Tweet
I find with the Uneekor my distances are at least 1-2 clubs shorter than in reality. Especially with irons. My 150 yard club is about a 7 iron usually. On the Uneekor it is a 5 or 6 iron. Is anyone else finding this? I have adjusted the elevation already.
-
-
No, I think it's spot on. There's a million posts on here about indoor swing syndrome and most people generally think they hit it farther than they really do. In the sim the only number anyone really pays attention to is carry distance. When outdoor everyone only thinks about total distance. -
Ok, thanks..I will check out the "indoor swing syndrome"....Comment
-
Carry versus total....that’s the answer just about every time, IMO.
The good news is, once you start playing carry distances in real life, you’re going to be amazed by how much more consistent your approach shots are relative to GIR and the pin. At least that’s my experience so far this spring.Comment
-
Take all your ball data and plug it into the Flightscope trajectory optimizer. That should tell you if you are getting accurate distances or not.Comment
-
Sure that indoor syndrome is a thing but, when I go to the club, I can sit at the bar and ask 50 men how far they hit their 7 iron, and probably near 90% will tell me 150yds. Even with today's clubs and strong lofts, the reality is probably 135.
For so long people have it ingrained that their 7 is their 150 club. Either because that's how we talk or because "that one time" it went 150 and now every shot should match that perfect impact.
I'm not saying this is you (percentages would though), but it's ultra important to map realistic average yardage with your clubs, all of them, so you can rely on getting to the pin more frequently. Knowing how far you normally and in reality hit the ball and embracing that number, will drop your score faster than many other things.Comment
-
I agree with the previous comments, but part of your results may be due to the Uneekor balls. I’ve compared the Bridgestone/Uneekor balls to Pro V1s. Hitting outside with a 9 iron, the Bridgestones were consistently 4 to 5 yards shorter on carry distance and all had slight forward roll, where the Pro V1s all checked back.Comment
-
Good point.
I just assumed everybody has sorted their own ball solution (holes, stickers, OEM, etc.) before they came here “complaining” (not really the right word, but you know what I mean, hopefully) about inaccuracy or inconsistent distances. I shouldn’t assume that.
Bottom line for me.... I have always been a *total distance* golfer. I spent 4-5 months working with my new set of clubs and new QED—data I never had access to. I’ve since played 7 times outside (gotta love Texas winter). I specifically have employed my *carry* distances from the QED work in club selection on the course, since they were new clubs that I’d never used outside before.
It’s been remarkable how accurate I’ve become...at least distance wise LOL
Trust this thing. Just like Yoga pants...it doesn’t lie.Comment
-
I agree with the Carry distances on Uneekor per 968Cab 's post above. However, I think the algorithm Uneekor employs for roll out is not as accurate compared to my IRL shots. Obviously there are factors that affect IRL shots (weather, conditions at the course, firmness of greens, etc.) When I have ignite running at the same time as TGC, the carry distances are nearly identical but the total yardage is WAY off. On the other hand, TGC over estimates roll for me... somewhere in the middle lies the truth and good reason to observe carry only. Just one guys observation; YMMV.--
What Could Possibly Go Wrong?Comment
-
Completely true. Heck, courses in different parts of town have different roll out. Or even different parts of the same course...low sections versus up on a well draining hill. Similar to green speeds
I guess it comes down to practice tool vs competitive simulator. Taking what you learn to the actual course and applying it, or nailing down how to excel at TGC/E6/etc. It’s seems the two aren’t *necessarily* the same pursuit, or correlated 100%.
But both are legit pursuits. 👍🏼Comment
-
I'd take a different angle than the "indoor swing syndrome", I don't really believe indoor syndrome to be a thing. I do believe that the vast majority of golfers over-inflate their ability as it pertains to distance (especially with driver) but I think this has more to do with a selective memory bias (most humans) and a legitimate desire for well struck shots to have a positive result. Allow me to expound briefly.
1. Selective memory - most people more readily remember their good shots and not their bad ones. They remember roughly how far their 7 iron went on those par 3's when it ended up on the middle of the green or close to the hole but not the few that they mishit whether said mishit was severe or slight. They then don't take an average of all those distances to gauge their 7 iron distance on future par 3's, they simply recall how far the par 3's were when they hit good shots. When you get on a simulator range and hit 4 7 irons 150 (to use the distance from above) and one mishit 100, your simulator range says you hit your 7 iron 140, but do you really? On average you do, but I'd argue that 140 is not your 7 iron's distance unless you're a very inconsistent ball striker and you simply should exclude tops or chunks from your distance estimate to get a distance approximation for the course.
2. No one likes hitting the ball well and ending in lots of trouble. Tiger Woods (I can't find the quote) when asked why he continues to play blades with all the technology advancement stated "because the worst place you can miss is long on almost every hole. If I mishit the ball, I want it to be short, right in front of the green." Using the distance analogy from above, no golfer who strikes the ball reasonably consistent wants to use 140 as their 7 iron distance and have 2 of those 4 well struck shots long of the green and in trouble. Thus, using 150 as a realistic expectation of distance for a well struck shot is reasonable even if that distance falls well shy of your statistical mean in a simulator range app. I believe this to be a rational approach to distance estimation whether arrived at via the logic used by Tiger and other tour pros (how far does a well struck shot go) or even if only accidental via the selective memory bias from the above example.
Indoor syndrome = shorter shots, probably not. Having exacting statistics that brings to the forefront ones ball striking ability or lack thereof - more likely.
My two cents,
BBLast edited by bombri; 03-27-2020, 04:36 PM.Comment
-
I just watched a video where Uneekor QED and Trackman were used on the same shots.. QED TOTAL distance was consistently the same as Trackman's CARRY distance. I just started using QED and love it.. BUT, I do believe carry distance is just a little short. All shots shown on the video I watched were wedges. But.. for the price, I don't think you could ever go wrong to get to that next level of golf simulation.Comment
-
Can you post a link to this video? The reality is that data is data...but how that data is calculated can be different. What I mean is...if QED and Trackman are measuring the same Spin, speed, launch angle....then the that is what matters. I believe TGC and Uneekor calculate the data different. TGC is a bit longer than Uneekor based on that.
-
-
I'm 2 weeks into QED ownership and I think it's the supplied balls. I moved from a skytrak to the QED and all my distances were down. I've hit thousands of shots indoors so I know it's not indoor swing syndrome. I just got in the decals and once applied to my TP5 balls all my distances and spin rates were right back to normal. Switch out the ball and my spin and distance drop nearly a club. Huge difference in hitting premium balls vs the unbranded marked balls and the bridgestone marked balls. It is really frustrating that there is not a marked premium ball.Comment
-
That’s funny. I find the bridge stones fly farther than my marked premium balls because of less spinComment
-
It's very accurate for me, if anything I think it tends to overestimate the distances of higher launch angle shots slightly, perhaps because of the reduced spin. Now every system has a different algorithm to calculate carry from launch velocity, angle, and spin because it's just not an exact science, but it's very close. When I first got my Skytrak, and the subsequently upgraded to the QED, I thought it was underestimating my distances throughout my bag. Turned out the launch monitors were right and I was wrong and was just ignoring the many, many instances of an iron coming up short or only getting there by virtue of a lot of favorable roll. Now obviously wind, humidity, terrain, etc. affects real life outdoor distances, but I really do think that unless you've played with a launch monitor before you probably don't know your real carry distances.
The funny thing is I have picked up probably about 15 yards through my irons over the last year due to swing changes and improvements and yet I'm still using the same carry distances for each club that I used to. It's just that I used to base my distances off of the rare swinging out of my shoes, flushing the ball, and probably being down hill and down wind, perfect shot after already hitting 3 dozen range balls. Now it's based on a very average easy swing with imperfect contact and accordingly my approach game has improved by quite a few shots lately.Last edited by CHansen157; 06-09-2020, 06:39 PM.Comment
Comment