GC Quad or Uneekor Eye XO

[Tom Howarth]

Assuming cost is not a factor. Which would you choose? Why? I realize one is portable, one is not. Thanks.

[jasonreg]

Really depends on your priorities. Maybe you can expand a bit on what factors are most important to you. Do you need (want) both lefties and righties? Do need (want) the very accurate club head data? Do you want video of impact without adding extra cameras? I have a Quad, so you can tell where I went a couple of years ago. That said Eye XO was not yet avail. I would have been looking hard at that system had it been.

[Tom Howarth]

Mainly accuracy and club data. Both units offer what I would like to have. I really like the Uneekor "ball at impact" camera feature. That is really slick. I frequently see people with "some issues" with Eye XO on this site (accuracy, etc.). And it seems that the support and information you get to set up your Eye XO from Uneekor is not the greatest. I don't see many performance complaints from GC Quad owners. Maybe that is because less people own them due to cost? However, with the Eye XO, for several thousand dollars less, you get a "similar" product without tethering yourself to the high cost of the Foresight software (courses, etc.). Uneekor seems much more "friendly" to 3rd Party Simulator software. I am set up in a garage, so the "overhead" feature of the Eye XO is pretty convenient. I think the GC Hawk is the same cost as the Quad, so that may also be an option.

[bubbtubbs]

Hawk is slightly more expensive, not sure if that's because it has extras enabled by default (like putting and club data) or if that's just the base unit cost.

[Tom Howarth]

Ok. Thanks! I will check that out.

[Beggestdee]

Mainly accuracy and club data. Both units offer what I would like to have. I really like the Uneekor "ball at impact" camera feature. That is really slick. I frequently see people with "some issues" with Eye XO on this site (accuracy, etc.). And it seems that the support and information you get to set up your Eye XO from Uneekor is not the greatest. I don't see many performance complaints from GC Quad owners. Maybe that is because less people own them due to cost? However, with the Eye XO, for several thousand dollars less, you get a "similar" product without tethering yourself to the high cost of the Foresight software (courses, etc.). Uneekor seems much more "friendly" to 3rd Party Simulator software. I am set up in a garage, so the "overhead" feature of the Eye XO is pretty convenient. I think the GC Hawk is the same cost as the Quad, so that may also be an option.

I’ve read of people having issues with the Eye XO, but I have not had a single issue, Having said that, I was sure to have an overbuilt system, and it has been flawless. Tech support for setup was great. I love the club data, though it has made me really rethink how I swing!

[Tom Howarth]

Thank you. I appreciate your input. I'm sure I would love the Eye XO if I went that route.

[dmboiler]

I don't think you should discount the portability of the Quad. I have only had mine a month and have really enjoyed hitting in the garage simulator. Having said that, I am also headed to warmer weather next month and can't wait to get it out on a driving range on some real turf. I was never considering a non-portable launch monitor for this very reason.

DM

[Tom Howarth]

I'm not sure how often I would take it to the range if I bought a GC Quad. In NJ we get probably 8 months or so of good golf weather, but if you have a good indoor set up, outdoor golf is for actual golfing. Besides, at the local public range, everyone will want to know what cool toy you have. My main interest in the Quad is that it is the most accurate device you can buy.

[Tom Howarth]

DM - do you feel that the extra $4k for club data is worth the money? It is something that I want. I am not a club fitter or instructor, just a decent amateur player in his early 50's. However, this is something I really feel is important to have to continue to improve my game. Eye XO offers this (with stickers like Quad), but it's not an extra $4K. I'm guessing the data from the Quad is more accurate, but not sure if it is $4k more accurate.

[dmboiler]

Tom - I love the club data. You can easily go into information overload if you start trying to dissect every shot based on the club data, but I actually enjoy that aspect of it. The goal of my setup is game improvement, first and foremost. I want to be able to work on things in my garage during the week or during the off-season and take it to the course. I feel the club data is a critical part of this and is therefore invaluable to me. Don't get me wrong, I like having my buddies over, drinking some beer and playing 18 holes of sim golf. When we are in that mode, lie and face angle and club path are the last thing we are concerned about. But 95% of the time, it's me and the quad, in the garage on the Foresight range, working on distances and ball flight. That might sound boring to many, but it's what I enjoy the most.

As for whether it's worth it - that's a harder question to answer and probably depends on what you are wanting to get out of the system. Based on what you say above, I think you'll be happy with it. If you are anything like me, you would probably regret not having club data more than you will miss the money spent on the upgrade. Club data was one of the main reasons I was considering the GCQ in the first place. For this reason, once I decided to take the plunge, I never really considered the GCQ without club data to be an option, so I didn't see it as an additional expense, if that makes sense.

Edit: Thought I would add an example to better explain. I'm a mid-single digit handicap about to turn 40. I've been playing golf for 30+ years. My natural shot shape these days is straight, with a very slight draw bias. If I'm practicing cut shots, and the ball isn't cutting as much as I think it should be, I can take a look at the club data and determine exactly why the ball flight isn't what I expected. Clubface was a couple of degrees closed, path wasn't as outside to in as I hoped, etc. I can then tweak my stance, grip, swing - whatever - on the next shot and try again. This takes a lot of the guesswork out of my practice and makes it much more efficient. If that sounds like fun to you, get the club data! Do I use it on every shot? Absolutely not - I would go insane. But it is very nice to have when you need it.

[jasonreg]

Tom Howarth Personally I think the club data is what unlocks the benefits of the Quad. If this level of data is not important, I think there are less expensive options to consider. The putting module I relegate to fitters only but the club data is fantastic.

[preludesam]

I agree you could find a much cheaper option if you don’t need or want accurate club data. I also think club data helps you improve more quickly if you understand the data and how it affects your ball fight. I’m not sure about putting. I feel like it’s a part of the game we do not really practice because not many LMs offer data and I we don’t really see the same application of that data in mainstream teaching.

[Wizard of Coz]

GcQuad
1. Indoor/outdoor
2. Accuracy

[Sixmudd]

If money isn’t a factor, and you want the best LM for indoor, then it’s quad all the way. I’m sure eyexo is good too, but quad is the most accurate. The club stickers aren’t really a big deal. I even leave them on when I’m playing a round outdoors.

[preludesam]

I do the same thing with the EYEXO stickers lol.

[mthunt]

Cost and portability aside, it comes down to one thing. Left and right handed play. One does it seamlessly and one doesn’t.