- Admin
- #26
You can add UST Mamiya Fitting Studio. They switched to GCQuad from Trackman because they found the accuracy to be better.
DeChambeau on the range at The Masters with dual launch monitors
You can add UST Mamiya Fitting Studio. They switched to GCQuad from Trackman because they found the accuracy to be better.
OITW
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2013
- Messages
- 50,264
- Reaction score
- 16,848
^^^^^^ This really messed me up going into the MC this year
-CRW-
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2013
- Messages
- 10,399
- Reaction score
- 1,977
- Admin
- #29
Slow the roll there. I have a professional relationship with ALL of the launch monitor companies.
As we have always stated, WE CHOSE Foresight because we find the accuracy superior on ball data and far superior across the board indoors.
And to the bolded part...That is ****ing laughable. I get paid zero dollars from Foresight and with THPers have met with each and every one of the companies to determine which would give our staff writers the most consistent numbers on the market. In fact before GCQuad hit the market, we used FlightScope at all of our THP Events. Their last update caused major concern so we moved on. Did demos with Trackman and Foresight and preferred the latter. We do NOT provide any sort of "pass on the message" about anything at this site. Your continued insistence of it however, is getting tiresome. The internet is a big place and far too much awesome going on for THPers to deal with nonsense like this.
I trust Foresight's information much more than I do either of the Doppler systems. If putting some stickers on my clubs is going to give me better data, I'm ok with it.
- Admin
- #32
Its funny. One of us uses both systems. The other one is not me
Sometimes its not worth it. 
-CRW-
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2013
- Messages
- 10,399
- Reaction score
- 1,977
- Thread starter
- #33
Its funny. One of us uses both systems. The other one is not me
Who is that supposed to be?
And it’s always worth it to give your audience the best and most current information possible. Just make sure your facts have proof/testing/data to authenticate them.
Here's an unpopular opinion, since Trackmans can read a 1.51 smash factor, they should be held in only slightly higher regard as an Optishot.
- Admin
- #35
That is US, at our event with both Trackman and GCQuad.
That is a THPER
We always provide facts and data.
But please keep it up with the nonsense of questioning our ethics here. It will make some decisions much easier. Im sure @Jman @Canadan @Ddec and @Molten all have enjoyed being dictated to what they have to post about launch monitors.
Doesn't that more have to do with how clubhead speed is being measured? Not every point on the clubhead is moving at the same speed, given that there is some element of rotation in the golf swing.
Maybe. I can't say really how that wonky thing came up with that number. But I do know that only one of the three systems being discussed actually reads what the club face is actually doing at impact.
- Moderator
- #39
I am kind of at a loss as to why you've got it out for Foresight so bad when clearly the thread should have been about how 'bad' Flightscope is instead (not that I agree there either) since the GCQuad was the optional of the two being used.
-CRW-
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2013
- Messages
- 10,399
- Reaction score
- 1,977
- Thread starter
- #40
You still haven’t posted any facts to back up your statement. Instead, you decide to type a thinly veiled threat to ban me.
Again, I haven’t argued once that the GCQuad doesn’t produce valid numbers or GC2. They can all occasionally produce bad information.
Focus on the facts and not emotions.
-CRW-
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2013
- Messages
- 10,399
- Reaction score
- 1,977
- Thread starter
- #43
I don’t have it out for Foresight. I said I’ve seen Trackman provide bad information. I’ve seen all the current units produce bad info at times.
You asked me why I thought Bryson using dual monitors was an example of the failure of the current Foresight design. I elaborated.
- Moderator
- #45
Well, you never did answer that. It's a lack of convenience I suppose. Still don't see where it is a 'failure in the system'
- Admin
- #46
Hahah. No emotion here. What facts would you like? The fact that Bryson is sponsored by one launch monitor company and CHOSE the GCQuad as his other option?
The only fact that matters to me is that we used all three (WITH THPERS AT THP EVENTS) and CHOSE the one that was the most accurate because our reader base deserves that. Outside the continued nonsense that we are posting what we are told by a company, is the not so thinly veiled threat to help you find a forum in which your incessant trolling of the staff and their integrity fits.
I never said Foresight was used more by tour pros. In fact I said it wasn't due to the fact that before a round, the removal of dots would be cumbersome at best. I said it was used more. Your constant idea that there is some conspiracy theory is funny though.
- Admin
- #47
This will be the last warning against this nonsense.
- Moderator
- #49
So, personal preference on convenience. Got it.
-CRW-
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2013
- Messages
- 10,399
- Reaction score
- 1,977
- Thread starter
- #50
That and the fact that few tour pros are using them. Likely due to the stickers based on Bryson’s example today.
Oh, and that one time a tour pro had a big snafu for having the stickers on his club during play in a tournament round.
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.pga....s-two-clubs-lead-eight-shot-penalty-ben-crane