About golf monitors in stores...

[RookieBlue7]

I'm a fan of using simulators in the retail stores. The problem I have is when they're set up improperly. And I hit balls on one this morning that I know for a fact was set up incorrectly. Why do I say that? The numbers I was getting. There's absolutely no way that the numbers it was spitting out for the irons I was trying were correct. I got them to select the proper iron # (6 iron) but he didn't let me see any of the other settings. The irons I hit were Tour Edge ProCBh and J40 cb's. I wanted to see if I liked either based on feel. I also wanted to get an idea of how they'd fall into my setup now as far as my wedges and hybrids/woods. Unless I was having a career day with 2 unfitted irons, the numbers weren't close. My current 6 iron is fitted and it's my 185-190 club. The carry distances for both were ProCBh 219 yards and J40cb 212 yards (averages, a few outliers shorter and longer of course). But 30 yards longer? Nah, not buying it. Both had PX flighted 6.0's.

 

Now that begs the question, why would you set it up THAT much out of whack? Adding elevation or wind or the percentage of boost. I could see 5 maybe even 10 yards. But 30? C'mon man. And we wonder why the golf industry is hurting? People don't like buying clubs and get to the real world and not see those pretty distances. I knew going in that they do this and it's possible and I always dismiss the numbers but I couldn't today (partly because they changed software and it pops up bigger and more toward the center of the screen). Sheesh.... I should've hit driver

 

Edit to add I didn't buy either set of irons but I did buy a dozen ProV1x logo overruns, a pair of yak leather Ecco hybrids and some 4 more yards tees (based on MGS labs) to try.

[Kenny B]

To quote markb in another post: "He turned up the sim presets to Himalayan monastery altitude and bowling alley fairway settings for max carry and roll out"

 

When I go to our golf superstore to try something out, I always take my club with me for comparison.  As it turns out, I hit my club a lot further on their monitor too.

[RookieBlue7]

Yeah I didn't take mine and I know they're set to give you better numbers. But on the couple I knew I hit sideways because the irons were too flat, it still went as far as a well struck 6 now. Lol. Just provoking conversation mainly and throwing out another reason why people are leaving the game. Because they can't reproduce their sim numbers

[markb]

I can't argue with anything here.   The more I use monitors and sim software, the less impressed I become with them.   That's because most of the general public's exposure to monitors and sims is NOT the pro tour Trackman with a highly trained operator.   It's with a lesser system manned by a college age kid in a starving-for-business box store.   Their primary motivation is to get you into a new set of clubs fast.   They'll do anything to achieve that goal because they're literally starving.  

 

If buyers would open their eyes, more and more people would come back from a commercial fitting session questioning what they just saw.   "Fittings" are necessary, I was first fit for clubs 35 years ago for Pings.   No one questions the utility of playing clubs that are fit and these days everyone can get those basic Ping fitting specs correct with little effort.   And a really good doppler fitting with a seasoned and unbiased operator is also very useful to the experienced golf club ho like Rookie and myself.

 

But the buying of clubs solely based on a half dozen launch monitor swings off an indoor mat is the height of absurdity.   Mini mall retailers would like us to believe that this is the proper way to buy clubs because it allows them to supplant the role of the green grass pro, who used to watch what you did on his range before he fit you for the clubs that often he would also customize for you.  

 

So with this our modern trade off, Joe Hacker has gone from putting himself into the hands of a seasoned PGA pro and club-builder, to a knucklehead in a mini-mall with a rigged machine trying to move his overstock before they shutter the store.   Are we better or worse off than before?

[RookieBlue7]

Oh there wasn't an operator present when I was hitting these. I always ask them to set it up and leave because I can see the numbers myself and I actually do understand them. I just found it funny he only set the club and wouldn't let me view anything else as far as settings (when my buddy that works there is there I get him to set it up for me as he let's me see them all so I know it's not total Bs).

[markb]

I agree.  They did not want you to see how they had rigged it.

 

I pay for my monitor time sans operator -- but the last time I had to go in and UNDO all the presets.  They had it rigged so that club A would outperform club B.   Once I saw this, I knew I'd never be back.  (Well, also because it took a half hour out of my paid hour to undo the presets).

 

Two other things I noticed because I hit a lot of balls on it   (GC2 system)

 

a.  There were MANY misreads.   I'd say, one in every 15 to 20 swings were reads where the spin number or L.A. number would come back way off.  Like lets say my average driver spin number would be 2650.  Every so often it would spit out a 1500 number.   What?  The swing felt no different than the others.

 

b.  Some outputs were suspiciously identical to each other,  In other words, for every ten shots, I'd see some suspicious "twins" of ball speed.  Outputs that both read 2384, or other similar duplicates.  Now if it is supposedly giving accurate readings and not big ol' guesstimations, I shouldn't see this.  I should see 2386 or 2383 even if the actual spin was close.

[BIG STU]

I can't argue with anything here.   The more I use monitors and sim software, the less impressed I become with them.   That's because most of the general public's exposure to monitors and sims is NOT the pro tour Trackman with a highly trained operator.   It's with a lesser system manned by a college age kid in a starving-for-business box store.   Their primary motivation is to get you into a new set of clubs fast.   They'll do anything to achieve that goal because they're literally starving.  

 

If buyers would open their eyes, more and more people would come back from a commercial fitting session questioning what they just saw.   "Fittings" are necessary, I was first fit for clubs 35 years ago for Pings.   No one questions the utility of playing clubs that are fit and these days everyone can get those basic Ping fitting specs correct with little effort.   And a really good doppler fitting with a seasoned and unbiased operator is also very useful to the experienced golf club ho like Rookie and myself.

 

But the buying of clubs solely based on a half dozen launch monitor swings off an indoor mat is the height of absurdity.   Mini mall retailers would like us to believe that this is the proper way to buy clubs because it allows them to supplant the role of the green grass pro, who used to watch what you did on his range before he fit you for the clubs that often he would also customize for you.  

 

So with this our modern trade off, Joe Hacker has gone from putting himself into the hands of a seasoned PGA pro and club-builder, to a knucklehead in a mini-mall with a rigged machine trying to move his overstock before they shutter the store.   Are we better or worse off than before?

Very well said that last paragraph says my exact sentiments

[BIG STU]

Ok everyone on here knows I am a crumudgen or old fart or old school whatever you call me. I dont worry about numbers period. I do experiment some with clubs I have modified. The only modern machine I use is my friend's shaft frequency machine. For me I will test a club by many steps. If it passes my basic criteria on feel and eye appeal it goes to the range. If it passes there then it goes to the course on a practice round or two. In rare cases I dont modify a club at all and it will be playable for me. I have been on a simulator a few times and it did not impress me any. At a Tm demo that I was dragged to the TM rep did tell me I had the face open 2* or so at impact yep I know that and how else do you hit a baby cut with a outside to in swing. I just do it my way right or wrong by feel and sight. But I will say whatever floats your boat.

[Jmikecpa]

So today when I was in Golfsmith I should not believe that I was flying the new Cally V series past my gamer???? I figured since I was hitting a regular flex in bare feet I may have tapped into something positive for my game.

 

The reason that they do it is to just sell clubs. I would guess that about 80% of the people hitting balls at retail stores believed the numbers and think they can replicate these on the course.

[revkev]

I have to ask, how could you rig a monitor to give you better numbers for the first club than the second one in a series without touching the settings In between clubs?

[markb]

It depends on what you want to rig. I only caught them rigging the smash factors so that one club would show a higher clubhead speed than the other with the same swing.

 

Give me a couple of hours alone with it and I'm sure I could find other ways.

[sp0rtsfan86]

Interesting... When I got my set of clubs the monitor was actually on point with what I'm hitting my clubs now. I have to give those guys credit, I was shocked that it held up. I think the numbers they give you in monitors are full of it for the most part. 

 

Perhaps MGS should have everyone go to a store and see if what percentage fudge the numbers. I'd actually like to know that data.

[Salmon]

Everyone go to there local store and see how far they are off and we can post a leaderboard for the worst offenders?

[mnfats95]

I bought my current 3 wood from the PGA Superstore in Denver, CO.

 

I was out there for work and stopped in because I wanted to try out the latest 3 woods.

 

I had never hit on a good monitor before and honestly I don't know what kind they use.

 

But the guy who helped me had me hit mine first and then I hit about 5 others before finding "the one".

 

It was noticeably longer than any of the others, some by 30 yards.

 

I bought it and long story short it's every bit as far as it was on the monitor. My old 3 wood I could hit about 230 if I creamed it.

 

I've measured some 260's with my GPS with the new three wood. I believe on their monitor the furthest I hit it was about 255.

 

So I would say that shows that you can get some honesty sometimes.

[Tony Covey MGS]

Always enjoy these launch monitor threads, so I thought I'd hop in and address a few of the things that have been said in the various posts...

 

It's no secret that retailers will jack-up a launch monitor from time to time. Just about every LM has the capability to alter reality, but generally that feature is there for a reason. Altitude, temperature, humidity, and other variations of multiple "what if" scenarios can be altered to one degree or another in most units (FlightScope, Trackman, Foresight GC2, etc.).

 

While Dick's has switched most (if not all by now) stores to GC2, it's not uncommon to find aboutGolf systems in various retailers. The AG units have what they call a profile. Basically, the higher the profile value the farther the ball will generally travel . It was put there to account/adapt to various swing and launch conditions (limitations of the hardware really), but it can easily be exploited to create false distance.

 

Given that RB7 mentioned he selected 6 iron, I'm going to assume that was an AG unit (wind may have been on, but most likely the profile was boosted). In any case, there's no practical difference between setting it on driver, 6 iron, or wedge. No difference on the reported numbers. The designations exist largely for comparison (review) purposes.

 

I don't care what the unit is...if you're launch monitor is misreading one out of 15 or 20...that's pretty damn good. Top tier. Singling out GC2 for inaccuracy, particularly in an indoor environment, is well...misinformed. They all miss...and more than most people are comfortable admitting.

 

At the time of this writing (2:10 PM Eastern Time on September 15th, 2014), there is no better indoor launch monitor than GC2. You can take my word for it. You can believe me when I tell you that I've been told the same thing by fitters and R&D guys at no less than 4 OEMs (with really only one dissenting voice), or you can take a look at what those same manufacturers (and several others) use in their own indoor testing/fitting setups. 

 

It's GC2. Nearly all of them use GC2 indoors. 

 

Outdoors it's Trackman. Reps who have to pay for their own units, will often buy FlightScope to save money, but when you're at the Kingdom, or Ely Callaway Performance Center, or Titleist, or...or...or, it's Trackman.

 

Not that it has come up, but worth a note, neither of the major radar units give consistent, let alone accurate info on clubhead data for wedges. At least Trackman will display blanks and (*) to let you know that the data isn't reliable. GC2 with HMT gives accurate data for wedges.

 

Also worth a mention, guys inside the OEMs tell me that while it's generally consistent, clubhead data for radar units, even for drivers is not accurate...consistent, but not accurate. Again, if you want accurate and consistent, you need a camera based system (and the stickers for the clubhead).

 

I've done some side by side testing with camera systems and radar. Broad strokes here, but camera systems are generally more consistent. All of them will throw an anomalous reading in the mix from time to time, so in a head to head setting, you simply have to reconcile what you see with the two sets of numbers. When you've only got one monitor, you have to decide whether or not what you see is real. Of course, the more time I've spent with them, the more I've found that what I think I see isn't always supported by the data. Humans miss too.

[mnfats95]

I've done some side by side testing with camera systems and radar. Broad strokes here, but camera systems are generally more consistent. All of them will throw an anomalous reading in the mix from time to time, so in a head to head setting, you simply have to reconcile what you see with the two sets of numbers. When you've only got one monitor, you have to decide whether or not what you see is real. Of course, the more time I've spent with them, the more I've found that what I think I see isn't always supported by the data. Humans miss too.

 

Would you say that the easiest way to compare would be to bring your current gamer and compare it since you know what it can do?

[Tony Covey MGS]

Would you say that the easiest way to compare would be to bring your current gamer and compare it since you know what it can do?

 

Absolutely. Most of our swings vary from day to day (even hour to hour), but if you let your gamer serve as your control you don't have to worry as much about yardage or even ball speed. Instead you can focus on the simple concept of better. Is it better than your gamer?

 

Worth a note, we've found that the AG marked balls have a tendency to spin a bit more (they're range quality at best) than a 'normal' ball, so a system that allows you to test with the ball you play most often is always preferable. 

[wbealsd]

I find my GC2 to be quite accurate, but I don't mess with the settings to fool myself into thinking I'm Bubba

[RookieBlue7]

T,

I wasn't saying anything negative about monitors. I use them myself. I generally have my own clubs with me, but this day I didn't. I just found it funny that they had it jacked up that much. A few yards, okay I'll buy that for a dollar, but 30 or more? Nah, not with an iron. Lol. It was humorous, nothing more nothing less. Just wanted to bring it up more for entertainment value than anything, but to maybe get one person that didn't consider this "variable" to exist to think about it.

[revkev]

It depends on what you want to rig. I only caught them rigging the smash factors so that one club would show a higher clubhead speed than the other with the same swing.

 

Give me a couple of hours alone with it and I'm sure I could find other ways.

I have no doubt that a shot can be distorted what I'm questioning is how the machine could be preset so that it gets different sets of conditions on consecutive shots without operator intervention in between shots?

[markb]

Well, they did it in my case by pointing me to use a couple of specific color coded clubs that they had already set up on the main menu-- blue and yellow -- telling me they were ready to go, and to just toggle between them for my first and second clubs.   They also had several other clubs set up on the main screen that were used for other people's tests, but I didn't poke in those set ups.  

 

It took me some time to notice the difference between my blue and yellow clubs because you're staring at a grid with maybe 10 columns and 20 rows of output.   In my case I noticed that the CH speed of the blue and yellow clubs was really different.   So I flipped the order of which club I hit as "blue" and which I hit as "yellow".   The difference persisted, the slower club was always the second.   So I stopped swinging and started poking into settings.   One club had a saved smash factor of 1.45 and the other was saved at 1.38, and this of course produces different club head speed numbers. 

 

When I saw this, I realized my whole test was invalid because I could not be sure that the other pre-sets weren't rigged either.  While poking, I learned that when setting up a club template, you can use the default or you can manually pre-select a custom input to be associated with that club.  Then you name the "club", say "Hogan 6 iron", and save it.  The custom input selections don't show on the main screen.   The sim will usually supply fairly neutral defaults, but you can always alter those defaults to match your specific conditions, like altitude, wind, and roll-out.  An individual club can be saved with "tibetan monastery" or "death valley lake bottom" altitudes, even if the default is sea level.  You won't notice on the main screen unless you dig in the sub menus.  (I exaggerate, I don't think you can actually set altitude to below sea level.)

 

Smash factor alterations are a bit easier to see than say the Altitude or Roll out pre-sets because the SF (or "efficiency rating" as the GC2 calls them) will display on a secondary screen as a column of output "data" in order to mimic the way the doppler systems display actual readings of smash factor (which vary shot to shot).   Only in the GC2's case that column of "datapoints" will always read the same number for each shot 1.45, because it's not a read, it's a pre-set input.  

 

Roll out and altitude presets are harder to detect on the output screen.   Jacked altitude will only be visible as a 10-15% across the board boost in carry distances, while roll-out will show as this massive 30-40 yard bump in total distance as opposed to a normal 10 to 15 yard roll-out.   You can still "see" it in the grid if you know what you're looking for and you know that in general a certain Ball Speed with a certain spin should only give you a max carry of X, but how many neophytes know that?

 

I only noticed a difference in the Carry Distance and Total Distance after I was done.   I took a screen shot of my grid and compared it with a GC2 grid that another internet golfer had posted of his numbers using the same club.   I could see that our ball speeds, launch angles and spin rates were actually very close -- but our carry distances were about 10 yards off (I was shorter always) and our total distances were WAY off -- like 30 yards apart.   The only way this could happen is if his altitude, wind and roll out settings were turned way up and mine were either normal or turned down.

 

Why my Blue and Yellow store club saves were pre-set differently but being touted as a way to compare clubs is the $64,000 question.   By the time I noticed, my hour was about up, and I realized I would have to spend more time checking all the pre-sets (altitude, roll-out etc) then do my test all over-again.  I'd need another hour and a half at least so I quit and left.  

 

I think it would be interesting for someone who owns the machine with the Sim to post a print out of three grids, one turned super low, one normal, and one super high and we'll see what we get.

 

Addendum Regarding what Golf Spy T says about consistency between systems:

 

First, we'd have to define what we regard as "consistency."  In my experience, the Doppler systems are MUCH harder to set up and generate many more "no read" outputs -- instances where they simply don't catch the the shot and can't give you a number.   This can give the impression of fussiness, but I'd personally prefer that a bad read is tossed out altogether rather than a goofy number is presented to me as "real".   The GC2 is easy to set up and rarely gives you one of these "no reads" -- it'll just give you a suspicious outputs that cause you to go, "WTF?   How did that last drive have a spin of 1500 when no other shot today has been below 2800?"   So which is more consistent?