Jump to content

Kansas King

Member
  • Posts

    360
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Kansas
  • Interests
    Golf
  • Handicap:
    6

Recent Profile Visitors

1,105 profile views

Kansas King's Achievements

 

  (1/14)

497

Reputation

  1. Hopefully you figure out the exact weight you need and then maybe you can order it from Edel. Heck, they may even do a little custom work if you need an in-between weight size...maybe.
  2. The Ping Rapture is a good stick but it's going to be challenging to get fit for a different shaft, let alone it be better. Typically people adjust for the shaft in their club over time and their is no doubt that you probably instinctively know how to get the most out of your current setup. Newer drivers may give you a little better performance from a forgiveness standpoint but you would need to have your current driver side by side with a new driver on a launch monitor to confirm that. If the idea of upgrading equipment is bothering you, I recommend getting a professional fitting or at least hitting on a launch monitor in a golf shop. Spending $50 - $100 on a fitting should tell you just how much their is to gain with newer technology. The reality is likely going to be that you're going to have to decide if gaining 0 - 15 yards is worth whatever dollar amount they throw at you and that can range from $400 - $800 just for a new driver (depending on the shaft). Then you have to decide if it's the archer or the arrow and are the differences in clubs enough to justify trying to buy a better game. For some people spending $800 on a new driver is very worth it for them personally for others, not so much. However, most people will usually find a good fit with stock shafts, so a new driver will likely range from $350 - $550 off the rack at a normal golf store. Best if luck and enjoy the process.
  3. Hard to tell. Hopefully someone on here has both and can let you know. Lead tape is always a viable alternative to weights from a performance perspective. Maybe not the cleanest looking but weight is weight.
  4. I'm not a software engineer or programmer but I'm guessing they will make it a little more complicated than just unlocking the software. I could be wrong but I'm guessing there is some firmware or software that is not yet installed on the base option that doesn't come along until you pay for your subscription. That's not to say someone could rip the firmware from when provided via subscription but I would take a guess and say that the odds of someone taking the time to do this is relatively low given the volume these will probably sell at. If they sell a ton of Bushnell Pros, then I could see a hack coming but I'm guessing it will be awhile assuming Foresight doesn't make it easy.
  5. Those packages are pretty rich. $6500 or nearly $12k AND another $800/year. I would rather buck up and buy a GCQuad GC2+HMT and just read the raw numbers at that point.
  6. The upper end Ernest LMs have always intrigued me but I have rarely ever seen anyone discussing their performance. The ES Tour Plus and the ES 20/20 are interesting and with the 20/20 at $7k, I would be curious if it's as accurate as a GC3 or even closer to a GC4.
  7. I don't disagree with you about the continued pain of subscription fees for perpetuity and I agree that they are unlikely to go down anytime soon. However, I think the reality is that this is a luxury golf product through and through. If you buy a $7k LM, you will likely have over $10k in a full-setup assuming you're starting from scratch. There probably are a few rare situations where financing makes sense depending on how your assets are tied up but my general gut feeling would be to advise against financing this kind of purchase. However, I've seen people finance dumber things and yes, a GC3 isn't the worst thing you could finance mostly because I think it won't depreciate too hard the next couple years but that's also an unknown. You never know what SkyTrak, Trackman, or some other company have coming. SkyTrak may come out with a GC3 competitor next year or two for $3k that gives you everything the GC3 has to offer at $7k. I wouldn't put it past them. Then suddenly, you might have lost a lot of value on the GC3. The other question I have when you start getting into expensive LMs is how do you insure them or can you insure them? Do they fall under a homeowners policy? What happens if you smack a ball into it at the range somehow? I don't know, I just think if you can't easily afford something like a launch monitor that costs thousand, it's probably not your time to be buying one.
  8. I'm going to go out on a limb and say for the sake of financial discipline that luxury golf launch monitors are in the realm of things that shouldn't be financed. I could see financing being a viable option if this is a business that is returning earnings from the use of the item but from a personal finance perspective, this seems like a questionable decision assuming the LM is a depreciating asset. For anyone reading this, please do yourself a long-term financial favor and be careful if you're looking at things from the perspective of monthly payments. If you don't need something and can't afford to buy it outright, you should really carefully consider your purchase decision before you finance the purchase. If you finance the $7k GC3 at say 5.5% (optimistic), you will have a monthly payment of $211/month over three years or $134/month over five years. The total cost of ownership over three years would be $7,596 and over five years, $8,040. That's $600 - $1000 of interest that you will never get back. If you don't have a flawless financial picture and the interest rate is 8.5%, then the three year monthly payment would be $221/month ($7,955 total) or for five years $144/month ($8,616 total). That's a lot of money going down the drain and for the love of God, please don't finance this on a credit card with rates that range from 16% to 29%. We haven't even included any sales tax that would likely bump that number up another $400 - $700 depending on your area. Sorry for the rant, I just see too many people make poor financial decisions for things that are extra. If you have the cash to burn, then feel free and buy it but if you don't, please think very carefully and don't make a rushed decision. Please keep in mind that the SkyTrak is also a perfectly capable device if all you want to do is keep your swing in somewhat reasonable shape over the winter.
  9. That was my thought. It's almost inevitable that someone will find a way around it. $3k for a LM that doesn't give you much more than a Rapsodo feels like a rip off and royal on golfers. I get what they are going for but I would rather see them charge $4k or $5k for the base unit and at least provide the raw data. $4k extra for the unlocked model seems a little rich. I'm sure it's going to be a fine unit in terms of accuracy but $800 a year for FSX and the metrics is a little steep. I know this product isn't aimed at the budget golfer by any means but these prices seem asinine. Plus, who in their right mind decided to call their sim software FSX?!
  10. I'm looking forward to seeing what this LM can do. The ability to have a $4000 LM that gives truly accurate metrics will be a true gamechanger for the industry. The subscription prices will be the question and it seems like every company is 100% onboard with required annual fleecings just to turn on a piece of hardware. I don't like the idea of having to pay a monthly fee. I get paying for extra things but if there is a required fee just to see the raw numbers then I will have a problem with the product. Regarding things that a $4k LM will change, I could see smaller golf/pro shops being the biggest beneficiaries. Lots of golf shops out there don't have anything beyond a SkyTrak because paying $15k+ for a better LM is expensive, even for a full fledged golf shop. The biggest beneficiary will be for pros at local course shops who are much lower volume. The other beneficiary are going to be the local unaffiliated fitters who build some custom stuff on the side of having a normal full-time job. Regarding the home sim market, it may be a mixed bag because it all depends on subscription costs. If they are going to force you to spend another $600 - $1200/year just to see you're ball's flight path and/or have a course to play on, I think that will drastically reduce the number of takers. $4k is already a little steep for the average avid golfer and throwing in an extra monthly fee may make this a painful proposition for someone who just wants to use it 2 - 5 months a year when the weather is unfavorable. I think my favorite part of this rig is that if it can be had for $4k and raw numbers can be obtained without a subscription, is the huge pricing power that puts on everything else. I don't think it will impact the pricing of anything under $2k but it will drag down the whole higher-end market and will likely slowly cannibalize their own upper end product pricing over time unless they bring out something that really improves on the GC4. I doubt this will start pricing wars but if you can give a perfectly good fitting with a $4k LM, I have a really hard time believing that golf shops and fitters aren't going to try and save $10k. Same goes for the home sim buyer. Why spend $20k on a setup when you can get by on $4k - $6k? I'll be really curious to see what Foresight, Earnst, and others come out with to compete with this because I don't see many people ignoring this product for the sake of getting a couple extra numbers. The other exciting thing is that the used GC2 market may become quite reasonable.
  11. Seems like a reasonable training idea. Not necessarily something you want to hit a thousand putts with but I think it would ago a long way in confirming whether or not you are stroking the ball well or not. As far as this actually improving putting? I don't know. I've personally never had success with training aids that "force" you into the correct position. Things like the Tour Striker irons, hinged clubs, etc. just have never worked for me. The idea that a forced position will make you better sounds nice in my mind but reality is another thing.
  12. Major but I think each would be their own special experience. I think the idea of winning the Masters or another major would be a far more special event as an individual over a team event. The team event would be very special but it's almost more of a confirmation about your success on your own and potentially during majors. I will say that the Ryder Cup is probably the most fun but I would have a tough time believing it to be the most satisfying.
  13. I honestly think we're on two sides of the same coin but I have a feeling we may be playing different courses. In my part of the world, I'm used to "American" courses where the control and stopping power of urethane is hugely beneficial. Many of the courses I've spent a lot of time on do not typically support playing a ball that rolls out. There are also courses around me that are flatter and have a more open entry into the flatter greens that would potentially make running the ball easier. I'm not saying you can't stick shots with a two piece ball but depending on the greens, the stopping power of urethane can be a huge benefit. I think the question about urethane is really almost as much about the course as it is the player. I grew up playing two piece surlyn balls on a course with soft greens, so they certainly worked fine. I didn't play urethane balls much really until college when I started playing other courses that really needed balls that could hold the green. I worked at a country club in Nebraska my first year at college that had great greens that were well guarded, very firm, rarely played under a 12 on the stimp, and held spin incredibly well. Playing two piece balls on that course was a struggle, especially on chips and pitches around the greens. It was a necessity to be able to put some strong check on chips and pitches because trying to roll surlyn balls to the hole was extremely tedious. Like most things in golf, the decision on any piece of equipment is never simple. I think the surlyn/ionomer balls today are rather decent and would work at any course but I think there are many courses where having the extra control with urethane is an absolute must if you want to be competitive with those at your relative skill level. If you know how to strike the ball well and have a decent mental game, urethane can remove some of the guess work.
  14. Prices are dictated by supply and demand but there is no denying that club makers are earning near record earnings. The recent price increases has certainly exceeded cost increases from shipping and manufacturing. I don't think the whole concept that MSRP should follow inflation logic because it completely ignores changes in competition, technology, and manufacturing efficiencies. Companies like Golfworks and Hireko selling clubs for a 1/3rd and DTC companies selling for around 50 - 60% of major OEMs is proof that the cost increases don't really have anything to do with manufacturing costs. Yes, manufacturing and shipping is certainly higher but it's not the biggest reason for prices increases. The biggest reason prices are going up is demand. The pandemic caused a demand shock that the industry hasn't seen in a long time if ever and they are going to take advantage. Plus, people seem to be more blinded by brands than ever before. With social media and what not, I think the average person has become much more focused on what brand they have than anything else. Look at the droves of people that by Nike these days, it's absolutely nuts. I see videos of people saying that they are starting a shoe collection standing in an effing Footlocker, but I digress. One big thing in golf is that without brands, many things go away. The big OEMs sponsor a lot of things and DTC companies really do threaten the margins that lubricate the golf equipment industry. If Maltby can make a good hollow-head iron and sell it for $50, I have a hard time believing that OEMs are actually spending millions and millions on technology. If anything, it's all about the looks. Heck, Golfworks has even gone as far as developing new manufacturing techniques for golf clubs that didn't exist before and they don't sell their clubs at excessive prices. I always feel like I get flamed for calling out major OEMs as overpriced for what you get but I think it's true. I'm not saying that they make bad stuff but dang, it's like all things golf industry are absolutely against any form of value. Sub70 and Hogan seem to be about the only non major OEMs to get any form of love. Maltby and Hireko get absolutely trashed for no reason.
  15. I would argue that there certainly are advantages to playing urethane balls. I would only really encourage people that play very little golf or those with really bad wedge and iron games to play something else. For amateurs that do have some level of skill (say sub-20 handicap and they play a couple times a month), then urethane balls can be beneficial. I personally would never play with a surlyn ball for more than a round or two. Urethane tour balls allow golfers to much better control trajectory and spin with irons and wedges and can even be beneficial off the tee depending on how they are fit. Being able to confidently throw the ball at the hole and know it will stop on shorter shots is important. The real benefit of urethane is actually not on the flop shots but the lower ones. If you're 100 yards out and have a urethane ball on the fairway, you can actually really flight the ball down and control spin so it hops and stops wherever it hits on the green. Can't do that with a Noodle. Nothing wrong with playing the middle of the green with a Noodle and at 100 yards, there may not even be much roll out but the trajectory of the shot can be a problem. Surlyn balls always launch high and there isn't much you can do about it. Higher spinning lower launching balls will improve your ability to control the shot way better than any surlyn ball. I think this shines the most on shots from 50 - 150 yards. Inside 50 yards, urethane is great if you know how to properly use a wedge or if you are consistent with how you do use your wedge. Really, I think one of the biggest thing about playing urethane balls is a golfers intention during the round. If you're out to have fun and you're content by just being on the golf course, then surlyn is fine. However, if you get joy out of playing controlled golf shots or spinny wedge shots, then urethane is the answer. If you're trying to improve and work towards a lower handicap, urethane is the answer. Urethane is not required to play good golf but with the lower cost of urethane balls today, there is no reason not to be playing them if you're really trying to improve because they do help. My big thing with the earlier post is mostly encouraging the least skilled golfers to play surlyn. I even note that surlyn is okay in the short term for better golfers but I didn't encourage full-time use.
×
×
  • Create New...