TrackMan Pro or Flightscope in Northern Va or DC Metro?

[Stuy Pegleg]

Anyone know? I found a TrackMan Pro in Virginia, but it's in Richmond. Looking for a place closer to DC.

[Scuderia]

If Alexandria VA is within reach then, you should consider contacting the following person:

Stephen Moskal

Director of Instruction

Topgolf Academy by Mitchell Spearman

Proshop: 703-924-2600

Cell: 703-615-9903

[email protected]

 

They use the FlightScope 3D Golf Tracking Radar which is exactly the same technolgy as the Trackman system, except that FlightScope was the world's 1st and is more accurate.

 

That is not true at all. My local shop has the flightscope Cheetah which is the top of the line Flightscope and it doesnt hold a candle to the trackman. It is definitely not more accurate. I was actually one of the testers for both systems (side by side) as my shop didnt want to make the investment with trackman since they already spent 15K on the flightscope. However, In looking at the numbers, distances (with laser rangefinder), etc. the Trackman blew away the Flightscope.

[kozfitter]

Curious, why is FlightScope more accurate than Trackman?

[autisticlove]

If you are looking specifically for Trackman, Mike Fix in Fredericksburg, Va has one and is a great guy.

[bsc1872]

For what TRACKMAN cost it better do back flips and be spot on with its readings. Our shop uses Flightscope KUDA and we do alot of fittings outdoor and it is pretty close within a couple of yards on the carry. We test also with balls you might play with not range balls which alot of places do and of course the readings will be off.

[msfix13]

If Alexandria VA is within reach then, you should consider contacting the following person:

Stephen Moskal

Director of Instruction

Topgolf Academy by Mitchell Spearman

Proshop: 703-924-2600

Cell: 703-615-9903

[email protected]

 

They use the FlightScope 3D Golf Tracking Radar which is exactly the same technolgy as the Trackman system, except that FlightScope was the world's 1st and is more accurate.

 

I'm curious about this claim. Is there a study or report to verify this? Prior to buying my TrackMan, I had no way to test the TrackMan against a Flightscope, Zelocity or any other launch monitor. I decided that the list of TrackMan owner/users was good enough for me. The PGA Tour, USGA, R&A, Adams, Aldila, Bridgestone, Callaway, Cleveland, Fujikura, Graphite Design, Honma, Maruman, Mitsubisho, Mizuno, Nike, Ping, Srixon, TaylorMade, Titleist, True Temper, Wilso, leadbetter - all use TrackMan - my assumption was they weren't limited by budget (these things aren't millions), and most would be able to compare using more sophisticated support systems than I have available.

 

As a TrackMan owner, I don't know whether or not TrackMan is or is not more accurate, but I certainly would point to the TrackMan customer list and say 'draw your own conclusions".

[kdavis588rtg]

Why is it that eveyone thinks that these radar based systems are more accurate than Photo based Launch monitors like the Vector or Vector Pro.

 

Has any one ever heard of or used the TPM-(Titleist Performance Monitor)

A good picture will be more accurate than Radar. ALWAYS AND FOREVER . 1 MILLION OUT OF 1 MILLION TIMES

 

I have been on all of the radar based monitors and don't fing them any more accurate than any other. In fact I have found that most are not very good at all.

[hbear]

Because radar ACTUALLY TRACKS your ball flight.

 

Photo based takes a couple/few pictures and then "estimates" what happens via software.

Think about it....

A system that tracks the ENTIRE flight of the ball....vs. on that "sees" the ball for a hundreth of a second and then uses that to ESTIMATE something that takes a few sconds (margin of errors?).

[kdavis588rtg]

If what you are saying is "that tracking the ball for the entire flight is what matters to eliminate error".

Then why does Trackman sell an indoor unit that uses the same (exactly the same) hardware and can be operated by hitting into a net?

 

Have you ever been on Trackman?

[justhackin]

kdavis

 

I don't think anyone has said that they are more accurate. I have used both systems at the same time and can tell you they both are close. I haven't used the Trackman but can't see where it is worth that much more IMO. For fitting, practice, lessons both Vector and Zelocity are close enough. Either one would serve a person well.

 

As far as customer service it's Vector hands down! I owned a used Vector Pro and they were more than helpful. I also talked to Zelocity and don't understand their business model. 4k unit that you have to pay $400 a year for customer support after the warranty period? I can see charging for software upgrades but just to talk to someone? But hey it must work for them.

 

Bottom line both good units and could work for anyone that needed such a device.

 

I forgot .... the new upgrades to Vector Pro seem to have solved the problems I read about. Mine worked great both indoors and out.

 

hackin

[kdavis588rtg]

hackin,

 

I have seen several posts that people claim that Trackman is far and away more accurate than all others, "hands down it's trackman". I just wonder, like "msfix13", where is the proof that these people have that one tech is better than another. I have never seen a study and has compared the two types of Technology and said that one is better than another.

 

MSFIX13 said, look at the customer list of Trackman and Judge for yourself. I agree, they all of these customers use Trackman. I also know that many of these companies use high speed photography to do very precise evaluation of club and ball performance. I think the margin of error for radar is probably greater than photo.

 

Just trying to find out where the basis for many of these statements come from. Are they truly informed statements or just opinions based on hearsay. If I am going to continue to evaluate clubs, do I need to find a radar based system, or can I continue to rely on the results I have been getting from VP.

[justhackin]

Kdavis

 

While Trackman may be more accurate for what it cost it should be. I can tell you from experience that between Vector and Zelocity I wouldn't loose sleep over it.

 

A far as the list of who uses Trackman well I would take that with the proverbial grain of salt. I would bet that Trackman gave or pays them to use their equipment. At least that would be my guess.

 

As someone pointed out it seems Trackman's new unit does the same thing Zelocity's does. Estimate parts of the ball flight from initial readings. At some point all of these units estimate something and the estimations are only as good as the math behind it.

 

hackin

[bwadden]

Anybody notice that FlightScope never returned to this thread to back up its claim: "They use the FlightScope 3D Golf Tracking Radar which is exactly the same technology as the Trackman system, except that FlightScope was the world's 1st and is more accurate."

 

I am curious about why not.

[hbear]

If what you are saying is "that tracking the ball for the entire flight is what matters to eliminate error".

Then why does Trackman sell an indoor unit that uses the same (exactly the same) hardware and can be operated by hitting into a net?

 

Have you ever been on Trackman?

 

Yup I been on a Trackman, but only hit on one outdoors....

Didn't even know it could be used indoors with any accuracy.

 

I still prefer outdoor fittings as I can better confirm what the little box is telling me with what I see in ball flight.

[msfix13]

The common flaw with a photo based system is it has to estimate ball flight based on a millisecond worth of data. We all know (or should know) that air density affects ball flight. A golf ball traveling through air is computationally, just fluid dynamics. If the properties of the fluid change, the results change. And, yes air is computed as a 'fluid' in physics research (I spent the best years of my life at Bell lLabs dabbling in this sort of stuff). So, how can any photo based system know the altitude and temperature of the fitting environment, and make the precise corrections?

 

The basic measurements of ball speed would be difficult to screw up on any system. The same with a club head. The crux of the issue is what best can inform the golfer about the path of the golf ball - if the golf ball flight isn't important, then I'm not sure what is. The only feedback a golfer gets is the feel of the shot through his hands and the visual cues of the ball flight. In the final analysis, you can either measure the ball flight (e.g., TrackMan, Zelocity, FlightScope) or you can estimate it (e.g., Vector and the like).

 

BTW, I also own an Impactra (a high speed photo based system) that i use to examine shaft lag during difficult fittings. That is a specialized use that only a photo based system can handle. It's really all about using the right technology for the right purpose.

 

Seriously, I don't have a problem believeing a Vector is as accurate as a TrackMan, I just wonder why an organization like the USGA doesn't use the Vector if it is superior in its accuracy. I can't imagine Dick Rugge at the USGA didn't do his homework on the purchase of a launch monitor for the USGA's research purposes. Anyone go to the PGA Merchandise Show a few weeks ago? Not many Vector's in sight. Nor any other launch monitors.

 

Lastly, if you contact ISG and any of the manufacturers that are trackMan customers - you will find they all pay full rate. The idea of 'giving them away' is hard to imagine considering the business model of the TrackMan. There are so few companies that are willing or capable of paying for a TrackMan that giving them away to the majority of your customer base just doesn't make business sense.

 

Again, if all launch monitors are equal (or better than Trackman) where is the customer list to support the claim?

[msfix13]

Kdavis

 

While Trackman may be more accurate for what it cost it should be. I can tell you from experience that between Vector and Zelocity I wouldn't loose sleep over it.

 

A far as the list of who uses Trackman well I would take that with the proverbial grain of salt. I would bet that Trackman gave or pays them to use their equipment. At least that would be my guess.

 

As someone pointed out it seems Trackman's new unit does the same thing Zelocity's does. Estimate parts of the ball flight from initial readings. At some point all of these units estimate something and the estimations are only as good as the math behind it.

 

hackin

 

TrackMan has two software modules. One is used outdoors and measures ball flight. The other module is for indoor use and does indeed estimate based on a minimum amount of ball flight (15-18 feet). Owners who have paid for the software license to use their unit ourdoors can also use the indoor module if desired. Owners who have only purchased the indoor module cannot use the outdoor module. All launch monitors attempt to do the same things, that is inform the golfer of data about the results of their swing. As long as the golfer receives data that correlates with what their golfing experience and observations are telling them, I agree that the type or brand of launch monitor makes little to no difference. But, if the golfer (for whatever reason) wants to know how their swing measures using the same system used by the PGA Tour - theyhave only one choice. That choice is pretty tough to debate.

[wahoowa2002]

Anyone know? I found a TrackMan Pro in Virginia, but it's in Richmond. Looking for a place closer to DC.

 

Where in Richmond did you find the TrackMan?

[justhackin]

Just a thought...... just because they use a Trackman doesn't mean they know what they are doing. I get the sense that the Trackman is going to be the next "keep up with the Jonses" item from some of the threads I am reading online. It's almost as though if your fitter doesn't use one they just can't be any good. If you are gettting fit just make sure the fitter is as good as the equipment. I would agree that a fitter needs technology today but I think any launch monitor is good in the correct hands.

 

hackin

[msfix13]

Just a thought...... just because they use a Trackman doesn't mean they know what they are doing. I get the sense that the Trackman is going to be the next "keep up with the Jonses" item from some of the threads I am reading online. It's almost as though if your fitter doesn't use one they just can't be any good. If you are gettting fit just make sure the fitter is as good as the equipment. I would agree that a fitter needs technology today but I think any launch monitor is good in the correct hands.

 

hackin

I don't think anyone has ever claimed that the lack of a TrackMan is related to their fitter's competency. Fitting is a service that will always have high and low ends just like any other product or service. A Lexus isn't better at hauling groceries, but that isn't the point. A market exists to provide a service to golfers who just want what the pros have access to. My business is focused on the golfer who not only wants the TrackMan service, but also buys Miura, Yururi, Zodia, and other high end golf equipment. If I was fitting OEM equipment in a brick and mortar store, I probably wouldn't use a TrackMan - but that decision is based on the business case, not the relative merits of any one launch monitor. At the end of the day, the fitter has to make a profit. That drives the launch monitor decision, not the need to keep up with the Joneses. At $30k, I have serious doubts any of the fitters in my area are going to buy one. Not because they aren't good at their craft, but because their clientele doesn't demand a TrackMan. Because I sell primaril ultra-premium clubs and shafts, a TrackMan is a necessity.

 

No one who owns any other launch monitor needs to apologize for it, nor should they feel their skills are in any way diminished. I would question whether any of the very few fitters who have purchased a TrackMan were attempting to 'buy' competency. With the amount needed to purchase one, your business case better be more solid than assuming buying a TrackMan will build the business. I have had my TrackMan for 1 1/2 years and can tell you that I turn away a fair number of clients who think they want a TrackMan fitting until they see the price tag. Believe me, when you need to make a return on your investment, this is very difficult. But, my business is focused on a specific demographic and that's who I serve.

 

For what it's worth, I have had clients fly in from as far away as Vancouver, Canada; Germany, Dubai, and Japan (I'm located in Virginia). I can only say that I don't care if TrackMan is 'the best' or the 'most accurate', I own one because my clients demand what they perceive to be 'the best'. And customer service is what this business is all about.

 

At the end of the day, the golfing public makes the final value judgement with their dollars.

[msfix13]

Why is it that eveyone thinks that these radar based systems are more accurate than Photo based Launch monitors like the Vector or Vector Pro.

 

Has any one ever heard of or used the TPM-(Titleist Performance Monitor)

A good picture will be more accurate than Radar. ALWAYS AND FOREVER . 1 MILLION OUT OF 1 MILLION TIMES

 

I have been on all of the radar based monitors and don't fing them any more accurate than any other. In fact I have found that most are not very good at all.

I'm totally open to the idea I made a $30k mistake, but do you have any scientifically valid data to support your assertions?

 

1. What is the basis for the claim that radar is not as accurate as 'a good picture'? Consider that phased-array doppler radar is what tracks ballistic missiles from thousands of miles away. Do you have any idea how big a missile is from thousands of miles away? If a photo was better, the military would use reconnaissance cameras in satellites to track moving objects like a missile. Consider that radars take thousands of measurements each second, they don't interpolate from a single static moment in time. So, if a photo-based technology is better at predicting the flight of an object from start to end, then surely our national missile defense would be heavily based on photo systems to take a picture of the missile launch and then predict where it will land?

 

2. The TPM is a great system, but it is used in a complementary fashion, not as a replacement for a launch monitor. Titleist also owns a few TrackMan units, so this is probably not a great point to stake the claim to technological superiority of a photo-based system. However, I also use the V1 Pro Video Software system in conjunction with my TrackMan when the client is interested in going beyond basic fitting where certain body and club positions need to be analyzed. I use an Impactra to analyze shaft lag because the TrackMan can't do this - I don't know how many photo based systems even support the analysis of shaft position and behavior through high speed stills.

 

3. Did you actually prepare and execute a test process that would be acceptable in a scientific community? Did you actually test all of the radar based monitors under identical atmospheric conditions, with identical hitting sequences, with identical equipment, balls, swings? Were the landing and hitting areas calibrated for exact distance references?

 

4. What is the basis for "I have found that most were not very good at all"? This isn't very helpful if it is an accurate and factual statement. If it is an opinion, that's fine. But the point here is that if there really are valid reasons why a device would not be any good at all, why not share this with the rest of us who haven't had the opportunity to submit all of the radar based monitors to testing. I would love to know why Trackman isn't any good - I might even ask ISG for my money back. As many Zelocity units as I have seen at other shops, I'd like to know what is wrong with the Zelocity - so I can needle a couple of close friends and colleagues who are also fitters.

[justhackin]

fix

 

For what it's worth, I have had clients fly in from as far away as Vancouver, Canada; Germany, Dubai, and Japan (I'm located in Virginia). I can only say that I don't care if TrackMan is 'the best' or the 'most accurate', I own one because my clients demand what they perceive to be 'the best'. And customer service is what this business is all about.

 

I think you are missing the point in my post. The above quote says it all to me. I am sure that they came to you not to the Trackman but there are lots of folks out there that think the technology makes the difference not the fitter. As usual they are trying to buy a game. I think it is great that you have this type of client but you said it when you used the word "perceived". It's all about perception isn't it? You don't have to be better than the others your clients just have to perceive you are.

 

Because I sell primarily ultra-premium clubs and shafts, a TrackMan is a necessity.

 

Once again a perception. Isn't it strange how the folks that can afford it the most are easiest to get money from using "perception". I am sure you could fit them just fine with another unit.

 

I used to work in the Yacht business and it always amazed me that the bigger the boat they could afford the easier it was to "rope" them in to the high dollar accessories. We sold a $25000 radar system that had the exact same components as the $15000 one. Because it cost more and looked fancier the "ultra boat" folks just had to have it. If the unit messed up I would go pull components out of the cheaper one to fix it. The old saying, "There's a sucker born every minute." surly applied to that business.

 

Oh.... don't take it that I am attacking you in any way. If I win the lottery this week one of my first purchases will be a Trackman. I haven't hit on one but they look like loads of fun!!

 

hackin

[Scuderia]

For what it's worth, I have had clients fly in from as far away as Vancouver, Canada; Germany, Dubai, and Japan (I'm located in Virginia). I can only say that I don't care if TrackMan is 'the best' or the 'most accurate', I own one because my clients demand what they perceive to be 'the best'. And customer service is what this business is all about.

 

At the end of the day, the golfing public makes the final value judgement with their dollars.

 

just curious...what's the name of your business?

[Stuy Pegleg]

Thanks to all for responding to my post. I almost forgot that I had posted this thread.

 

I sure didn't know that we would have such a vibrant discussion...

 

wahoowa2002: I thought that I googled a place in Richmond, but I can't seem to find that website anymore...(maybe I'm getting mixed up with the place in Fredericksburg?).

 

The primary reason I'm looking at radar-based setups is to see the angle of descent. Having too steep of an angle of descent will kill roll.

 

I'm a bit skeptical about the accuracy of the roll estimate on your typical non-radar launch monitors. Maybe these non-radar launch monitors estimate roll based on thorough experimental observations....of course(?) radar systems won't measure roll, but you could still see the angle of descent...

 

FYI, I emailed both Flightscope and Trackman to find out local fitters, and FS was very responsive....as for TM, I got an email saying that they'll let me know, but haven't heard back from them....

[pure285]

:wub: mitchell Spearman is so 1982 with leadbetter which he doesn't want anyone to know that lead hates him and by the way and spearman is a money hungry some gun from the uk who thinks by telling players to move there left hand 1'4 inch to the right on the club he deserves $600 an hour. he boasts working with tour players that he worked with forever ago or cause they share the same agent but he usually ruins them or barely helps

here is an example take this guy off your website spearman

 

http://oliver-wilson.com/teamwilson.htm

[Luke_Donald]

Today I was on an Flightscope Kubu system, indoor and the net was 10 yards in front of me.

Got some pretty high readings, my question: how accurate is it? can the setup be wrong, that my clubheadspeed went up?

Thanks

[golf$va]

Anyone know? I found a TrackMan Pro in Virginia, but it's in Richmond. Looking for a place closer to DC.

 

Where in Richmond did you find the TrackMan?

 

 

Yeah, where in Richmond??

[Stuy Pegleg]

See post #24....thought that it was Richmond, but I think that it is somewhere else:

 

http://www.highlaunchgolf.com/

[CPHoya]

Golf Etc. in Silver Spring has two TrackMan bays. Ask for Don Lucas.

 

8504 Fenton St.

Silver Spring, MD 20910

(301) 585-0010

www.dcgolfetc.com

 

I'm not a shill for them, but they just finished up fitting me and I love the new stuff. They did a good job.

[3step]

Come on guys..., it's OK to pretend that a unit that captures a single snapshot, and then makes a calculations off of those measurements is somehow an equal to a device that measures the club traveling through a radar field, and then measures the ball in its entire flight. But if you had a choice... which unit would you like to be fit on?

 

If the PGA Tour is paying money to a firm to collect data, If the USGA and R&A are using the same unit to gather data to help them make decisions regarding setting up their future championships, if every major OEM is relying on the data to help in the testing and design of their products..., you gotta give some love to Da Trackman!

 

Regards, 3

[TEConnor]

Golf Etc. in Silver Spring has two TrackMan bays. Ask for Don Lucas.

 

8504 Fenton St.

Silver Spring, MD 20910

(301) 585-0010

www.dcgolfetc.com

 

I'm not a shill for them, but they just finished up fitting me and I love the new stuff. They did a good job.

 

When you ask for Don, you may get two answers :rolleyes:

 

I agree that Golf Etc in Silver Spring is a great new facility. Good guys, very helpful. Good club repair and fitting. They could use a wider selection of shafts and clubs, but being a new shop catering to the general public, it is a reasonable selection. Their trackman system is indoor...not sure if I believe the full-flight estimates 100%, but otherwise a great system for comparing between shots and clubs.

 

Cheers,

Tim