We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Launch Monitors - The Standard and New Breed

Nippon Shafts
When I had my fitting last week, I believe we were using the GC2. Not 100% sure though.
 
Been having some interesting discussions with different OEM's on this topic.
 
ddec said:
Been having some interesting discussions with different OEM's on this topic.
Click to expand...

Would definitely be interesting to hear from the manufacturer side of things.
 
Rambler said:
Would definitely be interesting to hear from the manufacturer side of things.
Click to expand...
It's quite interesting. When I get to a computer I can add to this, but a varying of opinions.
 
JB said:
It's quite interesting. When I get to a computer I can add to this, but a varying of opinions.
Click to expand...

I can only imagine, it really seems the preference is all over the place, I'd love to hear the reasons.
 
I've been on TrackMan, GC2 and have used a s100. I still think TrackMan is the best I have been on but never tried Flightscope.

I do think using these machines has their pros and cons. I love the numbers these can spit out but I have to try and limit myself or I will sit there and chase numbers all day long. haha
 
JB said:
It's quite interesting. When I get to a computer I can add to this, but a varying of opinions.
Click to expand...

Looking forward to hearing the opinions you have heard from manufactures.
 
Only been on a Foresight. Great for working on ball flight. But for numbers settings are key.
 
Speaking to many in the industry over the last few days, it really has become Trackman and Flightscope above all others. While GC2 w/ HMT has merit, it will only be compared to the other two. Trackman is what all are compared to, and Flightscope is considered as accurate by most we spoke with. The cache associated with Trackman is something else however and all will be compared to it. Just about every company we spoke with, has both and uses both.
 
So far my only gripe with Trackman is when I'm hitting off grass with wedges. It seems to pickup up my divot a lot of times. If I had the money and the space it would be Trackman over all others just because it's the current gold standard.

Since I'm stuck indoors 99% of the time I prefer the camera based systems. I don't really need my AoA etc so these systems are pretty good. GC2 I love it but once I got the Skytrak I realized the ball flight Skytrak gave was good enough and I stopped pursuing trying to buy my own GC2. The SC100 paired up with the Skytrak was a perfect combo. Got ball flight, launch, Smash, real club head speed. Was fun but just sold the SC100 to buy a driving iron which I need more than knowing my smash =).

After a full winter of Skytrak I've hit 77% of the greens and 64% of the fairways in my first 3 9 hole rounds (I can't put though aerated greens).

I love launch monitors.
 
Good stuff JB, I honestly expected the gc2 to be used more, but maybe I'm just hung up on the probability of that one. Never been on a flightscope sadly.
 
Good info and can't say that I am surprised. I see lots of reps and teachers using trackman and flightscope. Some of the reps and fitters use gc2 but none have the hmt.

I know for some in the industry like reps, teachers and fitters it's going to come down to money and bang for the buck.
 
I can see why Trackman and Flightscope are the go to monitors since both track the ball from take off to landing, which is super important when building clubs and getting all the data you possibly can on them. For the pros seeing how a degree this way or that effects the shot or how making a minor change in the swing effects their numbers.
 
I'm really surprised none of the OEMs say both. I was under the impression that doppler (Trackman) was better for watching ball flight but had to make assumptions about how the club was delivered to the ball, and camera (GC2 HMT) was better for watching how the club was delivered to the ball but had to make assumptions about the ball flight. It seems to me like a Trackman and a GC2 HMT combo in an open range would be the best of all worlds.
 
ChristopherKee said:
After a full winter of Skytrak I've hit 77% of the greens and 64% of the fairways in my first 3 9 hole rounds (I can't put though aerated greens).

I love launch monitors.
Click to expand...

As soon as they get away from needing iPads to interface, I will be hunting down the best deal for a Skytrak. A full winter of having full and partial swings available to me has helped a lot. What I don't get with Optishot is 1) accuracy, and 2) short game practice.
 
Spent a good bit of time talking about this today. There is a consensus on accuracy with doppler and a consensus on branding. However most companies use quite a few different options and like quite a few features on them.
 
Do they see a difference on inside vs outside usage?

How far do they allow the ball to travel inside? I've heard the longer the better with Doppler.
 
golfinFF said:
Do they see a difference on inside vs outside usage?

How far do they allow the ball to travel inside? I've heard the longer the better with Doppler.
Click to expand...

from my understanding trackman needs about 20 yds of space in front of ball to be relatively accurate, not sure what flightscope is...will be interested to hear what JB found out
 
golfinFF said:
Do they see a difference on inside vs outside usage?

How far do they allow the ball to travel inside? I've heard the longer the better with Doppler.
Click to expand...

It is going to be the longer the better to follow ball flight. Dont need too long however. The new doppler devices working with club heads is pretty darn fascinating stuff.
 
I'd love to hear more on this subject tons more.

The Doppler model I'm familiar with needs like 13ft minimum to get numbers.

LM and how they can be used for fittings/lessons diagnosing/fixing flaws in the swing is truly fascinating to me.

I spent quite a bit of time today on the LM working on my swing and seeing the difference in right vs wrong swings and what they produced is always.
 
Ill be honest and say based on what I have learned this week, I think its a fine line in someone taking it too far chasing numbers and trying to self diagnose and using tools correctly.
 
I think this is an interesting topic. Some are more accurate than others. I have seen wildly different numbers from golf shop to golf shop. I always wonder if some places juice the distances a bit.
 
It is very interesting to see where the future is headed for these devices. Speaking with manufacturers that test and use these as much or more than just about anybody out there, and almost all of them use all of them (if that makes sense). One referred to Trackman as the Jello of launch monitors in the industry. Meaning whether they are using an actual Trackman or not, the name is interchangable with launch monitor. Another said that if you are testing outdoors, Trackman or FlightScope are your only option because of accuracy. Another said the misnomer of doppler indoors compared to camera based is not accurate and that again they prefer doppler. Still one other one said that outside of cost, side by side, they have seen virtually no differences in Trackman vs FlightScope other than cost and that was a determining factor in them having 66 FlightScope machines and only 8 Trackmans as they have transitioned over.

Looking at gaining more info, I will speak with both companies in the coming weeks.
 
JB said:
Ill be honest and say based on what I have learned this week, I think its a fine line in someone taking it too far chasing numbers and trying to self diagnose and using tools correctly.
Click to expand...

Agreed chasing numbers without professional help can be disastrous, but having the number to show I was releasing the club properly even though it felt wrong lit up the light bulb.

JB said:
It is very interesting to see where the future is headed for these devices. Speaking with manufacturers that test and use these as much or more than just about anybody out there, and almost all of them use all of them (if that makes sense). One referred to Trackman as the Jello of launch monitors in the industry. Meaning whether they are using an actual Trackman or not, the name is interchangable with launch monitor. Another said that if you are testing outdoors, Trackman or FlightScope are your only option because of accuracy. Another said the misnomer of doppler indoors compared to camera based is not accurate and that again they prefer doppler. Still one other one said that outside of cost, side by side, they have seen virtually no differences in Trackman vs FlightScope other than cost and that was a determining factor in them having 66 FlightScope machines and only 8 Trackmans as they have transitioned over.

Looking at gaining more info, I will speak with both companies in the coming weeks.
Click to expand...

Some interesting tid bits in there. I know flightscope is in the orlando area, not sure on trackman.

Indoors all I know is that space can be a limiting factor for doppler use.
 
Interesting to see a Flightscope monitor pretty visible in the latest TaylorMade ad for the Aeroburner driver with Dustin Johnson. I honestly would have expected a Trackman to be there instead of Flightscope.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top