That club path differential can be a killer for a student and coach in a lesson!!! Technology is great but if the results it’s producing aren’t accurate can ruin someone’s game
@golfomio
3 жыл бұрын
SPOTTED Every club path reading was approximately 4 degrees further left on trackman bar one which was 6.6 degrees left, slight repositioning of the trackman would have given similar club path results and possibly changed other data. But the GC Quad gives you so much more valuable clubface data.
@NickTaylorGolf
3 жыл бұрын
Good spot, I would also add the GC Quad is a lot easier to calibrate
@sumsar0125
3 жыл бұрын
Would impact stickers or dry shampoo sprayed on the club face remedy this if you don't have access to a GC Quad?
@MikeJones-iq5vt
6 жыл бұрын
Trackman 4 now has ball impact location. It was 'demod' at the PGA show in Orlando and doesn't require any dots attached to the clubface.
@NickTaylorGolf
6 жыл бұрын
I know Mike I just can’t get my head around how it works, as the TM can’t see the clubface at impact
@jasondurkin2736
4 жыл бұрын
@@NickTaylorGolf Although it works with the radar syncing with the camera, I don't see why it can't see the clubface? It is just how the radar waves work. See the article from GolfWRX the 6 myths about TM...
@breeze787
4 жыл бұрын
Yeah the Trackman cannot actually measure accurately club head data because it doesn't have any eyes on the club face. The Trackman uses algorithms to come up with a value for club head data. That's why its so far off from the GC Quad. But more interesting to note that between Trackman and the Foresightsports GC Quad the Trackman use the same camera technology the GC Quad uses to verify and calibrate the data the trackman comes up with. So the Trackman uses the same photo technology but compares it with the radar data to calibrate and determine its accuracy. So I'm one to think that the GC Quad photo data capture as opposed to Trackman doppler radar is more accurate simply because Trackman is using GC Quads technology for data confirmation. If I were Trackman I'd bring out the photo technology alongside the radar technology and see who outpaces who?
@jasondurkin2736
3 жыл бұрын
@@breeze787 Where is the data far off? suggest you test and compare as the two are actually very close. In a article from TM that is posted on their website, they do describe how the radar can read the data even though it is located behind the impact location. They do not mention algorithms, but then again they all have to use some sort of calculation (even the quad) in order to report the data. The independent testing that I have read indicates that TM and Foresight is actually very close in terms of what they report when compared against one another.
@breeze787
3 жыл бұрын
@@jasondurkin2736 Yes correct. I believe ball data is close but club info has differences. Based on all of the KZitem comparisons that I've observed.
@Alan_Edwards
2 жыл бұрын
Very interesting. So the GC consistently shows the club path to be more than shown by TM. But which one is correct? I would suspect the QC would be more accurate mainly due to how it gets the data, but that is just a guess. For me personally, the club data is what I want to be accurate and it seems to me the use of those sensors on the club head has to allow the GC to gather more accurate data in that regard. Especially where the club contacts the ground, before or after the ball, which you did not show. I also think the QC would do a better job with spin rate which is a calculated value on the TM. At least the differences in the data between the two devices was consistent so there is that. For me in the end, when I do decide to drop the dime I will likely get a GC Quad not only because it is a lot less expensive, but I think the technology it uses is more accurate. Nice comparison and I have to agree with your overall assessment.
@anthonyrand9466
6 жыл бұрын
That was an excellent video Nick. I always thought Trackman was the cream of the crop but obviously not.
@leomode2
6 жыл бұрын
Both are great and Trackman is too if you have enough distance and metallic dot on the ball indoor. When they have proper setting, the numbers are scarily close.
@mrwoo33
6 жыл бұрын
Hi nick, great review. Nice to see a head to head that I've not seen before. Was a little confused with the data though. Some of the heel strikes seemed pretty low on spin on gc quad. Shouldn't the ball spin up more from a heel strike. Was trackman not more accurate there. It's nice to see where on the face your actually striking it with gc quad though. Great skill set from yourself on the review being able to hit those strikes without missing it or shanking it. Looking forward to seeing more, thanks Andy wood 👍
@leomode2
6 жыл бұрын
I think Nick has to do the test again with the proper environment, as I mentioned above. When Trackman has enough distance and environment, the numbers are extremely similar with GCQuad. Also, I just noticed that he was constantly fading the ball, but GCQuad said he drew the ball. Any idea on this?
@robertdore9592
5 жыл бұрын
12:00 although allegedly 'off the toe' of the club, that was the best shot you hit in the entire session.
@RWgolfARG
5 жыл бұрын
Thanks for the video. Great info. 👍🏻 Do you think if Trackman aim slightly different towards the target , both Trackman & GC would have similar clubpath?? All other numbers are quite the same
@leomode2
6 жыл бұрын
Hey Nick, I think you should try it again with the equal setting. Your environment is making Trackman calculating ball backspin (look at the italicized number, that means it's not measured). 1) Put a metallic dot on the ball for Trackman, the dot facing the screen. 2) Use at least 12ft, possibly 15ft if you can from the screen to the tee. 3) Use Normalize function on Trackman. 4) Turn on both Spin Axis and Sidespin for the software and show us that data Indoor, without the proper requirement, Trackman cannot output the right data (or just would not show any data at all if Trackman is not confident). For backspin, GC should always be right indoor since Trackman calculates the backspin sometimes. And you would need a certain distance (it should be 8ft but I recommend longer) for the doppler to read better data. When I saw your 7i calculating ball spin on Trackman with 7000 in italic, I immediately knew you didn't put any metallic dot on the ball.
@NickTaylorGolf
6 жыл бұрын
Ok definitely more testing to be done with the metallic dot. Interested to see how trackman are planning to read strike but I guess we will find out very soon.
@leomode2
6 жыл бұрын
Nick Taylor Golf trackman will show impact location with the next update announcing this week at the PGA show in Orlando. You should conduct apples to apples using that update too.
@NickTaylorGolf
6 жыл бұрын
Any idea how trackman are able to measure strike Leo?
@leomode2
6 жыл бұрын
Since no additional hardware is needed and is all done through the same Trackman (confirmed from Trackman), I'm guessing it would just all be a calculation, just like GCQuad calculates all the stuff after the ball launch.
@NickTaylorGolf
6 жыл бұрын
Ok but surely GC quad will be more accurate considering the cameras can see the face and ball at impact and TM can’t
@tommaier9984
5 жыл бұрын
How can you say that one of the machines is right or wrong if you don't see an actual ball flight!? In my education as a pro, I got taught to look on the ball flight first. Wouldn't it be great to have the comparison outdoors test with the real ball flight? Can you do another test outdoors? And best would be from the grass. Thanks upfront.
@yt551217
2 жыл бұрын
Great effort and info. The club path was consistently about 4 deg right on the GC compared to Trackman. I suspect you had a small difference in how the machines were lined up. Can the machines use a laser pointer to a spot on your screen or to a flag on the range? I agree the GC is probably better for club face data, especially point of impact but the path was so consistently slightly different that I suspect a small aiming error due to human eyesight ability.
@thegolflife7565
Жыл бұрын
Can you do this again with RCT balls?
@allahalibaba9063
5 жыл бұрын
So what unit do you prefer for teaching and improvement for a golfer????? Thank You
@NickTaylorGolf
5 жыл бұрын
Indoors definitely GC Quad
@TheEggMan2000
4 жыл бұрын
What about outdoors? Trackman obviously should be better, but how much?
@NickTaylorGolf
4 жыл бұрын
Good question, Trackman is definitely more accurate outdoors
@user-oj2rv4eu4i
2 жыл бұрын
Hi Nick I have GCQuad and I usually make draw shots, my club path number is 5~7 dgrees R But when I use trackman, club path number is 2~3 dgrees R I think there is a difference in the measurement method What do you think about that?
@NickTaylorGolf
2 жыл бұрын
GC Quad more accurate for club data for sure and I think easier to calibrate. I believe trackman uses a algorithm to measure path and with the box position behind the golfer I can’t see how it can be accurate
@user-oj2rv4eu4i
2 жыл бұрын
@@NickTaylorGolf Thanks for your answer. I saw mcilroy's trackman numbers that his club path number is 4.4R. Do you think, Is that almost 7 degrees on GCQuad ? I wonder just your opinion
@NickTaylorGolf
2 жыл бұрын
Not necessarily
@user-oj2rv4eu4i
2 жыл бұрын
@@NickTaylorGolf Thanks Nick Have a great day
@james123j1
6 жыл бұрын
Would be great to see this repeated for driver. I believe TM struggles with gear effect when used indoors? I wonder if this will be improved in the next update?
@leomode2
6 жыл бұрын
With my intensive testing though, GC2 actually fluctuated its carry a bit excessive, as far as 20 yards. TM4 was within tolerance.
@james123j1
6 жыл бұрын
Leo Kim have you published any data from your testing, would be keen to see it as it sounds interesting...
@leomode2
6 жыл бұрын
Yeah within the same forum i posted both indoor and outdoor result. golfsimulatorforum.com/forum/golf-simulator-forum/golf-simulators/141192-trackman-4-vs-gc2-outdoor-result
@michaellittle9412
2 жыл бұрын
So which number do you think is right??
@NickTaylorGolf
2 жыл бұрын
Quad
@lsm1205
3 жыл бұрын
Well and good to be different results but which is accurate?
@NickTaylorGolf
3 жыл бұрын
GC quad
@GRIFF22
6 жыл бұрын
Hi Nick...how about a skytrak vs gc quad. Would be good to see how close the ball data is
@NickTaylorGolf
6 жыл бұрын
Unfortunately I don't have access to a sky track at this point in time.
@dankrause7919
3 жыл бұрын
Skytrak is decent for price point but no comparing GC Quad to Skytrak. Also the Skytrak cannot be used outdoors which is a huge negative in my book. I have a Flightscope Mevo + and its decent for ball data but no comparison to a friends GC Quad. I find club data most important to make swing improvements and you are paying 9x(2k vs 18k) more for a reason. I plan to ungrade to Quad in next year.
@richardchapman8418
6 жыл бұрын
Hi Nick, Love Your content. I want to say thank you for the vlog with Liam. The Stack and Tilt made so much sense to me. So I Subscribed to your channel. I am a 26 Handicapper that struggles with consistency. I finally took the stack and tilt swing to the course three weeks a go." I can Now Draw a Ball !!! " First game 58 front 41 Back Nine,, Promising... Last weekend 51 Front Nine 43 Back Nine,,, "NICE" Today 44 Front 44 Back Nine... OMG Net 62 Gross 88 & 46 Stableford's. 2x 2's, 3 Birdies. Got Called a Burglar.... LOL Came First for the Day... I'M coming to England in August, Would Like to organise a lesson with you... How do I go about organising some Lessons?Thanks Again, :-)Rick C From New Zealand...
@NickTaylorGolf
6 жыл бұрын
Thanks for your comment and I see you made Liam's cool wall this week. Give me a email to discuss lessons as could potentially play some golf too. Keep up the good play (info@nicktaylorpga.com)
@jonmebane5316
3 жыл бұрын
what graphics card do you reccomend to run the FSX2020 software... I was told a 2070 but is that over kill
@shawnkathuria2440
3 жыл бұрын
wondering the same thing what did you find iut
@leomode2
6 жыл бұрын
Also, try both outdoor. If GC Quad is exactly the same as indoor in terms of the difference, as well as GC Quad having the right ball flight as Trackman outdoor, then GC Quad is the truth. Because I am seeing another constant draw on most of your shots from GC Quad.
@KingJSA
4 жыл бұрын
How can you know which one is in accurate? Wouldnt TM be able to see club path better because it is measuring down the line and gc better at detecting club face. Seems like some of those club paths where very high on gc. 10 deg seems like a lot.
@NickTaylorGolf
4 жыл бұрын
I know my swing well enough to know that the quad is more accurate
@KingJSA
4 жыл бұрын
@@NickTaylorGolf ok. Thanks for the content and the reply. I am trying to figure out what sim to get. Also am looking at smartgolf and full swing. Do you know anything about those?
@NickTaylorGolf
4 жыл бұрын
Never heard of either sorry
@amgolfer3591
4 жыл бұрын
@@KingJSA I am sure that Full Swing is what TW uses and many other pros like Day, Spieth, Rose, etc. I also believe it's the official sim for Golf Channel and the PGA Tour. You obviously can't go wrong w/this sim system. Cost will most likely be steep is my guess.
@KingJSA
4 жыл бұрын
@@amgolfer3591 it appears to be the best but it is really hard to know how well these things work. It is so weird how each sim has such different technology to essentially to the same thing.
@mitchellgoldstein1855
3 жыл бұрын
Why is the club path data so much? I don’t think you set the trackman up properly
@absmith4639
3 жыл бұрын
hampton brandon playing golf?
@christherlenander1656
4 жыл бұрын
My local golf store replaced their Trackman 4 with a Foresight GC. The GC shows me much higher club speed (5-8 mph faster), longer carry and total length with the driver, but less smash factor. Is the GC more accurate in reading swing/club data than Trackman?
@ryansones1626
4 жыл бұрын
Christher Lenander TM records club head speed at full compression, vs GCQ records club head speed at initial contract of ball and thus your difference
@christherlenander1656
4 жыл бұрын
@@ryansones1626 So GCQ measure club speed more correct than TM.? Because is stupid o measure speed after ball impact. The the clubhead have lost lots of speed at that point. So I think that GCQ measure club speed more correct. My ball speed was the same in both TM and GCQ. Smash Factor was less in GCQ. TN allways showed a smash factor at 1.50-1.52 for me. Whilte GCQ show 1.39-1.42 with the driver.
@golfr_vlogs6255
4 жыл бұрын
no
@golfr_vlogs6255
4 жыл бұрын
Christher Lenander that’s disturbing the difference between smash factor. TM is gold standard and the reason why every Tour player uses them. The only person who uses GCQuad is Bryson who is paid by them to use it. (he also uses trackman) Trackman doesn’t pay or give discounts to any Tour player who uses their stuff
@Ktmd
4 жыл бұрын
@@golfr_vlogs6255players like tiger wood...bubba Watson... Rickie Fowler. Coaches like butch harmon..mark crossfield..rick shields.. then theres fitter like txg uses gcquad instead of trackman
@shaneb395
Жыл бұрын
Why don't you show spin axis? Club path is a meaningless number without knowing face angle or at least horizontal launch angle
@usee8528
6 жыл бұрын
Thank you very much for this great comparison! Very insightful, and reveals the weaknesses and strength of the different approaches. What surprised me the most, were the partly very different spin numbers - whereas I would think, that the GC4 should be more accurate. To me it seems, that Trackman is better suited for outdoor use, where it has more time to track a larger part of the real ball flight... ...however, this is something one can also track with the naked eye, and that is prone to the weather conditions.
@leomode2
6 жыл бұрын
Indoor, Trackman needs a minimum requirement: at least 12ft recommended from ball to screen, and metallic dot sticker on the ball facing the screen. Without this, radar doesn't have enough time and space to measure the backspin. So when Trackman calculates the backspin, the backspin shows in italics. So as you can see all of the shots he tested are in italic. When I tried Trackman vs GC2 both outdoor and indoor, when the backspin was measured on Trackman, they were within 200rpm of each other, extremely close.
@usee8528
6 жыл бұрын
Good to know, but how many fitter use those dots, and align them correctly? I haven't seen one doing that. However some complain, that the Mevo would need those metallic dots to measure spin correctly, and that this would be a reason, why it is much cheaper than Trackman...
@leomode2
6 жыл бұрын
If they have less than 12ft, they should use metallic dots on the ball for sure. Because even with the dots if the ball is really fast you wouldn't be able to measure the spin. Most importantly though, with my thorough testing, Trackman showed more accurate ball flight than GC2 (I'm sure GC Quad is the same). What this means is that indoor you would need enough space and a metallic dot for the radar to track things correctly. Otherwise you need to use a camera system but with the assumption that a few times your ball flight would be wrong or opposite. Because at the end of the day, camera can't beat radar yet in terms of measuring ball flight because camera doesn't take account for aerodynamics after the impact where it's not enough with taking a snapshot. Mevo is a different kind. It doesn't have enough mechanics to track the ball spin correctly in the first place.
@usee8528
6 жыл бұрын
In the end of the day, outdoors, you can watch the ball flight with your own eyes for the most accurate information in regard of flight - on a calm day. Also, you better look at the residues of the range balls on your club face to determine strike location (I use black blades and black CB). To get outdoors a grasp of the distance you can use a laser unit to determine distance to certain targets. In my eyes, Trackman only provides a convenient way of collecting data, which are not always reliable enough, to make the best decision in regard of strike pattern, or club fitting. GC2 /4 seems to be suited to collect in a convenient way data in regard of strike and initial spin, which should be suited for a proper (indoor) fitting, but not necessarily to describe real world performance of the setup. Latter is to determine on the course anyway. For me, Trackman would be a unnecessary investment, because I already have devices which measure club head speed (radar based and GSA Pro) within a reasonable margin (tested against Trackman). Proper spin measurement is the only property, which is missing (for me), and this can be better achieved with optical devices like GC4. I am interested to see, what the upcoming Gears analyses will bring in regard of additional information.
@leomode2
6 жыл бұрын
Usee i agree with u on trackman being way too expensive, and so does GC quad. I think skytrak and gc2 are great values (gc2 is still a bit expensive in my opinion), and in this industry being cheaper means more margin for error (cheaper devices can get good measurement if struck properly but gives you wanky numbers if not struck correctly). Ironically pro players should only need cheaper items as they are very consistent and amateur should need machines that give less error. I also hope that these get cheaper just like how DSLR got extremely cheaper. Trackman will soon show impact location with the upcoming update which i think is great and on par with gc series. a radar not being able to see the impact location but outputs similar number like gc series is a tremendous mathematical work of exceptionally talented people in my opinion, just like how gc engineers have calculated carry distances without seeing the ball flight. Science is really the answer here.
@johnyjackson6952
4 жыл бұрын
Went for a driver fitting today at American golf and I hit my best 318 yards later went to the driving range and could only hit it 240-250 how could this be so different? In the fitting I was carrying it 280ish on the range about 230-240
@NickTaylorGolf
4 жыл бұрын
Its hard to say but range balls are designed to fly shorter distances
@bLineIt
3 жыл бұрын
Because most retailers bump the distance up so you buy the club lol, never trust numbers from any retailers!
@volkerpetersen2671
2 жыл бұрын
I have seen KZitem content of a "pro" where some girl Hit 280 yards without even trying. On a Monitor of course...Her range yardage was more to 240-250. So yes, the Monitor will Show you 30 yards more...in my humble experience.
@josephrob5819
4 жыл бұрын
Theyre not aligned exaxtly the same. Club path is off because whats being seen in reference to center is different. I wont watch anouth video because youre slow
Пікірлер: 85