New, affordable Doppler launch monitor coming in March - FlightScope Xi
- Staff
- #27
I'll also comment that a camera based system is still both reliable and accurate. There are obviously varying levels there, but even the holy grail of trackman has been shown to have some issues with accuracy in certain circumstances.
- Staff
- #29
Gotta keep the value of the other products or nobody will want to buy the 10k version.
Borss
New member
Affordable is a relative term. I'm not poor but $2500 for a training aid is pricey. Also, how good can it be if the others are so much more.
- Moderator
- #32
I'd like to see the readout before I passed much judgement. Having an indoor setup is something i really want to make happen, but it will require a device that tells me how far offline I am on my shots along with a variety of other pieces of information.
Sadly, at this point, trackman is where the conversation starts and ends. The less I know the better -- At least according to my wife.
Sadly, at this point, trackman is where the conversation starts and ends. The less I know the better -- At least according to my wife.
Agent Jay
Grandaddy Alumni
I was thinking the same thing, Dan. Yes, the price is steep, even compared to a Trackman (to me). However, having an indoor set up and the ability to have distances accurate to within a yard or so, would be nice. Not having an indoor range available, this would be ideal for me in the Winter time when I only have my garage and net.
Still, I'm not sure I would currently be able to justify the purchase of this $2500 distance tracker, when I could pay off an entire credit card with that much money.
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2012
- Messages
- 12,642
- Reaction score
- 1,119
- Location
- planet earth, milky way galaxy
- Handicap
- 15.7
I would be more concerned with swing path, face angle, and the other launch data rather than the end result of distance from such a device. Just seen too much variable in distance on sims and such anyway that I don't put much stock in that part of it. Even at times way out of whack where at times the data reports a better swing and yet its at the shortest distance and yet at times a poor swing records a real long one. Besides that, temps, wind , weather, elevations, and fairway conditions are so different when we play anyway. I tend to focus on other data about the swing rather than the often flawed end distance it reports. The better one tries to get the other stuff to me is what it would be more about. Besides that I think knowing distance for clubs can only truly be obtained on the golf course and also combined with the other elements mentioned above.
The other day I was at the range and there was a dad there with Swingbyte or some other swing analyzer. I watched as he worked with his 12-year-old daughter. After every swing, he stopped her and they discussed her numbers. She wasn't hitting the ball badly, but not great either. After a while, she got bored and quit to go work on putting by herself. Dad stayed there and did the same routine. After every shot he would stop and spend time examining the numbers. Only his shots were truly awful. He shanked, topped and thinned about every one. The more he did, the more time he spent looking at the numbers. Finally he gave up in frustration after about 20 balls, leaving half the bucket on the range, grumpily collected his daughter, and left.
While I was watching all this, I wanted to grab the guy, shake him and say, "Just swing the dang club!"
Obviously not every golfer is going to use such a device in this way and some will get quite useful information. But the potential for "paralysis by analysis" is certainly there, as exhibited by this incident.
Agent Jay
Grandaddy Alumni
I agree with you, for the average golfer. I'm no Tour Pro, FARRRRRR from it. However, I'm less concerned with my swing flaws as a single digit golfer (personally) and more concerned that I'm getting my distances correct with different swing levels, Full, 3/4, half etc. I'd much rather dial in my distances to a consistent number, than I am concerned with swing path or face angle. The rest of that is on the course, at the time reads with wind, elevations and conditions.
I'm probably the minority, I see more value in digging it out of the ground than a launch monitor. The 3 greatest ball strikers ever: Moe Norman, Ben Hogan, and Trevino, didn't need a Trackman. I bet Norman and Trevino wouldn't have used one if they had one available.
I see so many golfers that have multiple sessions each season on a launch monitor and are over obsessed with their launch data. They can tell you all their spin, launch, path, and ball speed numbers but they can't fix their swing on the course or even shape the ball both ways. Technology is a good thing for many golfers, but I'm glad I learned how to play without all the data from a trackman. Learning the game without lessons or a trackman probably delayed me getting good at golf by a year or two, but I know exactly what's wrong and how to fix it when I hit a bad shot. We have 2 players on our high school team that have both personal trainers and a swing coach. Both are good players and will be playing college golf, but neither one of them can fix their swing on the course.
Pkielwa
New member
Closer but still way off from being affordable for everyday Joes that enjoy golf.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Castor Hades
New member
Interesting, I wouldn't get one home, but it would be awesome that courses that have ranges would have these to use for free or with a small amount to rent.
1000 USD, I'd try to get one in my garage for the winter months
1000 USD, I'd try to get one in my garage for the winter months
rjb01camaross
Active member
Not what I would consider affordable to most golfers but I agree with thoose that would use the money for lessons instead.