Indoors or Outdoors?

[fixyurdivot]

Keeping this simple.  I have the option to conduct my bag fitting indoors (studio environment using Foresight GC Quad) or outdoors on natural turf using Skytrac.  Which would you choose and why?

[cnosil]

4 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

Keeping this simple.  I have the option to conduct my bag fitting indoors (studio environment using Foresight GC Quad) or outdoors on natural turf using Skytrac.  Which would you choose and why?

I'd do GC Quad since it captures more metrics about that actual club.  

[fixyurdivot]

14 minutes ago, cnosil said:

I'd do GC Quad since it captures more metrics about that actual club.  

I was wondering about that but honestly just not that familiar with pros/cons of the various LM systems.  

[ejgaudette]

I agree the Quad will give much more data that will help your fitting and really the only downside for inside is the turf interaction, but data about the club is worth it.

[Chip Strokes]

another vote for indoors. you eliminate all of the possible weather related variables. 

i’d hate to come away from my fitting doubting my numbers because i was hitting into a 10 yard hurting wind 

[dlow206]

If it was GCQuad or Trackman and outdoors, I would for sure pick outdoors. Want to see the turf interaction and real ballflight.

[ChitownM2]

Are both of these options available at the same facility? If yes, do your fitting indoors with the Quad and then take whatever you settle on outside and hit a small bucket to make sure you're ok with how it feels off real turf.

[McGolf]

Id take the quad information over the other. too much of a difference. 

I like out doors just for the fact of being outdoors, sunshine and wind etc. Turf interaction is mental during a fitting. I get the idea of hitting of turf is more for when the ball is in a divot etc. however if you cant it well when the lie is perfect your expectation of needing turf to hit it when the ball is down is misplaced. 

[dlow206]

45 minutes ago, McGolf said:

Id take the quad information over the other. too much of a difference. 

I like out doors just for the fact of being outdoors, sunshine and wind etc. Turf interaction is mental during a fitting. I get the idea of hitting of turf is more for when the ball is in a divot etc. however if you cant it well when the lie is perfect your expectation of needing turf to hit it when the ball is down is misplaced. 

What about hitting the ball fat? On mats, I can get away with hitting fat, with the shot looking decent, but on turf it would have been terrible.

[THEZIPR23]

If LM was same it would be outdoors every time. I have a skytrack and wouldn't use it for a fitting. 

11 minutes ago, dlow206 said:

What about hitting the ball fat? On mats, I can get away with hitting fat, with the shot looking decent, but on turf it would have been terrible.

You should be able to tell when you hit it fat. Whether it looks good on monitor doesn't matter. 

[cnosil]

What about hitting the ball fat? On mats, I can get away with hitting fat, with the shot looking decent, but on turf it would have been terrible.

The GC quad measures where the ball hits the face; fat shots on mats will show higher on the face. It isn’t about getting away with it. You know you hit it fat and the numbers will show that you didn’t hit it well

[dlow206]

7 minutes ago, cnosil said:

The GC quad measures where the ball hits the face; fat shots on mats will show higher on the face. It isn’t about getting away with it. You know you hit it fat and the numbers will show that you didn’t hit it well

That makes sense. I guess I have never had a proper fitting that went into that level of detail. 

[cnosil]

4 hours ago, dlow206 said:

That makes sense. I guess I have never had a proper fitting that went into that level of detail. 

Not really a fitting thing;  it is knowing how to read things on launch monitors.  This is also an important skill.  

[HardcoreLooper]

Skytrac outdoors?  I know it's possible, but I didn't think it was recommended.  Outdoors > Indoors, but GCQuad >>>>> Skytrac.

[fixyurdivot]

On 11/2/2020 at 12:36 PM, cnosil said:

The GC quad measures where the ball hits the face; fat shots on mats will show higher on the face. It isn’t about getting away with it. You know you hit it fat and the numbers will show that you didn’t hit it well

So the TrueSpec Scottsdale is indoors and uses GC Quad.  The Phoenix location is outdoors and uses Trackman.  Both gather club face at contact data. In this comparison video, they both measure ball speed, launch angle, spin rate, and carry very closely one to the other.  However, AOA and club path seem to vary quite a bit. To the extent this plays into driving fitting specs, that's a wee bit concerning.  It begs the question "which is correct"?

Trackman 4 v GC Quad | Head to Head | American Golf - YouTube

I have the option of doing one or both fittings (woods & irons) at one or the other locations.  I'm thinking perhaps woods at the indoor studio and maybe the irons outdoors.  This may involve two different fitters; don't know for sure yet as I haven't spoken to them yet.  With this new info, what are your thoughts? Would you still opt for the indoor...one fitter, one LM system...?? 

[cnosil]

36 minutes ago, fixyurdivot said:

So the TrueSpec Scottsdale is indoors and uses GC Quad.  The Phoenix location is outdoors and uses Trackman.  Both gather club face at contact data. In this comparison video, they both measure ball speed, launch angle, spin rate, and carry very closely one to the other.  However, AOA and club path seem to vary quite a bit. To the extent this plays into driving fitting specs, that's a wee bit concerning.  It begs the question "which is correct"?

Trackman 4 v GC Quad | Head to Head | American Golf - YouTube

I have the option of doing one or both fittings (woods & irons) at one or the other locations.  I'm thinking perhaps woods at the indoor studio and maybe the irons outdoors.  This may involve two different fitters; don't know for sure yet as I haven't spoken to them yet.  With this new info, what are your thoughts? Would you still opt for the indoor...one fitter, one LM system...?? 

Watched most of the video and I personally would still go Quad; it could be that I am saying that because I am more familiar with the quad and believe that it presents accurate information.   There are differences between both systems in how they measure data and they reading can be influenced by the club itself.   as the reviewer in the video said,  he would go quad.  

[ejgaudette]

On 11/28/2020 at 10:20 AM, fixyurdivot said:

So the TrueSpec Scottsdale is indoors and uses GC Quad.  The Phoenix location is outdoors and uses Trackman.  Both gather club face at contact data. In this comparison video, they both measure ball speed, launch angle, spin rate, and carry very closely one to the other.  However, AOA and club path seem to vary quite a bit. To the extent this plays into driving fitting specs, that's a wee bit concerning.  It begs the question "which is correct"?

Trackman 4 v GC Quad | Head to Head | American Golf - YouTube

I have the option of doing one or both fittings (woods & irons) at one or the other locations.  I'm thinking perhaps woods at the indoor studio and maybe the irons outdoors.  This may involve two different fitters; don't know for sure yet as I haven't spoken to them yet.  With this new info, what are your thoughts? Would you still opt for the indoor...one fitter, one LM system...?? 

The AOA and path make sense that they would be different. The swing speed is likely different in the woods as well. This all stems from the fact that Trackman actually tracks the center of mass, not the club face (which is what Quad mentions). They have mentioned this on TXG videos before. This is also why driver smash on Trackman gets up to 1.50 or a bit more, but Quad is usually more like 1.42 to 1.45. Also I know spin can be temperamental at times with Trackman, it still is best if you put the dots on them though it reads without them (just know if any trackman measurements are italicized then it guessing a bit). I also would pick Quad still.

[McGolf]

On 11/2/2020 at 1:17 PM, dlow206 said:

What about hitting the ball fat? On mats, I can get away with hitting fat, with the shot looking decent, but on turf it would have been terrible.

Not all mats are created equal, I use fiber built which will take a fat shot, and it will been seen by the LM

[fixyurdivot]

I spoke with the fitter who runs the outdoor facility in Phoenix and, based on my specifics, he is recommending doing both fittings at the indoor facility.  One of the key reasons is that I am not a heavy turf digger - doing fittings on real turf can be very important for those who throw heavy chunks of sod.  The other reason is that part of my interest in this fitting is to see just how well my first ever LM fittings were done back in 2018/19.  Since those were also done on GC Quad, it will be a better data comparison. 

Both fittings are scheduled the week after next... really looking forward to it.  Thanks for the input everyone!