Announcement

**Dax** · 02-10-2018, 10:31 PM

The metallic sticker just helps ensure that reading accuracy is bumped. TM is still trying to measure what it is seeing the ball do. If the distance is long enough, then the need for the sticker is not as important. I recall a few year back in Phoenix TM was predicting landing location of the pros on a par 3 well before the ball landed. The only way they could do this is to get the reading within a short distance to predict where the ball would land.

**legendsfan** · 02-10-2018, 10:34 PM

Now I know why they don’t use a marker. It’s a pain in the butt to bend over and align a ball marker every time and especially if it has to be done differently whether you hit driver or iron. I’m going to ask the facility if they have any ball markers for me to use but I’d rather just kick ball onto mat and hit. Maybe that’s my bad back talking but less touching my toes the better.

**Dax** · 02-11-2018, 02:23 AM

I think you are over thinking the ball placement and where the sticker is facing. When hitting the driver you are bending down to put the ball on the tee anyway and it is really nothing to have the sticker pointing in a certain direction (I actually place it up). For my irons I tend not to bend over and just use my club to move the ball so that the sticker is facing the screen. The hitting area is pretty good and so it is not much of a problem.

To be honest I don’t find this to be any more problematic than when I was trying to put the ball in the area that the gc2 recognized the ball so I could hit it when I was testing on the gc2.

**Stingreye** · 02-11-2018, 02:44 AM

Gc2 specs 50 rpm accuracy on back/side spin (spin axis). TM outdoors specs 25 rpm I think when it has greater than 30 yards of ball flight. Does TM give specs for indoors with and without stickers? Again the surprising part to me is I have heard for years that radar in unreliable for spin axis indoors. I am fairly sure that it uses club data for spin axis calculations indoors and it doesn’t know strike location indoors and gear effect hurts accuracy.

**legendsfan** · 02-11-2018, 04:56 AM

I’m disappointed I let myself be sucked into this conversation again. Minds aren’t being changed on either side of the fence. If I felt a Trackman was best for me I would have purchased it and I’m sure Leo feels the same. It’s like me arguing whether a Subaru STi or Mitsubishi Evo is better. Both launch monitors do their job but if you live in a warm climate please just buy a club membership and play the game as it was intended to be played.

**Wundej** · 02-11-2018, 06:30 AM

Originally posted by legendsfan

I’m disappointed I let myself be sucked into this conversation again. Minds aren’t being changed on either side of the fence. If I felt a Trackman was best for me I would have purchased it and I’m sure Leo feels the same. It’s like me arguing whether a Subaru STi or Mitsubishi Evo is better. Both launch monitors do their job but if you live in a warm climate please just buy a club membership and play the game as it was intended to be played.

Sorry, but we all know that the STi is better. Just listen to the boxer rumble and I don't know how anyone could argue

I do wish someone could do a high speed camera test with TM and compare indoors to put this to bed.

**Dax** · 02-11-2018, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by Stingreye View Post

Gc2 specs 50 rpm accuracy on back/side spin (spin axis). TM outdoors specs 25 rpm I think when it has greater than 30 yards of ball flight. Does TM give specs for indoors with and without stickers? Again the surprising part to me is I have heard for years that radar in unreliable for spin axis indoors. I am fairly sure that it uses club data for spin axis calculations indoors and it doesn’t know strike location indoors and gear effect hurts accuracy.

I think on the spin amounts, see Leo’s tests.

While I can not validate how TM validates its numbers, I believe they do this indoors. The reason for stating this is when you see the old articles written by TM in their accuracy, they show pictures of the ball, which leads me to believe that they used very expensive high speed cameras to validate their data.

**mthunt** · 02-11-2018, 07:55 PM

I’m a die hard GC2 guy. I’ve run it side by side with TM3 at my club lots of times and both accurately showed where the ball went. Both were usually similar. Both seem great to me. When I bought mine TM didn’t 3rd party or really sim. If I were buying today I’d likely buy a TM4. It’s crazy crazy money though. I actually considered switching when adding the HMT. It’s just too much money.

**jerry3** · 02-12-2018, 01:01 AM

I want to throw in my brief experience. I went for a club fit at my local club champion almost 2 weeks ago and brought my gc2 hmt to compare, I'd say 8/10 shots were similar, but the ones that were off were usually off by a lot. I was hitting cuts all day, but every once in a while trackman would read a draw even though I knew I thought it was a fade and GC2 read a fade, this was usually coupled with a poor backspin reading. The other thing I will say is that trackman's club readings were not very close to what the hmt was reading. I want to also throw out there that I wasn't using a trackman 4 so I don't know if the newer hardware would improve these readings.

From my experience and from what I've seen online outside of Leo's results I would personally go with GC Quad if I wanted accurate ball and club data. The fact that almost all club reviewers are using Foresight's products does seem to speak to the accuracy of the product both indoors and outdoors. Trackman's use by the pros validates the accuracy of the product outdoors, but doesn't really speak to the indoor accuracy.

Here is video discussing trackman vs gc quad, Ian Fraser is probably one of the best club fitters in North American and he use to be a big trackman guy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGdiY6HoBzE

Here is a video where you can see some discrepancy between trackman and gc2 from rick shields

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFjYqZuiPtI

Here is the video posted earlier in this thread

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbj6vHAvVQE&t=1s

Then one from National Club Golfer where they notice a major difference in club readings, but ball readings are similar

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfFzBI5LWMM&t=2s

Also you can look at some videos from QuinticConsultancy...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxUvujpdbm0

**Dax** · 02-12-2018, 05:12 AM

Originally posted by jerry3 View Post

I want to throw in my brief experience. I went for a club fit at my local club champion almost 2 weeks ago and brought my gc2 hmt to compare, I'd say 8/10 shots were similar, but the ones that were off were usually off by a lot. I was hitting cuts all day, but every once in a while trackman would read a draw even though I knew I thought it was a fade and GC2 read a fade, this was usually coupled with a poor backspin reading. The other thing I will say is that trackman's club readings were not very close to what the hmt was reading. I want to also throw out there that I wasn't using a trackman 4 so I don't know if the newer hardware would improve these readings.

From my experience and from what I've seen online outside of Leo's results I would personally go with GC Quad if I wanted accurate ball and club data. The fact that almost all club reviewers are using Foresight's products does seem to speak to the accuracy of the product both indoors and outdoors. Trackman's use by the pros validates the accuracy of the product outdoors, but doesn't really speak to the indoor accuracy.

Here is video discussing trackman vs gc quad, Ian Fraser is probably one of the best club fitters in North American and he use to be a big trackman guy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGdiY6HoBzE

Here is a video where you can see some discrepancy between trackman and gc2 from rick shields

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFjYqZuiPtI

Here is the video posted earlier in this thread

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbj6vHAvVQE&t=1s

Then one from National Club Golfer where they notice a major difference in club readings, but ball readings are similar

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfFzBI5LWMM&t=2s

Also you can look at some videos from QuinticConsultancy...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxUvujpdbm0

Here we go again

ok let’s walk through each of the videos.

Video 1 - there is no head to head comparison in this video. It is one guy talking up the unit that he is putting his money behind. Please don’t get me wrong, I have always said that GC2 is a solid unit and without a doubt the quad is better, but how can one place reliance on a video that is not doing a head to head comparison.

Video 2 - I don’t know what we are comparing here, I watched this one a long time ago and note that they are using a first generation Trackman unti that is from 2006 I believe. I also recall that there may have been one shot in discrepancy (I do t know which one is right or wrong) but I recall the other shots all seemed to show a similar result in the end.

Video 3 - already commented on.

Video 4 - this one gets me a little as the testing is done outdoors and so TM4 will be accurate. On the club head readings, there are discrepancies and so there should be when each unit is measuring something different. If I recall TM measurements are done at the point of maximum compression. I do not believe that Foresight state at which point in time they are measuring impact. TM posted about a year ago a series of four or five articles where they say what it is that TM is measuring and seeing and also noting what a camera cannot see. Again not bashing the quad here merely pointing out that the two units are likely measuring at a different point of impact and measuring from different aspects. All I can say here is well these guys know what the ball and club are doing I do t thing they are experts in how or where each unit is completing its computations.

The last video - I have commented on this video a few times and is an example of what frustrates me the most about this industry in that there are certain companies out there who will report anything to make it look like their unti has an edge. What I suggest every to do when they are watching that video is to then go and find an old article that TM wrote which refutes all of the errors that were made in the comparison from the video. Again, the people doing the comparison don’t know the points in dmtime or what in fact TM is measuring and basing its calculations off of.

I sure wish wish that people would stop posting these videos as the be all and end all and placing such a reliance on someone who is posting the video who likely has a bias towards one unit or another. Neither are perfect, but as some testing has shown the actual end results are very similar.

In in response to the comment on what pros are doing, I think one only look to what Justin Rose did with his indoor simulator. I think you will be surprised that he spent 30000 British pounds and is installed, you guessed it, a TM.

**Point280** · 02-12-2018, 05:59 AM

Ok, I can’t resist... while I respect everyone’s perspectives here... Dax, why would you say the Quad is considerably better than the GC2? I’m still waiting for someone to do that head-to-head comparison. I get that it certainly has some advanced features. I’ll concede to that. But the tolerances are not that far off between the GCQ and GC2. My next question would be regarding handicaps... if pros (players, teachers and fitters) got by with the GC2/HMT for many years, at what level do amateurs like the majority of the folks on this forum, truly benefit, or fail to benefit from the newer & older tech? I understand people wanting the best they can buy. I also understand the arguments that the GC2 has draw bias—which not everyone experiences.

Here’s the grim reality for all of us who’ve invested in anything sim related: tech will get better and cheaper. There will be companies that will come along and challenge the “Giants” with incredibly accurate, portable and affordable launch monitors, which will leave us all shaking our heads in amazement that we paid what we did, once upon a time. Skytrak has only begun to pave the way.

There’s lots of bravado in golf. He with the most expensive equipment doesn’t always win... I guarantee a PGA touring pro could beat just about anyone on this forum if you gave the amateur PXG’s and the pro a boxed set of clubs. I like Trackman, I do. I like the Quad. I’ll bet there are a few Skytrak owners on here who could school a Trackman owner or two IRL. Until I can tell you which groove I catch on every swing, I think the GC2 is above adequate for me. The important thing to consider when we make these arguments for the “most accurate monitor available” is there are plenty of Skytrak users whose games have improved exponentially. I just get the feeling some people who’ve shelled out the money for Trackman tend to argue how much better it is than anything out there, when in reality, it’s probably not $10,000 more accurate than what I paid for my outfit. My 2 pennies. I do dig the new putting analysis features on the Quad and TM4 though!

—Satisfied GC2/HMT owner; shakes head 5 years from now at the money I spent 🤯

**jerry3** · 02-12-2018, 06:26 AM

Originally posted by Dax View Post

Here we go again

ok let’s walk through each of the videos. Just for the record I'm not trying to bash Trackman or their customers, I'm just pointing to a small sample of videos that have influenced my decision over the past few years, that coupled with my recent personal experience with Trackman.

Video 1 - there is no head to head comparison in this video. It is one guy talking up the unit that he is putting his money behind. Please don’t get me wrong, I have always said that GC2 is a solid unit and without a doubt the quad is better, but how can one place reliance on a video that is not doing a head to head comparison. He is well known club fitter and was always a Trackman guy up until last year. I've emailed him about his experiences with both units and he still praises Trackman but now obviously prefers the Quad, primarily because of the club head data. I'm not saying the video proves anything through data, but this guy is extremely knowledgeable and experienced with both units.

Video 2 - I don’t know what we are comparing here, I watched this one a long time ago and note that they are using a first generation Trackman unti that is from 2006 I believe. I also recall that there may have been one shot in discrepancy (I do t know which one is right or wrong) but I recall the other shots all seemed to show a similar result in the end. Yeah I saw this years ago too, but I thought there were some odd measurements so I posted it. Might not really be applicable to this thread, but many pros and club fitters use old trackman.

Video 3 - already commented on.
I see no reason at all to discredit this video, as there have been no better videos posted comparing the two

Video 4 - this one gets me a little as the testing is done outdoors and so TM4 will be accurate. On the club head readings, there are discrepancies and so there should be when each unit is measuring something different. If I recall TM measurements are done at the point of maximum compression. I do not believe that Foresight state at which point in time they are measuring impact. TM posted about a year ago a series of four or five articles where they say what it is that TM is measuring and seeing and also noting what a camera cannot see. Again not bashing the quad here merely pointing out that the two units are likely measuring at a different point of impact and measuring from different aspects. All I can say here is well these guys know what the ball and club are doing I do t thing they are experts in how or where each unit is completing its computations. I understand that Trackman measures a different point of the club, but in my opinion based on what I've seen, heard, and briefly experienced at Club Champion, the Quad does a better job of reporting accurate club data.

The last video - I have commented on this video a few times and is an example of what frustrates me the most about this industry in that there are certain companies out there who will report anything to make it look like their unti has an edge. What I suggest every to do when they are watching that video is to then go and find an old article that TM wrote which refutes all of the errors that were made in the comparison from the video. Again, the people doing the comparison don’t know the points in dmtime or what in fact TM is measuring and basing its calculations off of. I read the trackman article several years ago and I've also read responses to trackman's rebuttal. From memory I felt like it came down to who and what do you believe, I'll be honest I trust the cameras more. I might need to go back and look at this though.

I sure wish wish that people would stop posting these videos as the be all and end all and placing such a reliance on someone who is posting the video who likely has a bias towards one unit or another. Neither are perfect, but as some testing has shown the actual end results are very similar. I only posted these videos because of the thread that was already created and I thought it was relevant. I also mentioned how about 8/10 shots between my own GC2 HMT vs the Club Champion Trackman were similar end results. Every video I can recall shows trackman and GC products report very similar outdoor ball data, but once you bring the units inside issues begin for Trackman, but data remains consistent for GC products.

In in response to the comment on what pros are doing, I think one only look to what Justin Rose did with his indoor simulator. I think you will be surprised that he spent 30000 British pounds and is installed, you guessed it, a TM.

There are plenty of pros besides Justin Rose that use Trackman in their indoor simulator, there are numerous reasons why someone may choose trackman indoors and outdoors.

**Snaphook** · 02-12-2018, 07:38 AM

I think both machines are really good. But intended for different purposes.

Outdoors: Trackman with full flight tracking. This is what it was invented for. Huge pickup area. You can hit all day without having to move the machine.

Indoors: GC2 no minimum ballflight, picks up short chips and putts easy.

They both have issues. Trackman with gear effect indoors and missing short chips.
GC 2 with their flight model on low spin drives and reported draw bias ( i can't really tell as my DNA seems draw biased with every hardware and irl)

Strange ballflights i see regularly on both:

GC2: I hit a grand socket and it starts way right and curves back. Or the inflated carry on dives with sub 2000 spin Not very realistic.

Trackman (indoors) : I hit my stock push hook with toey hit and it just shows a push or i hit a heel and it shows a low hook. Not very realistic.

If money was no object i would get a GCQ and have the bluetooth fixed for 3rd party software.

All above are my personal observations formed by years of using both machines. ( Gc2 only one year)

**Dax** · 02-12-2018, 07:51 AM

Legendsfan, you can find humour in what ever you want, I am merely trying to not to get a thread off topic and am just asking that people keep these comparisons in one thread as I find that people keep posting videos etc that I feel have a bias one way or another to fool people into thinking one unit is better that the other without getting into any form of real unbiased comparison. Also, not sure if I am trying to silence anything other than ensuring that when people are posting something that is biased and ensuring that I call out misinformation when I see it. I see this as no difference to when people here protect other users to this site of eBay scams of people trying to seek GC2’s fraudently on eBay. I think you can go back to every comment I have posted on the difference between TM and Foresight and think you will see that I have not tried to silence anyone; however, what I have done is called out someone that has tried to post something that is misleading.

I just think having this this conversation in one thread (not a different forum) would benefit everyone and hopefully would stop the flow of videos that have been proved years ago as being misleading.

In in terms of TM telling you where on the club face you hit the ball, the teaser videos and posts that I have seen point to this as coming.

**Dax** · 02-12-2018, 08:06 AM

Point 280, not sure I said that the Quad is considerably better, but did note that the Quad is better. From my perspective it is better based on the fact that it captures more data than the GC2 in the same amount of time and this has more data points/samples to compare and use in its computations. Also the HMT is combined all within one unit and the hitting area for taking its measurements is much larger. In terms of data and use, I think GC2 is excellent value for money and it has been found to be very accurate.

If I were to purchase a camera based unit, I would actually get the GC2 because I don’t feel the extra money spent for the Quad is worth the difference. I would also not spend the money on the HMT add on even though I have to say that I really do love getting club head information.

Mad for your last comment, I would encourage you to read my posts and comments on any comparison. I have never said one unit is better that another, but what I have always tried to do is ensure that any misinformation is highlighted or call out a test where someone does say one is better than another when the parameters or use of a unit is not done based on how the unit says it should be used (for instance people who say hey get weird spin numbers with TM and later learn that they did not use a metallic sticker).

For me with all all things being equal, my next purchase for a launch monitor will likely be a TM 5. I am still very happy with my 3e as it does everything that I need (and the software keeps getting better) but the advancements that have been made with the 4 really astonish me. However, I just can’t justify the upgrade cost at this time.

Announcement

Trackman Vs gc2 advice needed please

Trackman Vs gc2 advice needed please

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment