Moving from gc3 to quad?

[wee988]

Has anyone upgraded from a gc3 to quad? Curious as I am thinking of going to gc2 to quad mostly because I don’t think the gc3 and gc2 would be that different. But wondered if anyone has done this from gc2 or 3 and what true positives you felt (or negatives). This is for a home sim room. I fully understand the differences in paper but wondered about real world experiences.

[Godfather]

I’ve had all 3 of them. I posted comparisons if you search.

[sulli182]

I have a little over 100,000 shots over 4 years with a Quad. I bet 98% of those are in one dot mode. Every once in a while if I am working on soemthing specific I specific I will put all the dots on and look at face angle/lie angle. But I get the vast majority of the info I need from just the club path and ball data. If there had been a GC3 when I bought my quad I probably would have done that. The quad is probably overkill unless your fitting. I do like the large hitting area because you can put it far away for newbies/kids but that's probably where I benefit from a Quad the most.

[SCDrJ]

Having all the data has really helped me work on club path and face angle. I think you can deduce these things from spin data and ball flight, but with strike location, path and face angle all there I know exactly what’s going on. Love my Quad and couldn’t go back!

I usually keep dots on driver, one hybrid and one iron for working on swing.

[mthunt]

I’ve had all 3 of them. I posted comparisons if you search.

Did you find a big difference between the 3 godfather?

[fortysixandtwo]

I’ve had both the gc3 and quad together for a short time. The gc3 was ok for just grab and go to take to a scramble and see ballspeed or clubhead speed. If I’m out doing serious practice it’s quad 4 dot data all the way. I definitely look at club face or face to path data, along with dynamic loft. It’s nice to see exact impact location but face to path angle and dynamic loft are metrics I really like and ended up keeping the quad…

[Godfather]

Did you find a big difference between the 3 godfather?

Not really. I felt my GC2 was draw biased and it was, but otherwise pretty similar simulator experience. I like the grab and go of the GC3 and quad and they have slightly less delay, but the GC2 always felt plenty fast. I have found I almost never use 4 dots so while the HMT and quad have the potential for more data, I only use it very rarely.

For me, the GC3/BLP is worth upgrading from GC2 and worth it over the GC2/HMT if you don’t use 4 dots and value taking it the range.

The quad is kind of overkill, but I will say there are a couple things I love and now that I have it, I won’t be selling it even though I’d be fine with the GC3/BLP.
1) No one can call BS on the data because everyone acknowledges that it is the king. Tour pros carry it to ranges for a reason. Some guys still will - “I didn’t slice that one!” Lol sure.
2) The larger hitting zone (even bigger if you switch off club data) makes it so I can use the tee hole of the Fiberbuilt without it being close to where I hit other shots.

oh and it works with Creative Golf 3D, which we still use on occasion.

[mthunt]

I agree completely on everything. The GC3 is 100% not draw biased like the 2

[wee988]

Thanks for the responses. Ended up doing the buddy gcquad deal when it showed up. Will be probably until fall until I truly get to try all the things the quad can do but am excited and will try to post updates of what I think going from gc2 to quad. And agree very much on the draw bias of the gc2. But I do love it and will probably keep it for sometime as backup.