Does anyone know why GCQuad has become so popular on the PGA all of a sudden? Seems most players always had TM setup during their warm ups. I still see TM out there, but a lot more GCQuads are showing up now. I love my GCQuad and have never had a TM. Just curious.
-
-
It’s great news for us , sorry can’t help with your question -
maybe the word got out that ball data on GCQ is more accurate so they use it for that
Comment
-
I think the first question to ask is if they are paying full price for their devices. When TM rolled out across the PGA many thought it was sponsorship (the answer was that they paid full price like everyone else). I think the same question should be asked here.
from my perspective one answer could be they want the same data regardless of conditions.Comment
-
I am not saying you are wrong because I certainly don’t know. However, I find it hard to believe the pros pay full price for anything. Haha -
Those guys pay but it could be discounted. We are talking about their golf game here. I doubt they would use something that gives them bad data, they are their to win and those numbers are critical to their strategy. I think what Dax mentioned is part of it, data regardless of conditions
-
-
My thoughts exactly. I don't think I'd want to see slightly different numbers if I was hitting into or with the wind or having a cross wind on the range and adjusting a swing to compensate.Originally posted by Dax View Post
Although I thought TM could remove environmental conditions.Comment
-
TM is able to do this through its normalization feature, but I do not that this would include more calculations by TM to get the normalized data. From my perspective this works very well and is similar to what they do to convert range ball data to that of a premium ball, but again it is all calculated. I think TM has a lot of data to back up their calculations, but again it is calculated.
-
-
I know pga pros pay less for tm and gcq but it is only a few thousandComment
-
Because normalization doesn’t work as well on a TM vs using a quad to remove the environment Factors like wind.Originally posted by FCMTX75 View PostComment
-
Have you tested this? I suspect you are right, but again what are the differences you have found through testing? My question is do the pros want normalization at all times or do they want to see the impact that conditions for the day might have on their shots?Last edited by Dax; 08-13-2020, 01:55 AM.
-
-
I think there’s a couple reasons. First, my own experience with using both is that the quad is far easier, more convenient, and diverse when used on a range. There’s no laptop or iPad necessary, the screen can be read easily and quickly without having to move around, and it can be repositioned quicker and more accurately. Second, a club pro I know, who played this week even, swears it’s more accurate than TrackMan. If given the option he chooses the quad every time. Third, my experience with older TrackMan is that they are highly unreliable on anything under 50 yards, I’m sure it’s improved but I’m wondering if it’s not an ongoing issue. Finally, I assume that they use it to some degree for the putting as well and if so it’s not just more portable but also more functional.
these are mostly guesses but they’re the reasons that I like my quad over the many TrackMan I hit off in the past.Comment
-
mitchbeerwatch this is a forum and as I noted, this is unfortunately one industry that has a lot of misinformation out there and these things keep creeping into discussions over time as if they are factual. For me I don’t understand how a unit that tracks the full flight of ball can be wrong and 50 yards or under? I don’t know what unit it was but having looked at all information out there this was the first time that I have ever heard of an issue with TM at 50 yards. Prior to this comment the only other time I had heard issues was TM not reading 6 yard chips and this was something that I found to be inaccurate in my own testing in an indoor environment and found that my TM3 read the exact distance pretty accurately and even had some chips at under 6 yards register. As with some others, I am just trying to stick to the facts and caution on those posts where someone claims something like “Best Matt ever” and things like that. -
Dax no problem man, the internet is tough and often unforgiving but this forum is a relative safe place. Thanks for taking my snarkyness in stride.
A more complete explanation, and I do believe it’s been greatly improved by TrackMan, is not so much the ball flight but more the reading of the actual data. Yes, TrackMan always tracked distance but after that things eroded increasing incrementally. Spin would be picked up most of the time But not always, but launch would be missed More often, club data was frustratingly inconsistent and for me maybe only 20% of the time would I get all the data I wanted being measured, and a lot of times those missing numbers wouldn’t even be calculated. Not a huge problem but when I’m hitting half wedges, the last thing I really care about is distance, I want to know what the club is doing and how the ball is reacting and I found that lacking.
Again, I’ll say I think TrackMan has improved this but I know my quad has improved my game precisely because I get this data reliably. I will also concede that after 18 months or foresight ownership, my TrackMan use has almost completely eroded. I still have a ton of confidence in TrackMan, and if I’m getting fit I’d take it over the quad every time because it is reading the whole ball flight and at the end of the day that’s what matters.
I might be strange but when I’m practicing I look at almost all the club and ball data except for distance. Loft, angle of attack, path, launch angle, spin, axis, and even smash/efficiency are all more important to me. The only thing foresight is missing that TrackMan has is swing direction and spin loft, though I can calculate spin loft in my head but it’s at the limits of what my monkey brain can handle with the double negatives.Last edited by Taco; 08-15-2020, 03:02 AM.
-
I’ve certainly noticed how more common they are...but does anyone know whether the pros even own them? Or are they just using them (loaned from FS) on the range?
If they’re buying then my thinking was as above - ease of use and consistent theoretical data. Plus spin numbers seems to be a lot more reliable through the bag.Comment
-
Who cares what the clarification is? Does the fact that a certain percentage of tour pro's use one device over another matter to your decision as an amateur golfer? If you were a pro, you could probably find out the answer. Professionals in the public eye chose the things they do and use for a variety of reasons. The beauty of being a pro golfer is you are good enough to use any of the equipment or you have the influence for the manufacturer to build what you want. -
I care! When many pros started to use TM, many assumed it was because they were getting them for free or being sponsored when in fact TM notes they paid the same as all their customers. I would be curious to know if that is the same for FS. There is too much deception and dishonesty (I have been following it since 2005) in this industry and I for one just would like to know the facts and to be sure the factual information is out there so that people can make informed decisions.Last edited by Dax; 08-13-2020, 09:39 PM.
-
I think its from the equipment van most likely. Taylormade owns both Forsight and Trackman I think. SO technically they probably aren't buying them but its a perk of their club and equipment sponsor I bet.Originally posted by AdamV View PostComment
-
Source? TaylorMade is owned by the KPS private equity group, which bought it from Adidas a few years ago. Foresight is a privately held company (based in California), as is Trackman (based in Denmark). I have never heard of any of them having anything to do with each other.Originally posted by Stingreye View Post
And, there is no reason to think Phil and Rickie and other tour pros didn't buy their GC Quads, or that the only reason they use them is because they were free. Maybe they did get them for free, or at a discount. Doesn't matter. They make tens of millions of dollars per year. Getting half price off a $20k unit means nothing to them. They use it because it's portable, easy to drop down and play with, and it gives good data. No need to think harder about it than that.Comment
-
I agree with the statement above around pro's are not worried about $20k if it means they can earn $2M, hell it is probably even tax deductible for them. These guys use the technology that is given to them because they see the value in it for one reason or just because its part of a larger sponsorship. I would bet those not under sponsorship go through the same process as many on this forum, what's the best technology for me and my game and my environment for what I am trying to improve on. Money just matters less to them than some on here.
-
To frame it another way, forget about the cost of the device or who paid for it...the thing some of us on here are clearly interested in is have all these pros (Phil, Tommy F, John Rahm etc) “acquired” a GCQ because they genuinely love and trust the product...or were they just photographed while using it, borrowing it, testing it etc. That’s what people are curious about, because the promo pictures don’t tell the story.
And no, I don’t think you can simply assume they all went out and purchased one, unless of course someone knows for a fact that they all did? Time will tell if they keep using them.
Why is this “interesting”?...Because TM has been held up as the gold standard outdoors and there’s been lots of pictures of pros using TM on the range for some time. More pros using GCQ says a lot about product quality and data confidence, which is precisely why FS is posting the pictures.
No it won’t improve our golf swings, but maybe it just makes us feel even better about our $20,000 launch monitors when a pro uses it
Comment
-
It was interesting watching this video from the TaylorMade pros having a long drive contest using the Trackman. On a few of the shots they were irked at the TM doubling the spin rate thus, not getting a good distance number.
Comment
Comment