Jump to content

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


Krt22
 Share

Recommended Posts

Seems perfectly obvious to me that it’s quicker to setup GC quad than Trackman. Why Trackman still don’t have a readout on their device is a mystery, iPads are harder to read in sunlight than the quad high contrast display.

 

In terms of normalising data, again perfectly reasonable to get initial launch data regardless of the wind, tracking the whole flight tells you the distance including the wind IN THAT PARTICULAR DIRECTION only. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just an outsider perspective without taking price into account, non-owner of either, taking good points of other posts:

 

- Setup at range = Quad

- Quick feedback for hitter at range = Quad

- Visibility in sun = Quad

- Indoor to outdoor consistency of calculation = Quad 

- "It's working for Bryson" factor = Quad 

- Will range conditions represent course conditions, wind?  Do I want to take range wind in or out of distance measurements?  Maybe, maybe not

- Accurate shot data given conditions in one direction = Trackman

- Accurate shot data with or without wind = Trackman

- Good enough swing & impact data as baseline for the day = Both

- Consistency shot to shot = Both

 

Results for me and my $0.02.....

 

- Range winner = Quad!

 

- If I wanted baseline distances and shot data outside on a nice day with zero wind = Trackman

 

D1 Adams XTD, NL60TX D2 Titleist TS2, D+72X 5W Titleist 915F, D+80X

3I Srixon Z 545 6I TM Sim2 Max OS 6I-PW MP-54, C Taper Lite X

GW Nike VPC, Tour V X 54, 60 Cleveland CBX, DG S300 Cure CX3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/6/2021 at 6:37 PM, Tupperwolf said:

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

Exactly my point, I'm currently testing how far my clubmates drive and so far if I translate those distances into swing speed I would estimate " average " as in the 75-80 range and that's being generous....so why would such an allegedly reputable organisation publish such misleading information ? Worse still, that information has been adopted as gospel by the USGA and other Golf Federations.

 

I'm trying very hard to persuade my clubmates to play from the tees which are appropriate for their playing standard - it's already hard enough to get these guys to swallow their egos  and move up a tee or two without this kind of nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/9/2021 at 11:13 AM, davidy1948 said:

Exactly my point, I'm currently testing how far my clubmates drive and so far if I translate those distances into swing speed I would estimate " average " as in the 75-80 range and that's being generous....so why would such an allegedly reputable organisation publish such misleading information ? Worse still, that information has been adopted as gospel by the USGA and other Golf Federations.

 

I'm trying very hard to persuade my clubmates to play from the tees which are appropriate for their playing standard - it's already hard enough to get these guys to swallow their egos  and move up a tee or two without this kind of nonsense.

 

 

93 mph swing speed translates to about 135 mph ball speed, which is roughly 215 yards carry and 230 total. Not sure why you think this is so out of touch with reality. I play a lot of golf alone (paired with randoms) and that seems pretty accurate.

 

As to the OPs point, there are a lot of TMs behind the players. So they get the best of both worlds: Quad tells them what would happen 'in a vacuum', TM tells them what really happened given the current conditions. If TM says their shots are 3% shorter than Quad due to temperature, humidity, etc then they know what to expect. Wanna hit 150? Go for 155. If they only used a TM it might affect their judgement on wether they're hitting it good or not ('am I hitting it short today?'). Conversely if they only used a Quad they might end up hitting short all day long.

 

 

Edited by itsame
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

I think it’s the ease of carrying.  Trackman alwasy seems like handling a laptop.  Takes two hands or else you feel like you’re going to drop it.  But that’s just a theory.  

TM Sim2 max 9* TB 70TX

TM 300 13.5* Tensei CK blue 80TX

TM Sim2 max 17hL MMT 70x 

Callaway  xforged UT 21 ventus blue 9x 

Titleist T100 4-pw MMT 125 TX 

Edel sms 54 58 MMT 125 TX 

Cameron GSS 009  1.5 , sound slot , tungsten sole weights , head speed shaft. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not an insider but if I were to make some guesses as to why the Quad is used more and more over Trackman.....

 

-its more portable

-It has a built in screen and simple alignment method and therefore it is easier/quicker to set up and get information out of (instant gratification for all the millennial pros)

-Gives normalized data for that time period's atmospheric pressure which may be one of the trickier variables to account for.  Wind and such they already account for on the fly out on the course.

-Its quite accurate with irons and scoring clubs and can let a person know very easily if it is time to replace wedges (spin accuracy measurement is unsurpassed imo).

-There are probably manufacturer incentives of some sort to use them on the range

-YouTube pro's use them a lot so Quad has gained a lot of advertising over the years

-It is a catchy trend just like anything else can be.  See someone having success and uses it, others start to pay more attention to it and try it for themselves

-It inflates the ego with its notorious low spin, high launch very exaggerated nuke distance. (everybody needs an ego/confidence boost before the tourney right?)

 

I joke a bit with some of those but I think its the combination of several things that have caused it to become so seemingly popular.

Edited by clevited
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised Trackman haven't responded with a more integrated unit, particularly from the display point of view. Yes it's setup a bit further away, but a decently bright display that could show 3 or 4 user selectable metrics on the unit just so that it can be thrown down and used instantly more like the Quad makes sense to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/7/2021 at 5:24 PM, Soloman1 said:

It's 50% for tour pros.

 

That's possible for the Quad, but my TM rep claims they have never discounted a unit to pro, ever - and they're proud of that.

 

We have both in our studio. If I were a pro looking to dial in numbers on a flat range prior to a round, and wanted to make sure all environmental factors were being accounted for, I'd prefer the TM4, since it follows the ball all the way to the ground.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sisbuad said:

Hi, I still find this strange. Has anyone reached a conclusion here?😀

I honestly don't think quads have replaced radar, I think they supplement it. The quad gives you consistent normalized data including pretty precise impact location (which can be used indoor or outdoor), while radar gives you exact carry data for the given environmental conditions (and other data like VSP, low point, etc). The quad is more portable and quicker to setup as well, so when they want quick data they may grab it vs setting up the TM. Depending on what they are doing, they may use one or the other, or in some cases both (which can also be seen in the picture)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, RichieHunt said:

 

 

Edit:  As far as Tour pros switching to GC Quad, it has to do with availability, better club speed accuracy and better mis-hit accuracy.  Cost really has nothing to do with it.  95% of the Tour is willing to fork over $25K to improve without issue.   And if they don't, they usually get a monitor from their instructor or some financial backer before they even get on Tour.  If TM is making the claim that GC Quad is only becoming popular because they are giving theirs away from practically nothing...well, that's taking sledgehammers to a glass house.

 

 

 

 

 

RH

 

This is true. When I was monitor shopping I asked a KF player I know (very loosely) if he could get me a discount. He said the discount is only granted if he carries it and sets it up at every event. But he already had one given to him by his financial backer so didn't need to fulfil that obligation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Soloman1 said:

Neither improve anyone's swing, they just measure result.

 

No pros are looking at any numbers on the GC Quads after they swing because they aren't even turned on. Players are paid to have one set up at their spot. It's marketing.

 

If you watch Bryson hit in practice, he's not even looking at the ball flight. Eyes go straight back down to the numbers on the Quad. 

 

If they gamified this, every serious junior would have one, if they don't already. Highest ball speed rankings. Highest spin. Most center hits in a row. Hit a draw then a fade.

Cobra Speedzone 8.5* // Smoke Yellow x-flex
TaylorMade Original One 12* // EvenFlow Black x-flex

TaylorMade SIM UDI 18* // Diamana Thump 100 x-flex

Srixon U85 23* // Modus 120x
Mizuno JPX919 Tour 5-PW // TT X100

Vokey // SM7 50-54-58 // TT X100

Scotty Cameron Pro Platinum Newport  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, GungHoGolf said:

 

That's possible for the Quad, but my TM rep claims they have never discounted a unit to pro, ever - and they're proud of that.

 

We have both in our studio. If I were a pro looking to dial in numbers on a flat range prior to a round, and wanted to make sure all environmental factors were being accounted for, I'd prefer the TM4, since it follows the ball all the way to the ground.

TM rep is definitely lying.  My players haven’t paid close to full price. At one point I was offered a big discount and they’d buy my current radar in order for me to switch. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, GungHoGolf said:

 

That's possible for the Quad, but my TM rep claims they have never discounted a unit to pro, ever - and they're proud of that.

 

We have both in our studio. If I were a pro looking to dial in numbers on a flat range prior to a round, and wanted to make sure all environmental factors were being accounted for, I'd prefer the TM4, since it follows the ball all the way to the ground.

I know of a low level pro local to me who bought one last year , and before financing it was around half off the price I saw on their website.  Then they financed it for a few points.  
 

He paid for it by renting it an hour at a time to other guys.  

TM Sim2 max 9* TB 70TX

TM 300 13.5* Tensei CK blue 80TX

TM Sim2 max 17hL MMT 70x 

Callaway  xforged UT 21 ventus blue 9x 

Titleist T100 4-pw MMT 125 TX 

Edel sms 54 58 MMT 125 TX 

Cameron GSS 009  1.5 , sound slot , tungsten sole weights , head speed shaft. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You just reiterated what the rep said.

He's untrustworthy and it would hard to believe anything he said after that whopper.

In defense of tech companies, sometimes you run out of customers or prospects with the means, understanding or market available for products. They end up losing good salespeople and reps and get replaced with people the company wouldn't have considered 5 years ago.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I were playing this game for big money on a regular basis, I would want to take a device, to the course, that tells me how far the ball is actually going so that I would know my distances for that elevation and not have to rely on mathematical estimations. At a tournament, I wouldn't care about club or ball data unless I was testing a new club or ball. I would already know what that data is for all my regular equipment.

 

BT

 

Cobra LTD Pro 10.5° HZRDUS Blk 75 6.0 @ 44.5"
Cobra LTD Black 14.5° Aldila RIP Beta 80 S @ 43"
Cobra F6 16.5° Aldila RIP Beta 80 S @ 41.5"
Mizuno MP25 4-PW Mamiya Recoil Proto 125 F4
Mizuno MP-T5 52, 56 & 60 - TT Wedge
Grips - Grip Master Master Perforated Midsize

Oddysey Stroke Lab V-Line Blk 33.5"
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somebody send me a Trackman and a GCQuad and I'll spend some time with both and write up my opinions so we can really nail this down once and for all.

 

Thanks!

  • Like 2

Driver:   Cobra RadSpeed 9.0* Ventus Blue 7X

3w:         Cobra RadSpeed 14.5* /  Ventus Blue 7X

Utility   Srixon ZX 18* / Ventus Black HB 10TX
Irons:      Mizuno JPX 921 Tour 4-PW / Project X LS 6.5
Wedges:  Mizuno T20 Raw 50, 54, 58 / Project X LS 6.0

Putter:    Scotty Cameron Studio Style Newport

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this is heresy and a burning stake awaits me, but…

 

Most really good teachers have kind of gotten over the launch monitor craze. They use it to validate that the changes made affect swing speed with driver, which is the number one thing amateurs are looking for and want to see.

 

Amateurs generally want more distance or want more control. Those are swing changes.

 

Club fitting is where any launch monitor is important.

 

Tour pros use it mostly to tune in their distances. Anything else is just clutter.

 

I remember in the old days when pros and amateurs used wood burning launch monitors to somehow play golf…

 

Many top teachers are using them less and less. They don’t need a tech crutch to teach. Indoors has more value than outdoors. It turns out that good teachers know what’s happening at impact and always did. Who would have known? Haha.

 

Good cooks know when a steak is done how they want it without a meat thermometer.

 

OK, tie me up to the steak, er, stake.

 

 

Edited by Soloman1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 12/10/2021 at 11:35 AM, RichieHunt said:

I've been on plenty of Tour ranges, mostly on the Florida stops, working with clients.

 

I would typically hear from Trackman people the claims that everybody was working with a Trackman.  There were a lot of Trackman users back in say 2014, but it was far from every range station using one.  But it was still, by far, the #1 used launch monitor at the time.

 

It stinks indoors when it comes to ball data.  Just doesn't project yardage well and is terribly inconsistent.  The other problem...whether it's indoors or outdoors, is that it understates club speed by a lot.  That causes the smash factors to be ridiculously high as @hoganfan924 noted.  Usually the response I get from Trackman people is that 'it's getting better' yet never does get better.  Then they reconcile it with 'well, club speed isn't that important to be accurate anyway.'  Tell that to the person who paid $25K for it.

 

I rarely have seen FlightScope used on Tour.  They've had some major issues in the past, but the latest models have been quite good and quite helpful in ways TM cannot.  Of course the same could be said about TM over FS.

 

Bryson was using FS on the 18th hole at Bay Hill in the practice round to get a feel for the approach shot distances.  However, he was using GC Quad on the range and GC Quad is certainly getting more popular.

 

Years ago the European PGA had instructors that questioned the accuracy of Trackman and they commissioned a study from Quintic using the Phantom Camera.  Quintic found that TM was nowhere near as accurate as they claim, particularly on mis-hits.  And given that the 'sweet spot' of a club is about the size of a needle point, it goes to show that these launch monitors can have some large inaccuracies.  I believe one of the reasons the Quad is preferred is that it's not only more accurate with club speed (and by proxy, smash factor), but it's more accurate on mis-hits.

 

I also met a golfer at a golf school who was an MIT grad and he discussed the inaccuracies of Trackman and the issues with doppler radar, even for tracking the ball flight.  He explained that it's not horribly inaccurate, but not accurate enough for legitimate scientific research.  As he put it to me 'military grade technology just means technology awarded to the lowest bidder.'

 

Having said all of that, I prefer to use Trackman when it comes to club data and fitting.  Mainly because the club data is more consistent.  It may be too inaccurate for legitimate science research, but all I'm doing is club fitting or looking at my swing.  If the club speed is off, I have to adjust the data.

 

There's less use of launch monitors on Tour now.  I don't think it has to do with anything other than these guys own launch monitors at home and pretty much know what their numbers are.  They may run into a streak of bad driving and want to check their data to see if they need to change their equipment and they may want to work on their carry yardages, but that's about it.  I remember Chris Como telling me that he uses Trackman for maybe 1% of his lesson time.  

 

In the end, Trackman in particular, has provided a lot of positives for the game in itself.  It was a leader in providing an understanding of the correct ball flight laws and even helped further tweak them (i.e. showing how the ball starts more where the face is pointed on lower lofted clubs than higher lofted clubs) in order to give more accurate detail.  It was a leader in understanding both horizontal and vertical gear effect as well as Spin Loft as well the D-Plane and attack angles.

 

Yes, players on Tour are swinging faster now, but a large part of that is Trackman helping understand the impact conditions, ball flight patterns and using that information to hit the ball further and getting players to swing faster while keep int eh ball under control.

 

It's certainly not the be all, end all.  It certainly won't make a bad instructor into a good instructor.  There are other pieces of equipment that can be more helpful in improving golfers.  But it has had a tremendously positive impact, flaws and all.

 

Edit:  As far as Tour pros switching to GC Quad, it has to do with availability, better club speed accuracy and better mis-hit accuracy.  Cost really has nothing to do with it.  95% of the Tour is willing to fork over $25K to improve without issue.   And if they don't, they usually get a monitor from their instructor or some financial backer before they even get on Tour.  If TM is making the claim that GC Quad is only becoming popular because they are giving theirs away from practically nothing...well, that's taking sledgehammers to a glass house.

 

 

 

 

 

RH

 

 

So I'm going to disagree with your MIT friend. This is coming from direct experience with optical and RF tracking systems. Optical systems are much more accurate for tracking specific information at short distances with clear lines of site. RF systems are much better are tracking objects over distance because the are not affected by most outside environmental factors, but the information will not be as precise. Basically cameras will always be best for getting actual spin and launch, while RF will be better for tracking overall flight. 

Edited by Jc0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...