"Trackman is king outdoors"...."Trackman is superior, look how many pros use it"

[Krt22]

OK now that I have your attention, this is actually NOT a trackman vs  other debate. But these phrases have been repeated literally hundreds (if not thousands) of times on here so this slight change in popularity is interesting.

 

 I am really curious what perhaps has changed. I fully agree most of these players likely own a trackman as well, but on a Tuesday, hitting outdoors, on a pristine range, where they get to hit as many new gamer balls as they desire, why plop down the quad? Bryson has been well documented using both the quad and his flightscope, with folks saying he likes the quad for normalized data (I have repeated this reasoning myself). Is that it or are pros not really interested in carry numbers sometimes on the range and more interested in launch conditions alone, since carry numbers will vary from shot to shot? Or do they baseline distance daily before an actual tournament round? Or was this perhaps a COVID related anomaly? Many pros were forced to switch up their practice routines based on location , switched to the quad for indoor use and simply got comfortable with it? Anyone have tour level insight to share?

 

https://www.instagram.com/p/COeQuqENFC0/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

 

Edited May 7, 2021 by Krt22

[Three_Jack]

Outdoors they are pretty much interchangeable. 
 

I think pros like Quad more cause its easier to setup and you don't need to have another device setup to read the data, you can simply look down at the quad to see the numbers.

 

 

[hoganfan924]

TM is definitely better at providing actual distance outdoors, because it's tracking the full flight of the ball, unlike GC Quad, which is calculating it based on initial launch conditions.  It's been reported that GC Quad has a SW issue whereby it overestimates carry distances on low spin driver shots.  I believe TM has the same issue indoors.  The plus side of GC Quad, is that it will always give "normalized" numbers, so if you want to know what stock distances are for no wind conditions, it's very helpful in dialing that in.  I think the combination of ease of set-up and the big technological leap for GC Quad was in providing good face & strike location data, (Which TM4 now also does), are probably the main reasons you're seeing it more with tour guys.  

[Saltydawg15]

The pros know there distances, they are looking for attack angle, spin rate, launch angle, smash factor, etc. this tell them how well they struck the ball.

[Krt22]

1 hour ago, Three_Jack said:

Outdoors they are pretty much interchangeable. 
 

I think pros like Quad more cause its easier to setup and you don't need to have another device setup to read the data, you can simply look down at the quad to see the numbers.

 

 

That is the interesting part, on here it has been discussed exhaustively, with the main conclusion being that TM (and radar in general) is superior outdoors since you get the full ball flight. I cannot and will not deny that at all, I do believe radar outdoor is the most accurate method. So I found this picture quite peculiar.

[Krt22]

1 hour ago, Saltydawg15 said:

The pros know there distances, they are looking for attack angle, spin rate, launch angle, smash factor, etc. this tell them how well they struck the ball.

But does TM not give the same exact data? 

[glk]

1 hour ago, Saltydawg15 said:

The pros know there distances, they are looking for attack angle, spin rate, launch angle, smash factor, etc. this tell them how well they struck the ball.

From Scott Hamilton they mostly are looking at distance - they want to know how far they carry given the conditions for that day which can change what might be their stock numbers back home.   Not really looking at all that much data when at a tournament.   

[Krt22]

1 minute ago, glk said:

From Scott Hamilton they mostly are looking at distance - they want to know how far they carry given the conditions for that day which can change what might be their stock numbers back home.   Not really looking at all that much data when at a tournament.   

A quad isn't going to give them that sort of data, which is why this picture is so odd and counter to a lot of what has been hashed out on here in the past.

[getitdaily]

Are they close enough in the measurables that the quad is preferred because it's more accurate with strike location? 

[glk]

3 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

A quad isn't going to give them that sort of data, which is why this picture is so odd and counter to a lot of what has been hashed out on here in the past.

Not much of a lm person so have no idea of differences but if the quad doesn’t provide carry then that is a head scratcher.    Don’t recall what podcast Scott was on when he was talking  about guys getting ready for their round but definitely recall him saying carry was of most interest given conditions.   

[Krt22]

7 minutes ago, glk said:

Not much of a lm person so have no idea of differences but if the quad doesn’t provide carry then that is a head scratcher.    Don’t recall what podcast Scott was on when he was talking  about guys getting ready for their round but definitely recall him saying carry was of most interest given conditions.   

A quad does not measure the full ball flight, only the first ~18" or so I believe and everything else is interpolated. It does provide carry numbers, but any environmental impact will be calculated not directly measured. 

[Soloman1]

GCQuad is considered to be more accurate for impact geometry. Some people need something to look at - it's almost an OCD thing for some. Radar is measured, not calculated as you say, so distance, so considered more accurate for carry.

 

I don't know how Tiger Woods and others could play golf without a launch monitor way back in 2015 or so.

[davidy1948]

Trackman claims that the the average golfer has a swingspeed of 93.4 mph. I wouldn't rely on any instrument that is so far out of touch with reality....

 

[Tupperwolf]

You know what "average" means, right?  And that most golfers are probably at least 60 years old?

[mgoblue83]

The elephant in the room here is $$. Foresight has been aggressively working to get the Quad more exposure on tour ranges. They are gladly giving them out to anyone who wants to use them at these events and in with the higher profile players even paying them to practice with a Quad nearby (sometimes the Quad isn't even turned on). They are also "selling" them at significant discounts to players and YouTubers (free in most cases) in an attempt to gain popularity and usage. It's certainly working. 

 

What is very interesting to me is that none of these pros using Quad on tour ranges have the stickers on their clubs so they are literally only getting ball data. This makes zero sense because normalized ball data is not as useful as actual data based on the conditions at the course. 

[Krt22]

15 minutes ago, mgoblue83 said:

The elephant in the room here is $$. Foresight has been aggressively working to get the Quad more exposure on tour ranges. They are gladly giving them out to anyone who wants to use them at these events and in with the higher profile players even paying them to practice with a Quad nearby (sometimes the Quad isn't even turned on). They are also "selling" them at significant discounts to players and YouTubers (free in most cases) in an attempt to gain popularity and usage. It's certainly working. 

 

What is very interesting to me is that none of these pros using Quad on tour ranges have the stickers on their clubs so they are literally only getting ball data. This makes zero sense because normalized ball data is not as useful as actual data based on the conditions at the course. 

I am really not buying the money grab part of it. Unless you have something of substance to share, that is pure speculation IMHO

 

But the second part is largely why I asked the question. But how do you know they aren't using stickers? Are you a touring pro or a touring teacher and walk the line and peak at their clubs? Even if they are only using ball data, there is clearly something they see value in given they continue to grow in popularity.

 

Last question for you, do you own a trackman?

[mgoblue83]

6 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

I am really not buying the money grab part of it. Unless you have something of substance to share, that is pure speculation IMHO

 

But the second part is largely why I asked the question. But how do you know they aren't using stickers? Are you a touring pro or a touring teacher and walk the line and peak at their clubs? Even if they are only using ball data, there is clearly something they see value in given they continue to grow in popularity.

 

Last question for you, do you own a trackman?

 

I do not own a Trackman but I am friends with a Trackman rep and a True Temper rep who both frequent PGA tour events and work with players/coaches Monday-Wednesday on the ranges.

 

I do not have an answer about the value of GCQuad normalized ball data on an outdoor range but part of the answer for increased use is certainly ease of access (giving out Quads at events) and money (heavily discounted or even free for players).

[hoganfan924]

They're both great tools, I just wish that they'd use a common method for calculating smash factor.  I went for a fitting on Monday on a Trackman 4, and the smash factor numbers on 6 irons was crazy high (1.44 average with my gamers, and 1.46 with the new irons), and that's with forged players cavity backs.  Consequently, CHS and SF between them is not comparable.

[Krt22]

15 minutes ago, mgoblue83 said:

 

I do not own a Trackman but I am friends with a Trackman rep and a True Temper rep who both frequent PGA tour events and work with players/coaches Monday-Wednesday on the ranges.

 

I do not have an answer about the value of GCQuad normalized ball data on an outdoor range but part of the answer for increased use is certainly ease of access (giving out Quads at events) and money (heavily discounted or even free for players).

I know a pro (who already owns a TM) and looked into a quad, the discount was not substantial and he would be required to use it and display it at every event, so they are certainly not giving them away like candy.  Even if they were, It would still have to perform the same or in certain scenarios better outdoors for them to put them in use. At the end of the day 15-20k is nothing to these guys, there has to be some performance advantage casual aren't seeing IMHO.

 

5 minutes ago, hoganfan924 said:

They're both great tools, I just wish that they'd use a common method for calculating smash factor.  I went for a fitting on Monday on a Trackman 4, and the smash factor numbers on 6 irons was crazy high (1.44 average with my gamers, and 1.46 with the new irons), and that's with forged players cavity backs.  Consequently, CHS and SF between them is not comparable.

Ball speed is king. 

[mgoblue83]

6 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

I know a pro (who already owns a TM) and looked into a quad, the discount was not substantial and he would be required to use it and display it at every event, so they are certainly not giving them away like candy.  Even if they were, It would still have to perform the same or in certain scenarios better outdoors for them to put them in use. At the end of the day 15-20k is nothing to these guys, there has to be some performance advantage casual aren't seeing IMHO.

 

Ball speed is king. 

 

Agreed. I don't know what that advantage is though. 

[PureStrikes54]

The tour seems to have a lot of "copycat" for what is most successful at a given time. Dechambeau has been grinding with one of these for years and seems his success has given the Quads more credibility than they previously had.

 

From a functionality perspective the only thing I can think of is the Quad numbers are immediate after the moment of impact so no waiting until the ball lands and they seem easier to drop down and get setup without the burden of an extra ipad and getting the trackman ap up and going. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

6 hours ago, davidy1948 said:

Trackman claims that the the average golfer has a swingspeed of 93.4 mph. I wouldn't rely on any instrument that is so far out of touch with WRXality....

 

 

FTFY 😉 

 

[GolfTurkey]

My guess is that Quad is better indoors so a lot of them will use it there, and then when they hit outdoors using exactly the same unit means that any differences are due to them and not due to the unit being used.

[leekgolf]

This is a fascinating topic. I've never used a Foresight, while I think I understand the concept I'm not that familiar. As they moved from the GC2 to the GC4, it seemed to be a real challenger to the radar units. I've used a Trackman 4 a number of times and own a Flightscope Xi Tour.

 

FWIW- Flightscope and Trackman offer very healthy discounts for pros, about 30%. I would imagine Foresight would have to do something similar to compete.

 

 

[QuigleyDU]

I have lots of experience with a GC quad. I find It very accurate.. 

 

they are gaining tons of traction on tour as well.

 

Edited May 7, 2021 by QuigleyDU

[Krt22]

12 hours ago, QuigleyDU said:

I have lots of experience with a GC quad. I find It very accurate.. 

 

they are gaining tons of traction on tour as well.

 

This picture is why I started the thread 😃 

[QuigleyDU]

15 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

This picture is why I started the thread 😃 

sorry, I was looking at this on my phone and didnt notice the link.. But yeah, foresight is catching on in a big way.. 

[pinhigh27]

geez there is probably like 500k of tech in that picture. 

[Krt22]

2 minutes ago, pinhigh27 said:

geez there is probably like 500k of tech in that picture. 

It's killing the game! No more art..no more soul. 

[Three_Jack]

35 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

It's killing the game! No more art..no more soul. 

 

HEY!! GET OFF MY LAWN!!!