specific target it's easy to think you hit one well into an open space, when in reality it would miss the green by 20 yards on the course.

It doesn't overestimate swing speed, it just measures it slightly different than a radar based unit and the "issue" is really only with driver. Again this is where golfers get caught up with ego and chase silly numbers (like smash factor). Ball speed is king, smash factor and CHS deltas between two different measurement devices isn't important unless you are ego stroking with buddies at the 19th hole. Any CHS improvements should be used as delta gains on the same exact device (again much like dyno numbers on car forums) So far everyone in here is talking about drivers, the one club where knowing exactly how far it goes really isn't that important. For irons where carry distance is actually extremely important, the quad is incredibly accurate, for both CHS, spin, carry, etc. Especially in an indoor setting where radar units struggle to accurately measure spin and spin axis. In that setting is where TM and FS actually can struggle and also over-inflate numbers because they tend to under-estimate spin. I am a former flightscope owner and switched to the quad. The quad is a great tool with two caveats 1) Understand that sub 2000 spin driver shots are going to be a bit inflated. Realistically, you should be shooting for 2200-2400 as your minimum for a playable on course shot. 2) Ignore the roll out numbers (this is largely true for all LMs). Roll out is very very course dependent

First of all, what should I be working on? You should work on finding an instructor that can help you identify the core swing flaws that are causing the poor impact conditions (or at the very least post a video on here). All of your other potential avenues of "improvement" would just be adding on compensations and are purely guesswork. You are already a 5 with decent speed, so if you fix the core issues you should easily swing 110+

Bingo. They are highly specialized tools and all tools require a certain element of user education. They can be incredibly useful or they can be very expensive entertainment devices depending on the level of the user. Ball speed is king and anything sub 2000 spin is not useful for driver. The only people LMs "dupe" are those who are focused on the wrong parameters and chase numbers instead of looking at the entire data set. It's not the LMs fault the casual user is driven mainly by ego.

https://www.jamesparkergolf.com/10-golf-swing-positions-mac-o-grady/

I don't think cast B has to be a right handed action (at least not consciously), similar to shallowing with the wrists, for some its flexing the left hand, for others it's keeping the right extended. I have way too much right hand action in general and the broom force for whatever reason made it click can be a left hand focused action. Monte has always descried the golf swing be analogous to a left handed tennis backhand so it worked for me, I picked up 3-4 mph of ball speed with 7i focusing on the left hand and body. I don't think they are two different moves, same move but the broomforce component gets the body working with the arms

There is a big difference between someone who is already scratch and someone who is trying to get to scratch (also when they first got to scratch..ie as a kid vs as an adult). I play with guys who play once a week and are scratch and better and I play with guys who are still 10+ despite playing 3-4 times a week. If playing a lot was the sole key to success, there would be a lot more scratch golfers out there.

Just to be clear, you are playing your clubs 1.25" over standard length?

I segment my practice. If I am working on drills/movement, its into a net so I can largely ignore the ball flight. The range is sort of an intermediate place where I can work on stuff and also see the ball flight. I don't go to the range without something specific in mind to work on. If you are going purely by ball flight and not using any other means of feedback, that is an issue.