Launch Monitor Distance vs. Real Distance?

[SusanLawless]

wondering what other golfers experience is who have used launch monitor when demoing or getting fitted for clubs...

does the distance, slice, draw etc. all correspond to the "real" experience when playing a real round of golf?

interested to hear your views...

[JMiller]

I sort of already touched on this in a different topic here is the link. http://forum.mygolfspy.com/topic/6465-real-distance/page__view__findpost__p__66819

[RoverRick]

Susan, welcome to the forum.

 

I can not speak much from personal experience because I rarely swing well on launch monitors. The results I get on a LM is nothing like I get out on the course. years ago, I bought a driver that was great at the store but out on the course it was nothing like at the store and I hated it.

 

Now days it is just the opposite. I hit them horribly on the LM and great on the course.

[The Dansome]

I always find launch monitors confusing. My driving average on the course is about 265-270 but I never seem to hit over 249 max on a monitor and there's a lot that only go 235 too.

[JBones]

I hit it stupid long, almost unbelievably long, on a launch monitor. I just purchased a new 3W (Adams Fast 12) and I was hitting it 271 on the average and had a few that went into the 280's. I pulled a driver off the rack and was averaging a 304 carry and had a couple that rolled out over 320. Now, I can hit both clubs that far, when the stars all align, but that is very rare and these numbers were consistent on the launch monitor. I thought maybe they had a 50mph breeze at my back or something, but the next guy jumped up with the same settings and was hitting a driver around 240 every time and said that was close to what he hits it on the course. It just has to be bad number interpretation on my part; I know I swing 120+mph a lot and when I hit one off the toe, it goes 260 and right......on the launch monitor that same shot goes straight and 310+. Needless to say, I don't put a lot of faith in the numbers the LM gives me. Now, with that being said, you can still get legit gains/losses between clubs, even if they are "juiced" numbers.

[revkev]

Good question Susan - I think it depends on the launch monitor and what the setting is on it. Here's the thing that you can trust - bring a couple of your current clubs along as a point of comparison - If you're testing drivers, bring your driver - while the distances may not be 100 percent accurate (I think they're more accurate than people would like to admit but that's a story for another thread) the comparisons will be. Same with the other clubs.

 

Ideally you would test a club on a launch monitor and on the course before you purchased it - that's not always feasable though. At least you can compare the club you're considering to yours. That's a must.

 

Good luck

[JBones]

I think they're more accurate than people would like to admit but that's a story for another thread) the comparisons will be. Same with the other clubs.

So now you're telling me that instead of overestimating my driver average, I'm really a 320 hitter like the LM says so??? I kid, I kid.

 

That was my point; you can't trust the numbers, but you can trust the difference between different clubs. Just in case someone doesn't understand what we're saying here.........even if the LM says you're hitting your driver 400 and you hit another one 390, you can trust that there is a 10yd difference between the two, whether the overall number is wrong or not.

[Matt Saternus]

I find that my driver distance is pretty consistent on the course. On the LM, there are some days when I'm longer and some days where I'm shorter compared to my on course numbers. I chalk most of that up to hitting driver over and over again without a "real" target.

 

Same thing with my irons, though that's more dispersion than distance.

 

I tend to get bored hitting into a net; I prefer to react to a target. It shows in my swing. I've gotten to the point where unless I have a very specific objective, I won't hit balls inside.

[revkev]

That's interesting Matt - when I'm on a monitor I get locked into the numbers - I want to get that 13 degree launch and 2,700 RPM, -200 1.5 smash factor special - I don't really pay attention to the distance because that will take care of itself if the other things are there.

 

JBones you're in that low handicap group that doesn't over estimate distances by very much - we're generally within 10 yards of being right with our driver and pretty much right on with the rest of the clubs. Plus it's hard to single one person out and say - that 18 isn't telling the truth about his distance - he might be dead on in that when he catches it flush he does hit it 280 and that's what he means by average distance - the problem is that if you put a hazzard that's 210 to carry in front of him he'll only carry it half the time - I carry the ball 220 and will carry that 210 hazzard 90 percent of the time because I hit it pretty well most of the time - you won't even notice the hazzard because you'll carry it with a miss hit.

[MmmmmmBuddy]

In order for LM numbers to accurately reflect golf course results, all things need to be the same. Including the ball YOU play. This is one of the most misunderstood parts of fitting drivers that I deal with every day. If you play with a premium ball (Pro V1, Bstone B330s, ect.) and you are using range rocks to test drivers, expect different results than you get on the course. I have worked with a Kudu LM for several years, and in my personal experience, I hit it around 20-30 yards shorter on the LM with rangers than I do out on the golf course with a premium ball. That being said, I fit myself with The Kudu and range rocks, and I am still playing the driver from 2 years ago.. (this is an eternity for me).

[apprenti23]

I've hit on trackman and launch monitors and all that good stuff and have found that the distance is VERY accurate for me (we're talking good quality ones, not dick's sporting goods or golf galaxy right? If so DISREGARD MY ENTIRE POST!)

 

However, I have a problem in that the trackman/LM have me with little to no dispersion, especially off the tee. I do try and hit it straight in real life, but there's no way in hell I consistently hit a 2-3 yard draw or 2-3 yard cut! I've found that they are fantastic as long as you're using face tape or dirty golf balls. Sometimes when hitting indoors the acoustics aren't all that great and hitting off of mats you may be a little unsure as to if you're getting true center face contact. Impact tape or dirty balls are a must!

[revkev]

In order for LM numbers to accurately reflect golf course results, all things need to be the same. Including the ball YOU play. This is one of the most misunderstood parts of fitting drivers that I deal with every day. If you play with a premium ball (Pro V1, Bstone B330s, ect.) and you are using range rocks to test drivers, expect different results than you get on the course. I have worked with a Kudu LM for several years, and in my personal experience, I hit it around 20-30 yards shorter on the LM with rangers than I do out on the golf course with a premium ball. That being said, I fit myself with The Kudu and range rocks, and I am still playing the driver from 2 years ago.. (this is an eternity for me).

 

Okay I have to back up here for a moment because I've often wondered about this. Golf Digest has done some testing with balls and there is only about a 10 yard range between premiums and 2 piecers. I don't know the deal with range balls because they don't test them. My question would be how the LM would know the difference. I'm not trying to be a wise guy I really want to know because I've often wondered this - My club head speed is my club head speed, my launch angle is my launch angle - but the ball I use impacts the launch angle and spin rate - how does the LM account for this.

 

I'm sincerely interested in this and have yet to read a satisfactory answer.

 

Thanks

[MmmmmmBuddy]

Okay I have to back up here for a moment because I've often wondered about this. Golf Digest has done some testing with balls and there is only about a 10 yard range between premiums and 2 piecers. I don't know the deal with range balls because they don't test them. My question would be how the LM would know the difference. I'm not trying to be a wise guy I really want to know because I've often wondered this - My club head speed is my club head speed, my launch angle is my launch angle - but the ball I use impacts the launch angle and spin rate - how does the LM account for this.

 

I'm sincerely interested in this and have yet to read a satisfactory answer.

 

Thanks

The biggest thing I notice when testing Premium balls v range rocks is the Ball Speed. What YOU bring to the table does not change. What you are imparting that force onto does. I don't have any real hard data that says "Pro V1's leave the face of a driver 32% faster than a range ball". But I can tell you that without a doubt, a premium ball travels faster than a worn out range ball. Every time. Faster ball speeds mean more distance. It is not a lot, but 5-8 mph in BS can mean 15-20 yards.

[Matt Saternus]

Okay I have to back up here for a moment because I've often wondered about this. Golf Digest has done some testing with balls and there is only about a 10 yard range between premiums and 2 piecers. I don't know the deal with range balls because they don't test them. My question would be how the LM would know the difference. I'm not trying to be a wise guy I really want to know because I've often wondered this - My club head speed is my club head speed, my launch angle is my launch angle - but the ball I use impacts the launch angle and spin rate - how does the LM account for this.

 

I'm sincerely interested in this and have yet to read a satisfactory answer.

 

Thanks

 

In testing dozens of different balls this year, I've seen big differences in ball speed and spin. Those two things put together can add up to 10 yards or better in a hurry.

[TwoSolitudes]

I don't use the monitors in golf shops and just assume they are all juiced. But I am a member of a golf simulator range which isn't trying to sell clubs, and based on the numbers I get there, I find that I am a longer on the real course than I am in the simulator, but that the general flight and spin seems about right.

 

I suspect that is due in a big part to the balls they use in the simulator, vs the ball I use on the course. And in fact I once took a TriSpeed ball in there, marked it with black ink and ended up with 5-10 yards more distance during the practice.

 

Those simulator balls are very hard pretty basic, and get used up pretty fast. I have actually cracked quite a few, and that sure isn't because of my swing speed. Not as bad as range balls, but I think it really makes a difference.

 

What I do find however is that sims are terrible for practising with full shots on AW, SW and other high lofts.

[revkev]

Thanks guys - that in and of itself could easily account for why many people find that their distances are shorter on an indoor monitor than what they experience for real on the course. I have asked this question countless times before and never gotten an answer I could trust. Between Matt and nicsherman I think I have it. Makes lots of sense.

 

JP will appreciate two stories and everyone else here will have to indulge me - sorry for the wandering Susan but you have to also realize that you've started a great thread just by the number of comments you're getting!

 

Story one is about my pro in Wisconsin - great guy - member of my church - he fit me for a driver in exactly the way that JP described. I asked him about a launch monitor and he said, "Why? We're outside and I can see what's happening." He was right we tried about every shaft/head combination that Titelist had until we found the best for me. He then sold me the club at his cost and it was stolen along with the rest of my clubs two weeks later. So he gave me his Ping G2 demo woods to play with and took care of the insurance issues. Wouldn't you know after all that fitting I was noticably longer with the G2 than with the Titleist he fit me for. He took me to a tee on the course with both drivers and two bags of pro vi's each with different markings on the ball - sure enough I really was longer with the G2. He ordered a G2 for me and one of my sons is still using it and hitting it great. In the pro's defense we only used Titleist equipment for the fitting but it was a lesson to learn.

 

Second story has to do with playing golf indoors on a launch monitor during the winter. Again Wisconsin where a season could go from Father's Day 'til Columbus day. I actually learned lots about chipping and putting on that monitor because you had to control the distance the ball went by the length of your swing/stroke. After that I started pacing off my putts and chips and I've found that I have far better distance control now than before playing golf indoors. I also learned how to cheat that monitor - set it for driver, hit sand wedge in the belly and you can rip off 300 plus yard drives right and left.

[Richie3Jack]

I went thru this recently on Trackman. It was saying that my distance, outdoors, with a 4-iron was 182 total yards. There's no way that it can be true as I never hit my 4-iron that short. In fact, later that day I played a course where a par-3 was marked at 205 yards, forced carry. I also had my dad's GP which came in at 205 yards and my Bushnell 1500 rangefinder which measured 205 yards to the stick. I flew it about 4-yards by and then it hopped and rolled about 10 yards total past the cup with virtually no help.

 

I was told that with Trackman, if they are measuring it indoors they put it on the indoors mode and it only measures the first 10-feet of ball flight and does the calculation from there. So even though I was hitting it outdoors, it may have had the indoors mode on. Also was told that Trackman should be calibrated from time to time to keep it accurate and another person told me that radar tends to read clubhead speed and speed in general about 1-2 mph slower than actual.

 

So for me, I was not too much of a believer of the actual accuracy of Trackman, but more into the consistency of the measurements. So I don't believe that I hit a 4-iron 182 total yards, but since it repeatedly measured that distance, if I hit one 190 yards, then I know I really connected with one because the machine has been precise if anything.

 

 

 

 

 

3JACK

[JMiller]

one of the first things that I do is check the LM settings to see if the shop has done something stupid to the settings to trick people using it. A lot of times the following two things that will effect carry and total distance. To boost the total by at least 5 or more yards. The best thing to do is bring in your current club to directly compare what you are looking to buy against the current.

 

Settings that are common distance boosters

~ Wind is set to 5mph or 10mph downwind

~ The ground is set to very hard

 

 

Like I was saying on my other post I figure that the conditions on the LM, I almost always feel I am getting robbed of about 2mph SS and 5mph Ball Speed. Various things could make that happen like i said. The Ball, the stable platform, feeling restricted, not target oriented, etc. I don't really look at the numbers in SS / BS on an indoor LM, I look at the spin numbers, launch angle, total carry, total distance to see if they are what I might expect out on the course just from watching the ball flight. I think a lot of good players can just watch a ball flight and tell about where they stance on those aspects but not exactly.

 

 

For me personally I find that indoor simulators are not my thing, I want to test outdoors as much as possible and not and some box surrounding me, I want a wide open area like a tee box or grass practice range that doesn't feel constricting and provides me a specific visualization on target and shot shape.

[dru_]

As much as I hate admitting this, Ball design has avery real effect on reality versus LM distances. Add in rubber tees, poor visual targeting and often inexperienced operators and you end up with a less than ideal situation with a LM.

 

I think that plays into it alot. Last time I was in a LM, I took both my own tees and balls :-), and STILL got some inconsistent results from what I get out in the real world.

[Tony Covey MGS]

As the risk of rehashing what's been said already...

 

• Almost nobody really knows how far they hit a driver. It's comical to me to hear people tell me that radar cheats them out of x number of yards. Nonsense... the radar units, and even the camera systems have been scientifically tested inside and out by independent labs, and OEMs alike. One OEM I spoke with told me they validated their primary (almost all OEMs have a big mix of technologies in place) LM of choice using NASA-grade stuff. If it wasn't accurate they wouldn't use it. To that end, the accuracy of many popular LMs is not really up for debate. Yes, there is a margin of error and yes, every device I've ever seen (FlightScope, aboutGolf, Trackman, and Foresight) are all capable of completely missing a shot, but generally speaking they all do an excellent job of measuring (and calculating) the stuff that matters.
• Unfortunately big box stores have given camera-based systems a bad name. Yes...they can, and are tweaked for the purposes of making sales. BTW...wind and dry ground conditions are a rookie move. The AG units for example have a profile setting. I can give you 20 yards, or I take away 40...it's all where I set the numbers - and it's all impossible to detect without digging into the guts of the system a little bit. But properly configured and calibrated, modern camera systems are very, very good, which is why nearly every OEM we work with has some form of camera-based launch monitor in their arsenal.
• The golf ball (as Matt and Nic have pointed out) is supremely important. If you're hitting low quality balls, easier than changing your club, I can cut your spin numbers and increase your distance simply by tossing you a new nugget. Incidentally...the golf ball is one of the reasons we still prefer to test indoors. We can use tour quality balls, and control the environmental conditions. Again, unfortunately, camera systems have been plagued by sub-standard balls (range quality stuff), which can result in distance and spin numbers that are questionable. The thing to remember is, it's not the camera system or the radar system, it's the damn ball.
• The systems that MGS has used all have their quirks. AG favors lower launch angles, Matt tells me ForeSight more or less assumes excellent contact, and FlightScope, which loves #s in the so-called ideal range, will produce better distance numbers outdoors than it will indoors. But again, it's not an accuracy problem in the truest sense. Outside radar measures the complete flight of the golf ball. Indoors, it tracks the ball for 14 feet and extrapolates the rest. The math is solid (see FlightScope's Trajectory Optimizer), however; as of this writing, FlightScope does not replicate all relevant environmental factors indoors. Which brings me to my next point...
• Nearly as much as the golf ball, environmental conditions matters. You want to see the same unit give you different numbers? Hit your driver when it's 75 degrees with minimal humidity, then go back and hit it again when it's 95 and humid. HUGE difference. It doesn't mean the radar is wrong, it means the weather changed.

As I said at the outset, the devices are accurate and reliable. More often then not the golfer simply doesn't like the data and assumes the launch monitor doesn't work well. Again...nonsense.

 

One final note for jmiller...the swing speed question is an interesting one. I'm fairly certain that aboutGolf over cooks the actual number and I'm relatively certain the radar units we use basically nail it. It's important for everyone to understand that as far as calculating ball flight is concerned, swing speed (accurate or otherwise) is what I would consider irrelevant data. Yeah...we all like to know exactly how fast we swing, but it doesn't matter to the LM. Ball speed matters, so does launch angle (both horizontal and vertical), spin axis, and spin rate. We only need swing speed to calculate smash factor, which is also a non-essential number (though I acknowledge some guys love it for fitting), but it can help us determine how accurate the SS reading is.

 

Since the theoretical limit (false, but close enough) for smash factor is 1.5, it give us something to work with when trying to figure out whether the system is giving us an accurate swing speed reading. If one produces 160MPH of ball speed with a swing speed of 110, the Smash Factor is 1.45. I'd call that pretty good (as an average), but not Bubba good. Now let's add 3 MPH to that swing speed...ball speed remains unchanged, and the smash factor drops to 1.41. Less good. My point is most of us... good players, average players...doesn't much matter, if we hit the ball on the proverbial screws, Smash Factor should be in the 1.48-1.49 range. If your best swings are producing smash factors in that neighborhood, then it's not a huge leap to assume the swing speed is right on.

 

This is exactly how we came to the conclusion that our AG swing speed numbers were high. In 2+ years of testing across all ability levels, I don't think we had a single shot produce a smash factor above 1.45. With the FlightScope we're starting to work with now, the same guys (with some of the same clubs) are routinely producing much higher smash factors with swings speeds that register 2-4 MPH slower on average.

 

Now it's entirely possible that FlightScope, Trackman, and everything else that spits back smash factors in the 1.48+ range has been getting it wrong from day 1 and nobody's thought to question it, but my thinking is, the higher readings (1.45+) are probably more realistic than the 1.38-1.41 that would result from higher swing speeds.