Launch monitor figures v on course figures

Dr Devious

Can anyone give experiences of near equal comparisons between the figures that you get from launch monitors or trackman as against what you actually get when you go on the course. Personally I think the 280 300 yards etc distances that they tell you about on perfectly controlled driving ranges aren't as easily achieved when you are on the course, and I'm not talking about windy weather etc affecting the flight. Lots of calm days to truly find out. Loads of people here have been to Fore golf, how have you been getting on since compared to previously, and be honest.

Tones69

Dr Devious wrote: »

Can anyone give experiences of near equal comparisons between the figures that you get from launch monitors or trackman as against what you actually get when you go on the course. Personally I think the 280 300 yards etc distances that they tell you about on perfectly controlled driving ranges aren't as easily achieved when you are on the course, and I'm not talking about windy weather etc affecting the flight. Lots of calm days to truly find out. Loads of people here have been to Fore golf, how have you been getting on since compared to previously, and be honest.

I think everyone hits it better at a range as uve no targets and really are not nervy about where the ball goes. Went for quick 9 yesterday and measured my 4 drives. 1st hole was 289 (left rough, downhill into breeze) Second was 297 (cross breeze centre faurway). 6th hole was 284 (left centre fairway,dead into breeze). 7th was 311 (right 2nd cut,downwind)... Had a 58* into the 18th in heritage other day downbreezy, didnt measure it but musta been about 330 ha.. Launch angles tough to judge on course but happy with it. Not too low to lose distance and not too high in wind to lose distance, if u get me

dan_ep82

I think the launch monitors give you optimal conditions, not just wind etc but very hard ground.

In the Headfort for the month of june and july balls were literally hopping then rolling. I had 280-290yd drives common enough which I'd never see unless I caught it extremely well which is very rare,maybe once a few weeks if I'm lucky.

For most of the 300 launch monitor drives the carry is far less even though they'll keep calling out the roll distance.

I got fit for the the Xhot Pro about a year ago and didn't see the same shots as the LM for a few months, whether I just got more comfortable on the course, which would be a high possibility, or I just got better I don't know.

Golfgraffix

I think it is important to understand how they work and there limitations.

There are essentially two types, simply described as radar and camera.

Trackman and Flightscope are radar, so they track the full flight of the ball and work out the data backwards. So they look at the ball and say it went to X with a ball flight of Y so the player must have had a swing type of Z. In the case X and Y are the true known values and Z is derived from an algorithm.

Units like Foresight GC2/HMT (the one on Sky) are camera based. So this looks at the ball and club head at impact. The high speed camera picks up ball data and calls it X the second camera picks up the club head data and calls it Y so the ball must have had a ball flight and distance of Z.

You could argue the merits of both systems but both rely of some sort of algorithm to work out the results, neither truely can take into proper consideration things wind, air temperature, elevation, ground conditions.

If you are looking for just pure carry distance the radar ones are most accurate as they track the ball flight, problem is they don't truly know the ball physics so can only guess at roll distance.

My own take on it would be that rather than knowing the distance I would rather know what exactly the club and ball are doing at impact and for this the top end camera monitors are top of the pile.

J

Russman

Golfgraffix wrote: »

I think it is important to understand how they work and there limitations.

There are essentially two types, simply described as radar and camera.

Trackman and Flightscope are radar, so they track the full flight of the ball and work out the data backwards. So they look at the ball and sayit went to X with a ball flight of Y so the player must have had a swing type of Z. In the case X and Y are the true known values and Z is derived from an algorithm.

Units like Foresight GC2/HMT (the one on Sky) are camera based. So this looks at the ball and club head at impact. The high speed camera picks up ball data and calls it X the second camera picks up the club head data and calls it Y so the ball must have had a ball flight and distance of Z.

You could argue the merits of both systems but both rely of some sort of algorithm to work out the results, neither truely can take into proper consideration things wind, air temperature, elevation, ground conditions.

If you are looking for just pure carry distance the radar ones are most accurate as they track the ball flight, problem is they don't truly know the ball physics so can only guess at roll distance.

My own take on it would be that rather than knowing the distance I would rather know what exactly the club and ball are doing at impact and for this the top end camera monitors are top of the pile.

J

You sure that's the case with the radar ones ? Genuine question, not doubting you, I just think its a little odd. I thought there was a camera (or something) integrated into Trackman. I had a trackman lesson about 2 weeks ago and was able to see various impact angles, paths etc - surely that's not all derived back from ball flight ?

Rikand

Tones69 wrote: »

I think everyone hits it better at a range as uve no targets and really are not nervy about where the ball goes. Went for quick 9 yesterday and measured my 4 drives. 1st hole was 289 (left rough, downhill into breeze) Second was 297 (cross breeze centre faurway). 6th hole was 284 (left centre fairway,dead into breeze). 7th was 311 (right 2nd cut,downwind)... Had a 58* into the 18th in heritage other day downbreezy, didnt measure it but musta been about 330 ha.. Launch angles tough to judge on course but happy with it. Not too low to lose distance and not too high in wind to lose distance, if u get me

I'd love to watch you play golf some time.

Golfgraffix

Russman wrote: »

You sure that's the case with the radar ones ? Genuine question, not doubting you, I just think its a little odd. I thought there was a camera (or something) integrated into Trackman. I had a trackman lesson about 2 weeks ago and was able to see various impact angles, paths etc - surely that's not all derived back from ball flight ?

It was a Very basic explanation,

Trackman for example has 20 odd parameters that it collects data on, swing path, club head speed etc but it's real secret sauce is in the ball tracking for the full flight and that is where much of it's other data is extrapolated from. It does not have a high speed camera looking at the ball or club head face at impact.

I have spent a lot of time with proponents of both systems and they both argue their cases like religious zealots, the fight for the heart and minds if golfers !

My point really that both systems still rely on algorithms to work out the full data so ever getting a true "on course" reading is tough.

slave1

I just don't know how ye guys get these distances, I had an empty course yesterday so measured all my drives and they were from 201 to 233 and not a sign of me hitting it any further, 12/14 hit so maybe that loss of 20/30/40 yards ain't so bad?

jokser250

slave1 wrote: »

I just don't know how ye guys get these distances, I had an empty course yesterday so measured all my drives and they were from 201 to 233 and not a sign of me hitting it any further, 12/14 hit so maybe that loss of 20/30/40 yards ain't so bad?

I wouldn't hit it more than220- 240 yards with roll out when I connect properly yet I rarely find myself that far behind my playing partners and I've played with lots of different people since I've started playing .

Dr Devious

On my course there is one hole which is pancake flat, on any calm day during the summer with hard ground I hit it 210 to 215 metres, no better no matter what I do, I too would not be considered short off the tee, in fact I'm usually along side or ahead of good golfers. I think Fore and the launch monitors are a bit over rated, next time I'm buying a driver I'll get a demo from the pro shop and take it too the course and I will learn a lot more from it than a bunch of highly flattering figures on a screen, launch angle, spin rate, impact etc.

dan_ep82

slave1 wrote: »

I just don't know how ye guys get these distances, I had an empty course yesterday so measured all my drives and they were from 201 to 233 and not a sign of me hitting it any further, 12/14 hit so maybe that loss of 20/30/40 yards ain't so bad?

Depending on the people im playing with. Sometimes im shorter or longer, depends on the day aswell. I play regulary enough with a couple of young lads that hit it as far as tones and there usually quite a bit ahead of me but every now and then I'll get it close ir on a rare ocassion in front.

Maybe its just my club but there seems to be alot of long hitters in it compared to other places ive played.

Saying that I played with a group from bettystown and one guy was just as long as the younger lads averaging at least 270

Golfgraffix

Dr Devious wrote: »

figures on a screen, launch angle, spin rate, impact etc.

Rather than worrying about distance, these are the figures that count, get these right for your swing and the distance will come, simple physics really.

J

GreeBo

I found the monitors in American Golf to be pretty accurate, though unless I was having a really good day all my anyway decent drives were averaging near what I would expect from my best.
Though I was looking at totals rather than carry.

charlieIRL

Golfgraffix wrote: »

Rather than worrying about distance, these are the figures that count, get these right for your swing and the distance will come, simple physics really.

J

It was depressing when I hit a few shots on a launch monitor, spin rate was ridiculously high and launch angle was way too low.

alxmorgan

charlieIRL wrote: »

It was depressing when I hit a few shots on a launch monitor, spin rate was ridiculously high and launch angle was way too low.

Suggests you may be hitting down on the ball if we are talking driver.

charlieIRL

alxmorgan wrote: »

Suggests you may be hitting down on the ball if we are talking driver.

Was a 7 iron, even worse!!

Am doing better on the course though

Senna

I was on the flightscope system testing out drivers, it put my longest drive at 240 and average around 220yards, so not far from the truth.
It was an outside driving range, so might be more realistic than those ones hitting into a net.

GreeBo

Senna wrote: »

I was on the flightscope system testing out drivers, it put my longest drive at 240 and average around 220yards, so not far from the truth.
It was an outside driving range, so might be more realistic than those ones hitting into a net.

unless its using radar/laser it wont make a difference really afaik, it extrapolates everything from impact.

Senna

Might have been the operator feeding me BS but he said the box behind the ball tracks the ball in the air.
I've used the one where there is a sensor opposite the ball, I know that one uses the angle, speed etc to work out where that ball would end up.

FWVT

Just for your interest I wrote this article on the physics of how the weather affects your golf shots.

http://irishweatheronline.wordpress.com/2013/08/12/how-weather-affects-your-golf-shots/