Opinion-Launch Monitor Algorithms and How they Dupe People

[clevited]

Hey everyone,

 

I have a strong belief, based on years of observations of my own game, tour videos, and long drive competition videos that too many launch monitors really are duping people.  To get my thoughts across about this opinion, I am going to break down this post into list form so its easy to just get the information out there concisely.

 

1) This is focused primarily on carry distance launch monitors put out for the most popular club in the bag, the driver.

2) I believe almost all launch monitors overestimate, or over measure the carry for driver by a very significant amount when one hits the ideal numbers for maximum carry.

3) I believe people get duped in two ways, one, they brag or comment about their ability based on what a launch monitor says when its not really true in the real world and often by quite a significant amount (to be clear, this doesn't bother me in the slightest personally but it is a way people get duped). The second way, and this is the one I actually care a bit about, is that because of this, I think people too often get duped into buying a driver that is not actually better than their old one by the margin they are shown.

4) Foresight Sports is possibly the largest offender of this that I have observed.

5) It is through watching countless replays of drives on tour, world long drive competitions and my own game that I have come to this conclusion.  (I have gone to great lengths to find examples of these that were done on as calm of days wind wise as possible, and with temps in the 70s F, at the very least, calm days and measure where I see the ball land on the video to measurements in Google Maps.  I tried to account for as many variables as possible and avoid confirmation bias as much as possible).

6) I keep converging on the following range for maximizing distance with the driver Sea Level: 1.65 to 1.70 X ball speed =  max carry distance in yards, 1500 ft 1.70 to 1.75 X ball speed = max carry distance in yards (obviously this isn't EXACT, but very close imo and I think shows just how off LMs seem to be at times).

7) One example that comes to the top of my head is the video of Justin James trying to drive the infamous 555 yard par 5 at Bay Hill (the one BD was attempting to drive).  The video shows his carry distance and ball speed but if you actually measure it on maps, it isn't nearly as far as they show (they used a GCQ).  The conditions looked to be extremely calm and it was roughly at sea level.  His drive from the furthest back position was claimed to be 406 yards of carry, and 220 mph ball speed.  If you measure on maps from where he hit to where he landed, it was 383 yards.  The GCQ shows 1.85 X ball speed = his carry, but in reality it was 1.74 X ball speed = his carry.  You could tell he was going all carry too because of the land angle on the green.  He was just trying to clear the water.

8)) When a person is fit for a new driver, I believe the inaccuracy of these LMs has duped many people into buying a new driver when they may be only marginally better or possibly worse (meaning, they likely would not have bought a new driver had they had the truth).  I am aware of course, that there are good fitters out there or club salesmen that will be knowledgeable and straight shooters and not allow their customer to be duped so easily by big numbers but I don't think those are very common.

9) I have observed over the years many drives of mine on very calm still evenings with soft conditions such that I could identify the ball mark where the ball landed and as best as I can tell, I hover in that 1.70 to 1.75 X ball speed = max carry range (I am capable of 180s ball speed with 15-17 degrees of vertical launch and 1700-2200 or so spin, these are my ideal launch monitor numbers).

10) I am not looking for people to nitpick my opinion or observations, I am looking for people that can add information to what I have observed.  Perhaps someone that has physically tested their own LMs, or someone in the long drive business that has seen enough grid landing spots via video to have an intimate understanding of what is possible in the real world.  I am happy to be wrong, and even happier to have evidence to help me adjust my little max carry estimate.  If someone can provide good evidence to the contrary, the silver linings would be that I will feel better about club fittings, possibly be able to trust certain launch monitors more, and be able to improve my little max carry estimate calculation.

 

(edited, corrected Justin James measurement numbers)

 

Edited September 16, 2021 by clevited

[b.helts]

I used to detail cars for spare money. Occasionally, we’d paint the floor mats and/or the floor boards to make them look better than they were for the used car lot. 
 

So I guess what I’m saying is “yeah, and?”

[clevited]

3 minutes ago, b.helts said:

I used to detail cars for spare money. Occasionally, we’d paint the floor mats and/or the floor boards to make them look better than they were for the used car lot. 
 

So I guess what I’m saying is “yeah, and?”

 

The "and" is, this thread may open some peoples eyes to this problem and they avoid being duped, that is, if others chime in to either correct or corroborate my observations.  That, and I am in general just curious if any others have had similar observations or can add evidence that helps me correct my estimated max carry calculation and help a geek out.  

[whumber]

GCQuad and GC2 overestimating carry on high launch/low spin shots is pretty well known. If somebody goes to test a new driver without hitting their current driving alongside it on the same launch monitor then they're just asking for trouble, there doesn't need to be anything insidious about it.

[Krt22]

 

10 minutes ago, whumber said:

GCQuad and GC2 overestimating carry on high launch/low spin shots is pretty well known. If somebody goes to test a new driver without hitting their current driving alongside it on the same launch monitor then they're just asking for trouble, there doesn't need to be anything insidious about it.

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.

[Benoit61]

1 hour ago, whumber said:

GCQuad and GC2 overestimating carry on high launch/low spin shots is pretty well known. If somebody goes to test a new driver without hitting their current driving alongside it on the same launch monitor then they're just asking for trouble, there doesn't need to be anything insidious about it.

This is so obviously correct … in what situation  would you not hit your current driver to have a baseline number to see if the new driver is better or worse … unless you are claiming they are changing the settings of the LM in between driver shots( this is obviously dishonest on the fitters part ) then I don’t believe anyone is getting duped … 

[hammersia]

I'm not disputing your research at all, but I'm not convinced consumers are being duped - I know loads of terrible golfers who have benefitted enormously from using toasters on a stick drivers. And they get confidence from the numbers they are being told (sold) in 'fittings'. And confidence is important.

[Jtgavigan]

I tend to watch a lot of YouTube videos on reviews. I will often see similar numbers that I produce on GCQ carry 300 plus yards (110mph club speed, low 160s ball speed). My best carry distances are in the 280 range when I hit the right launch/spin, but usually in the 270s with mid 2000 rpm spin. I also know what I see on our often wet, sea level NE Florida courses. There is no way I can get a 300 yard carry at my speed at sea level. 

 

I often see Ian at TXG get some really big distances on GCQ, over 300 carry, and our delivery numbers are pretty similar. So, i just take it with a grain of salt and move on.

 

Trackman seems to be pretty accurate usually, but i have seen a few on that where i knew i didnt carry the ball as far as it said. 

[mgoblue83]

10 hours ago, Benoit61 said:

This is so obviously correct … in what situation  would you not hit your current driver to have a baseline number to see if the new driver is better or worse … unless you are claiming they are changing the settings of the LM in between driver shots( this is obviously dishonest on the fitters part ) then I don’t believe anyone is getting duped … 

 

 

I'll go one step further and say that it's not enough to only hit your current driver at the beginning of the fitting while not warmed up and/or swinging well. This happens all the time and if people would just go back to their current driver midway through the fitting as well as at the end they would probably find significantly different results. 

[mgoblue83]

2 minutes ago, Jtgavigan said:

I tend to watch a lot of YouTube videos on reviews. I will often see similar numbers that I produce on GCQ carry 300 plus yards (110mph club speed, low 160s ball speed). My best carry distances are in the 280 range when I hit the right launch/spin, but usually in the 270s with mid 2000 rpm spin. I also know what I see on our often wet, sea level NE Florida courses. There is no way I can get a 300 yard carry at my speed at sea level. 

 

I often see Ian at TXG get some really big distances on GCQ, over 300 carry, and our delivery numbers are pretty similar. So, i just take it with a grain of salt and move on.

 

Trackman seems to be pretty accurate usually, but i have seen a few on that where i knew i didnt carry the ball as far as it said. 

 

Known issue with GCQ. Drastically overestimates carry on lower spin shots. 

 

A couple of years ago TXG did a driver bracket where the winning driver (Mavrik) was showing 340+ carry when in reality it was 1500 spin duck hooks that were completely unplayable when he took it outside. 

[Jtgavigan]

4 minutes ago, mgoblue83 said:

 

Known issue with GCQ. Drastically overestimates carry on lower spin shots. 

 

A couple of years ago TXG did a driver bracket where the winning driver (Mavrik) was showing 340+ carry when in reality it was 1500 spin duck hooks that were completely unplayable when he took it outside. 

 

I have always questioned them looking for driver spin around 2000rpm or even less. I like at least 2200 to 2300 for stability in flight. I experimented with a 14g weight up front in my SIM and was surprised at how much spin it took off. I couldn't control it and my ball flight was just odd. 

 

Case in point, I was playing with my pro and another plus cap who I play with some a while back. On 14, I hit what I thought was a nice little cut and it just kept going right. The ball flight looked so weird, almost hard to describe. I am sure it was sub 2000rpm. So, I need a little spin for stability. 

 

I love TXG's content and watch most of their stuff. Very informative. I just dont always believe the numbers I see. 

[RCGA]

Every YouTuber with a GC Quad has a 300y carry with 110mph swing 

[mgoblue83]

19 minutes ago, RCGA said:

Every YouTuber with a GC Quad has a 300y carry with 110mph swing 

 

What makes that even worse is that GCQuad overestimates swing speed so it's really like 106-108mph with 300yd "bombs". 

[Kmagnuss]

I have a 100mph club head speed with driver.  The "fitter" at a major golf store had me hitting 300 yard bombs on the LM.  I just laughed and told him to turn it back to reality... I don't hit off the sides of mountains much in Florida and the numbers were complete BS.

 

-Mag

[clevited]

14 hours ago, whumber said:

GCQuad and GC2 overestimating carry on high launch/low spin shots is pretty well known. If somebody goes to test a new driver without hitting their current driving alongside it on the same launch monitor then they're just asking for trouble, there doesn't need to be anything insidious about it.

 

I think it is very wise to test against your old driver too, but what I am suggesting is that the big numbers some of these LMs put up will be larger for shots with certain launch numbers that can show a much bigger improvement over the old driver than what is really true.  Thus duping the buyer.  With the exception of a good and honest club fitter being present.

[Krt22]

2 hours ago, mgoblue83 said:

 

What makes that even worse is that GCQuad overestimates swing speed so it's really like 106-108mph with 300yd "bombs". 

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

[MattC555]

It can't be overstated to hit your current setup first and last.  I did a shaft session the other day and my average swing speed rose from 110mph to 116mph within 20 swings.  Launch monitors aren't perfect, but they are worlds better than what was available when I picked up the game.  Nothing, nothing was available.  You guessed.

[hammersia]

3 hours ago, RCGA said:

Every YouTuber with a GC Quad has a 300y carry with 110mph swing 

 

The youtube video I most want to see is Rick Shiels measuring out one of his GCquad 280 yard carry  bombs (left dash video this week). My bet is 245 yards tops.

 

In Manchester, at sea level in the UK, 280 yard carry is wrx monster long.  And 300 is a whole different class of filthy slash.

[Jtgavigan]

34 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

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

Perfect response. I see the rollout numbers and just chuckle. I rarely have a mid to short iron move more than a few feet on a green, but a LM will consistently give me several yards of rollout. But, I agree with you on these being great tools for dialing in irons. I am fortunate that my pro at PGA Tour Learning Center at World Golf Village has two trackman devices and we can sometimes get it out on turf on a range. Bare minimum is we hit it off the mats out onto the range. But, in colder climates, a GCQ would be a great tool to train on in the winter. 

My comments above are really that I take a lot of the numbers with a grain of salt.

[Jtgavigan]

I bet he is closer to 265-275. Cool, damp weather will certainly kill distance. I was playing last night and it rained the last 6 holes. The ball just quit carrying. The air was so heavy. My stock 6i is 185. I hit a really, really solid 6i from 177 with a small cut and I was 30 feet short. I didn't adjust enough for it. 

[clevited]

9 minutes ago, Jtgavigan said:

I bet he is closer to 265-275. Cool, damp weather will certainly kill distance. I was playing last night and it rained the last 6 holes. The ball just quit carrying. The air was so heavy. My stock 6i is 185. I hit a really, really solid 6i from 177 with a small cut and I was 30 feet short. I didn't adjust enough for it. 

 

Its funny you say that.  I have played quite a few late evening rounds this year and when its both cooler and dewy out, the ball just doesn't carry.  I get the cooler air will knock the ball down due to increased density and therefore drag on the ball, but the dampness of the air seems to contribute a lot to the drag even though it in theory, should be less dense than it would otherwise be if it was dry and cool air.  I know my carries pretty well when I tattoo one and it was crazy where it landed compared to where I expected it to land.

[clevited]

59 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

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

 

I am in agreement that irons are much more accurate for launch monitors.  Two reasons I see for that, one, the spin is in the realm of known ball physics behavior and two, the distance irons travel is much less than a driver so the sheer amount of yards off is less thus making it acceptably accurate given the percentage it is off by.  I focused on driver's because they are arguably the most popular club in the bag these days, the most expensive single club in the bag, the club many go get fit for or try on a store launch monitor, and because it seems many launch monitor algorithms break down at lower spins and higher speeds.  

 

Anecdotally, I have an original M1 driver that for me, spins so low that I cannot keep it in the air.  It falls out of the sky at maybe 280 yards but many a launch monitor will tell me it carried 340+.  I am talking sub 1400 spin launching at 16-18 degrees and ball speeds in the 180s.  Laughable stuff.

[Lobby]

It's always been fascinating to me how, as long as numbers come from a computer screen, people believe them.

All of these distance estimations are just computer calculations.   And very often, garbage in equals garbage out.

I created math models of various chemical processes during my corporate career.   Depending on how I tweaked the model, I could make the numbers sing.   Whatever answer you wanted, I could give you.

Good job, OP.   This needed to be said.

[Lobby]

P.S.

Some golf balls have vastly different dimple patterns than others.   But I suppose the LM will never differentiate between them?  

[Krt22]

46 minutes ago, Lobby said:

It's always been fascinating to me how, as long as numbers come from a computer screen, people believe them.

All of these distance estimations are just computer calculations.   And very often, garbage in equals garbage out.

I created math models of various chemical processes during my corporate career.   Depending on how I tweaked the model, I could make the numbers sing.   Whatever answer you wanted, I could give you.

Good job, OP.   This needed to be said.

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

[LBB]

9 hours ago, clevited said:

 

I think it is very wise to test against your old driver too, but what I am suggesting is that the big numbers some of these LMs put up will be larger for shots with certain launch numbers that can show a much bigger improvement over the old driver than what is really true.  Thus duping the buyer.  With the exception of a good and honest club fitter being present.

If a LM has flaws where certain launch numbers will show inflated distances, wouldn't that apply to both old and new equipment?  Couldn't you argue that if said flaws existed, they could dupe a potential buyer into not buying a driver that actually performs better than their current?

 

I think having a conversation about LM accuracy with drivers is fine.  But I don't understand how you're taking that conversation and turning it into how the industry is duping consumers into buying new equipment that doesn't actually perform any better than their current.

 

Consumer GPS in devices like watches are only accurate to about 3 meters based on known limitations.  So if you're doing a wedge fitting based on dispersion pattern, you could say that using  a GPS watch to mark off shots has flaws, but using GPS is not going to somehow favor new wedges to be more precise in terms of dispersion pattern than old wedges.

[clevited]

5 hours ago, LBB said:

If a LM has flaws where certain launch numbers will show inflated distances, wouldn't that apply to both old and new equipment?  Couldn't you argue that if said flaws existed, they could dupe a potential buyer into not buying a driver that actually performs better than their current?

 

I think having a conversation about LM accuracy with drivers is fine.  But I don't understand how you're taking that conversation and turning it into how the industry is duping consumers into buying new equipment that doesn't actually perform any better than their current.

 

Consumer GPS in devices like watches are only accurate to about 3 meters based on known limitations.  So if you're doing a wedge fitting based on dispersion pattern, you could say that using  a GPS watch to mark off shots has flaws, but using GPS is not going to somehow favor new wedges to be more precise in terms of dispersion pattern than old wedges.

 

1) If a LM has flaws where certain launch numbers will show inflated distances, wouldn't that apply to both old and new equipment?  Couldn't you argue that if said flaws existed, they could dupe a potential buyer into not buying a driver that actually performs better than their current?

-Generally speaking, that isn't what I have observed but I can't deny that it can happen.  I don't tend to think it is as common mostly because many of the popular launch monitors tend to be decently accurate within a certain range of launch data.  They tend to get quite inaccurate though, the closer you get to extremes and I think those extremes dupe people, namely the high launch low spin extreme which usually occurs when hitting a driver.

Edit: I misunderstood a bit what you said so I wanted to clarify my position.  I think you are right that what you say can indeed happen, I just don't think that happens nearly as often based of my observations.  It certainly could be though that a person has a really low spin high launch driver and they go in and see that nothing beats it when in reality, their current gamer isn't blowing those others away by nearly as much and they might be better off losing 5 yards and getting better dispersion, but they might think they would have to sacrifice 20+ yards based on the LM numbers.  

 

2) I think having a conversation about LM accuracy with drivers is fine.  But I don't understand how you're taking that conversation and turning it into how the industry is duping consumers into buying new equipment that doesn't actually perform any better than their current.

-I am just stating my opinion based off of my observations.  If you have observations or evidence to the contrary, please share them.  I am looking for observations others have had whether they are in support of mine or not.

 

3) Consumer GPS in devices like watches are only accurate to about 3 meters based on known limitations.  So if you're doing a wedge fitting based on dispersion pattern, you could say that using  a GPS watch to mark off shots has flaws, but using GPS is not going to somehow favor new wedges to be more precise in terms of dispersion pattern than old wedges.

-Well, in my opinion, the flaws I am referring to are much greater than your example comparison.  When I go into a Dick's sporting goods or something and try drivers out, and if I am not intimately familiar with the particular launch monitor's limitations and accuracy, I am going to trust what it says (this I think represents the vast majority of golfers).  It will say that the 18 degree launching, 1400 rpm spinning  Taylormade Sim2 is way longer carrying than my 15 degree launch, 2400 rpm spinning Taylormade M3 for instance.  In reality, that 1400 rpm driver might just fall out of the sky and not go nearly as far as they say or possibly, even probably,  be shorter than the old driver by a substantial amount.  Just as an aside, Foresight Sports has admitted their algorithm issues and even Phil Mickelson recently commented on it but they have yet to correct it.  This has been a known issue to them for quite some time yet they have not corrected it.  

Edited September 18, 2021 by clevited

[LBB]

7 hours ago, clevited said:

 

 

2) I think having a conversation about LM accuracy with drivers is fine.  But I don't understand how you're taking that conversation and turning it into how the industry is duping consumers into buying new equipment that doesn't actually perform any better than their current.

-I am just stating my opinion based off of my observations.  If you have observations or evidence to the contrary, please share them.  I am looking for observations others have had whether they are in support of mine or not.

 

The only example I have is when I recently took my F9 to a box store and compared it to a Radspeed.  I didn't see much difference at all, and in fact my best hit was with my existing F9...with 2700 backspin.  But since I don't actually have an opinion that LMs somehow dupe people into buying new equipment, I don't need any examples to begin with.

 

You haven't stated any examples either of how newer equipment performs better than old equipment given launch monitor calculations.  Ironically, the only example you provides is of your M1 driver, which you state would only carry 280 in real life, but a launch monitor would deem it to carry 340.

 

So again...if you want to discuss the possible flaws of LMs with drivers, that's a worthwhile discussion.  But I haven't seen any reason to suggest how those possible flaws turn into duping people into buying new stuff.  Stroke people's ego so they can brag and get excited about golf...and maybe buy new stuff because of said excitement...sure.  But if a consumer chooses to buy new stuff even though it doesn't test any better than their current, that's not really being duped.  There also isn't anything wrong with buying new stuff just because you want to.

[games]

On 9/16/2021 at 7:19 PM, Krt22 said:

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.

 

I'm following the thread on the new Bushnell/Foresight PLM.  It's pretty clear the crowd juiced for the upcoming Launch Pro also enjoy the ego stroke given by the GC2.

 

Regarding this thread, I hesitate using the word "duped."  But, to @clevited point:  Even before we question algorithms, there are a bunch of variables that affect MEASUREMENTS of launch monitors that need consideration.  Garbage in, garbage out and all that...

 

1.  Impact surface - How do you get accurate useful measurements hitting off a piece of astroturf laid over concrete when the sport is played off grass on soil?

 

2. Balls - Indoors, you might use your gamers, but if not the model used and their prior use (new vs used vs near death) make a difference.  I could tell running the e6 TruTrac system (not a true launch monitor but a decent simulator) when a ball was starting to go bad due to too much prior use.  You usually couldn't tell by looking at the ball if it was bad.  Sometimes, you could detect a slight bulge. 

 

Outdoors, you're hitting balls off grass but probably not your gamer.  Now, the variability of the range ball comes into play.  Maybe your range uses "off the shelf" balls or the extra ammo provided by previous customers hitting extras from their bag.  Maybe the range uses premium range balls where only the cover chemistry to extend durability is radically different.  Regular range balls have covers and cores designed for durability.  Then, there is the dreaded limited flight range ball which will really confuse you when extrapolated by launch monitor algorithms.

 

3.  Hitting Environment - You will never quite create the "real" pressure of the first tee, the fairway, the rough, fringe, or the green.  Ranges and simulator cages are for swinging away.  Is that your authentic "on course" swing?  It just varies by the individual.  But, like the other two factors affecting measurements, it's a variable affecting the data generated...

[clevited]

On 9/17/2021 at 6:49 AM, mgoblue83 said:

 

Known issue with GCQ. Drastically overestimates carry on lower spin shots. 

 

A couple of years ago TXG did a driver bracket where the winning driver (Mavrik) was showing 340+ carry when in reality it was 1500 spin duck hooks that were completely unplayable when he took it outside. 

 

This!  I must have glossed over this comment earlier.  Would you happen to have a link to the video(s) where these observations were talked about?  This would corroborate some of my findings.