Approach
 |
| Was my approach play good or bad? |
Short Game
GG shows the same screen as approach. Once again no valuable information in terms of proximity, SG etc.
Putting to follow in part 4...
Friday, 1 June 2018
Gamegolf vs MyRoundPro vs Shotscope V2 Part 3
Continuation from part 2...
Approach
MRP breaks approach by distance; it shows proximity and SG per round and shot. The UI looks good but it is irritating to use and you cannot see an overview of SG for approach play. The overview used to be visible on the web page, another drawback of a mobile only approach.
GG almost meaningless. No SG drilldown, no proximity data.
No SG data but it shows detailed proximity data including a red zone. It also shows shots to finish (SF) (easier to understand than SG?) which can be broken down by distance, club, lie etc. A lot of data displayed really well on a rich web page.
Short Game
MRP follows the same approach for short game. A massive number of screens required to show relatively little information.
GG shows the same screen as approach. Once again no valuable information in terms of proximity, SG etc.
SS another excellent screen with a lot of information. Proximity, a red zone, up/down % and shots to finish.
Putting to follow in part 4...
Approach
Short Game
GG shows the same screen as approach. Once again no valuable information in terms of proximity, SG etc.
Putting to follow in part 4...
Gamegolf vs MyRoundPro vs Shotscope V2 Part 2
Continuation from part 1
Results and Analysis
I don't have a great deal of interest in the distance data captured by the devices. I know my distances very accurately due to extensive time on Skytrak, Trackman and GCQ. I am however interested in what insights the devices offer so the rest of this post will delve into this...
Overview
MRP aces this, it is immediately obvious where strengths and weaknesses lie. It has a good selection of Strokes Gained (SG) baselines and I have manually verified the accuracy of the calculation.
GG is ok, but the data is rather crude and because there is no strokes gained drilldown you cannot verify accuracy or dive into the details. It does have a selection of strokes gained baselines.
SS doesn't currently have an overview screen. This seems like a substantial shortcoming.
Driving
Results and Analysis
I don't have a great deal of interest in the distance data captured by the devices. I know my distances very accurately due to extensive time on Skytrak, Trackman and GCQ. I am however interested in what insights the devices offer so the rest of this post will delve into this...
Overview
 |
| MRP Overview |
 |
| GG Overview |
GG is ok, but the data is rather crude and because there is no strokes gained drilldown you cannot verify accuracy or dive into the details. It does have a selection of strokes gained baselines.
SS doesn't currently have an overview screen. This seems like a substantial shortcoming.
Driving
 |
| I didnt hit a shot into a hazard, but according to MRP I did! |
MRP is clear in terms of SG by club but the interface is clunky and you need to click buttons to swap clubs. It only allows Driver, 3W and other as categories. You cannot hover over the dots to see where/when shots were taken.
GG focuses on distance, no reference to SG. You can hover over the dots to see which hole/course/round it was captured which is excellent. The display can be filtered by any combination of club/round etc. Unfortunately the display is meaningless, hitting or missing fairways doesn't really matter as proven by SG.
Part 3 will cover Approach, Short game and Putting.
Gamegolf vs MyRoundPro vs Shotscope V2 Part 1
Introduction
In order to improve on course performance it is necessary to understand strengths and weaknesses within your game. That way you can practise hardest on weaknesses to try and improve overall. There are now a variety of options available for shot tracking but the way data is captured and stats produce vary significantly. I have Gamegolf (GG), MyRoundPro (MRP) and Shotscope V2 (SS) so it seemed sensible to compare them.
Method
Play golf (13 holes) using Shotscope V2 and record putting distances manually to check for accuracy.
Manually enter the same data into GameGolf and MyRoundPro.
Compare the resulting data.
Data Capture (Subjective)
SS couldn't be easier; wear the watch and play golf. When you hole out hold the watch over the hole and enter the number of putts taken. The data syncs via bluetooth to a mobile phone or via usb cable to a PC. For high accuracy putt distances to hole should be captured separately.
GGis somewhat intrusive (needing to tag every shot), but the process is slick and reliable. The unit is small and unobtrusive. For high accuracy putt distances to hole should be captured separately.
MRP (with Microsoft Band) was pretty good in my experience, although it didnt know which club was hit so you had to manually capture this separately. No tagging was required so the experience was unintrusive. The problem with this approach was the Microsoft Band or more specifically the band of the Microsoft Band - they split! I split 3 bands before giving up, it just wasnt fit for purpose.
MRP (with mobile). The mobile app is fairly slick but I dont want to play golf with a mobile phone in my pocket, let alone needing to use it after every shot.
Accuracy (Subjective)
All options appear pretty accurate in terms of tagging location. Gamegolf is pretty clever at 'guessing' the pin location. Shotscope doesnt guess it is reliant only on the accuracy of its GPS signal and in my experience it got this pretty close most of the time. MRP didn't attempt to guess pin location.
Post Round Editing (Subjective)
GGhas a very slick editor on PC. Distance to hole is shown when moving putts which is incredibly useful when you have recorded putt distances to the hole.
SS has a web based editor and it is reasonable. Frustratingly it shows shot distance, not distance to hole when moving shots. If you need to adjust a putt location this is very difficult. If the lie is incorrect (e.g. on green but marked as fairway) you cannot change this which leads to incorrect data.
MRP can only be edited on a mobile device. It used to be possible to edit on a PC but for some unfathomable reason Taylormade removed the website. Much like I don't want to play golf using a mobile phone I also don't want to do post-round editing on one. As a positive it does show distance to hole when placing putts.
Support Experience
SS is outstanding. I raised a support ticket at 10pm and by 10am the next day this was answered.
GG is good. I have raised a few tickets about rounds disappearing and they have been fixed within a few days.
MRP isn't supported from my experience. Course issues seem common and MRP/TM support dont fix them. You can raise requests and you will get a confirmation but nothing will be done. I attempted to point this out to TM via social media and their response was to mark the comment as spam!
This is becoming very long, results and analysis to follow in part 2...
In order to improve on course performance it is necessary to understand strengths and weaknesses within your game. That way you can practise hardest on weaknesses to try and improve overall. There are now a variety of options available for shot tracking but the way data is captured and stats produce vary significantly. I have Gamegolf (GG), MyRoundPro (MRP) and Shotscope V2 (SS) so it seemed sensible to compare them.
Method
Play golf (13 holes) using Shotscope V2 and record putting distances manually to check for accuracy.
Manually enter the same data into GameGolf and MyRoundPro.
Compare the resulting data.
Data Capture (Subjective)
SS couldn't be easier; wear the watch and play golf. When you hole out hold the watch over the hole and enter the number of putts taken. The data syncs via bluetooth to a mobile phone or via usb cable to a PC. For high accuracy putt distances to hole should be captured separately.
GGis somewhat intrusive (needing to tag every shot), but the process is slick and reliable. The unit is small and unobtrusive. For high accuracy putt distances to hole should be captured separately.
MRP (with Microsoft Band) was pretty good in my experience, although it didnt know which club was hit so you had to manually capture this separately. No tagging was required so the experience was unintrusive. The problem with this approach was the Microsoft Band or more specifically the band of the Microsoft Band - they split! I split 3 bands before giving up, it just wasnt fit for purpose.
MRP (with mobile). The mobile app is fairly slick but I dont want to play golf with a mobile phone in my pocket, let alone needing to use it after every shot.
Accuracy (Subjective)
All options appear pretty accurate in terms of tagging location. Gamegolf is pretty clever at 'guessing' the pin location. Shotscope doesnt guess it is reliant only on the accuracy of its GPS signal and in my experience it got this pretty close most of the time. MRP didn't attempt to guess pin location.
Post Round Editing (Subjective)
GGhas a very slick editor on PC. Distance to hole is shown when moving putts which is incredibly useful when you have recorded putt distances to the hole.
SS has a web based editor and it is reasonable. Frustratingly it shows shot distance, not distance to hole when moving shots. If you need to adjust a putt location this is very difficult. If the lie is incorrect (e.g. on green but marked as fairway) you cannot change this which leads to incorrect data.
Support Experience
SS is outstanding. I raised a support ticket at 10pm and by 10am the next day this was answered.
GG is good. I have raised a few tickets about rounds disappearing and they have been fixed within a few days.
MRP isn't supported from my experience. Course issues seem common and MRP/TM support dont fix them. You can raise requests and you will get a confirmation but nothing will be done. I attempted to point this out to TM via social media and their response was to mark the comment as spam!
This is becoming very long, results and analysis to follow in part 2...
Saturday, 27 January 2018
2017 Taylormade M2 vs Callaway Epic Sub Zero - GCQuad Data
Introduction
Following on from part 1 I managed to repeat my testing on a GCQuad.
Hypothesis
The Epic Sub Zero should be lower spinning.
The Epic Sub Zero should produce a longer carry distance.
Method
Within the limitations of my setup I tested by capturing multiple shots (not blatant mishits) with each club/config.
The clubs used were:
Taylormade M2 (9.5deg adjusted to 7.5)
Callaway Epic Sub Zero (9 deg)
The ball used was the TP5X.
Results and Analysis
Conclusion
I was impressed in part 1 but the data from GCQuad is amazing. Over the course of 15+ shots I averaged 20 yards greater carry.
It is now clear from the data, validated on 2 launch monitors the 2017 M2 doesn't suit me. The combination of slightly higher ball speed and significantly lower spin means the Epic SZ is way better in my hands. 20 yards equates to approx 0.06 strokes gained every shot which could be as much as 0.8 shots per round!
Following on from part 1 I managed to repeat my testing on a GCQuad.
Hypothesis
The Epic Sub Zero should be lower spinning.
The Epic Sub Zero should produce a longer carry distance.
Method
Within the limitations of my setup I tested by capturing multiple shots (not blatant mishits) with each club/config.
The clubs used were:
Taylormade M2 (9.5deg adjusted to 7.5)
Callaway Epic Sub Zero (9 deg)
The ball used was the TP5X.
Results and Analysis
M2 Shot
Epic SZ Shot
Conclusion
I was impressed in part 1 but the data from GCQuad is amazing. Over the course of 15+ shots I averaged 20 yards greater carry.
It is now clear from the data, validated on 2 launch monitors the 2017 M2 doesn't suit me. The combination of slightly higher ball speed and significantly lower spin means the Epic SZ is way better in my hands. 20 yards equates to approx 0.06 strokes gained every shot which could be as much as 0.8 shots per round!
Friday, 26 January 2018
2017 Taylormade M2 vs Callaway Epic Sub Zero
Introduction
I used to have the 2016 M2 which was superb. However, the face caved in so I got sent a replacement which was the 2017 M2. As soon as I got it I noticed an increase in average spin from approx 2300rpm to 3000rpm. Looking into the data I also noticed I never got really low spin (<2000 rpm). In almost 2000 shots I didnt have a single one recorded below 2000 rpm compared to my 2016 M2 which had approx 17% below 2000 rpm. More worryingly 38% of my shots were >3000 rpm (2016 M2 = 23%). This was confirmed when using it on course where the ball would stall and not roll out, especially into the wind.
As a lefty I struggled to find somewhere that I could test the Epic Sub Zero so I bought one, along with an additional shaft.
Hypothesis
The Epic Sub Zero should be lower spinning.
The more appropriate shaft should be lower launching and spinning.
Method
Within the limitations of my setup I tested by capturing multiple shots (not blatant mishits) with each club/config.
The clubs used were:
Taylormade M2 (9.5deg adjusted to 7.5)
Callaway Epic Sub Zero (9 deg)
For the sub zero the shafts tested were:
Hzrdus T800, 55g, 5.5 Flex
Hzrdus Yellow, 63g, 6.5 Flex
The ball used was the TP5X.
Results and Analysis
I used to have the 2016 M2 which was superb. However, the face caved in so I got sent a replacement which was the 2017 M2. As soon as I got it I noticed an increase in average spin from approx 2300rpm to 3000rpm. Looking into the data I also noticed I never got really low spin (<2000 rpm). In almost 2000 shots I didnt have a single one recorded below 2000 rpm compared to my 2016 M2 which had approx 17% below 2000 rpm. More worryingly 38% of my shots were >3000 rpm (2016 M2 = 23%). This was confirmed when using it on course where the ball would stall and not roll out, especially into the wind.
As a lefty I struggled to find somewhere that I could test the Epic Sub Zero so I bought one, along with an additional shaft.
Hypothesis
The Epic Sub Zero should be lower spinning.
The more appropriate shaft should be lower launching and spinning.
Method
Within the limitations of my setup I tested by capturing multiple shots (not blatant mishits) with each club/config.
The clubs used were:
Taylormade M2 (9.5deg adjusted to 7.5)
Callaway Epic Sub Zero (9 deg)
For the sub zero the shafts tested were:
Hzrdus T800, 55g, 5.5 Flex
Hzrdus Yellow, 63g, 6.5 Flex
The ball used was the TP5X.
Results and Analysis
Ball speed is higher with the Epic in all configurations.
Launch Angle significantly lower with Hzrdus Yellow.
Spin rate lower with Epic, especially with hzrdus yellow shaft and weight in the forward position.
This graphic compares the M2 with the high tee Epic SZ. Dispersion is markedly better in both dimensions.
Conclusion
It is hard not to enthuse about the Epic SZ. With my delivery numbers I picked up 2mph of ball speed over the M2. This combined with the lower (and now optimal) spin number lead to a 10 yard gain which is highly impressive.
Next Steps
Try to repeat the testing on a GC Quad to capture some additional data.
On course testing.
Monday, 6 November 2017
Callaway Apex CF16 vs Apex UT
Introduction
I switched to the Callaway Apex CF16 irons at the start of summer and at the time couldnt decide between using the CF16 3 iron or Apex UT 2 iron as a driving iron. I therefore decided to do what any sensible person would and got both so I could compare the performance.
Hypothesis
The Apex UT is 1" longer than the CF16 so it should produce higher ball speed and therefore more distance?
Method
Within the limitations of my setup I tested by capturing 10 shots (not blatant mishits) with each club. The ball was used from a small tee to simulate using this as a driving iron.
The clubs used were:
Callaway Apex CF16 3 Iron (19 deg)
Callaway Apex UT (18 deg)
The ball was the Callaway Chrome Soft.
Results and Analysis
They are incredibly close. On this test the Apex UT produced 1mph more ball speed (on average) and 1 yard more total distance. It launched 0.6deg lower than the CF16 and its peak height was 1 yard lower.
Conclusion
Subjectively I love the Apex UT. It feels superb and has a more muted sound than the CF16. However, the performance of the CF16 should not be underestimated and these results suggest little to no difference despite it being 1" shorter.
When I practise at home using a tee with irons I struggle with high-face strikes and this test was no different. Because my practise mat is only used by me the pile of the mat is still very plush and teeing the ball above this means the ball is way higher than I would encounter on a golf course. This results in drastically reduced ball speeds which shows in the data and could affect the results slightly?
Next Steps:
Retest without a tee.
Introduce additional clubs to the test.
Perform on course testing?
I switched to the Callaway Apex CF16 irons at the start of summer and at the time couldnt decide between using the CF16 3 iron or Apex UT 2 iron as a driving iron. I therefore decided to do what any sensible person would and got both so I could compare the performance.
Hypothesis
The Apex UT is 1" longer than the CF16 so it should produce higher ball speed and therefore more distance?
Method
Within the limitations of my setup I tested by capturing 10 shots (not blatant mishits) with each club. The ball was used from a small tee to simulate using this as a driving iron.
The clubs used were:
Callaway Apex CF16 3 Iron (19 deg)
Callaway Apex UT (18 deg)
The ball was the Callaway Chrome Soft.
Results and Analysis
They are incredibly close. On this test the Apex UT produced 1mph more ball speed (on average) and 1 yard more total distance. It launched 0.6deg lower than the CF16 and its peak height was 1 yard lower.
Conclusion
Subjectively I love the Apex UT. It feels superb and has a more muted sound than the CF16. However, the performance of the CF16 should not be underestimated and these results suggest little to no difference despite it being 1" shorter.
When I practise at home using a tee with irons I struggle with high-face strikes and this test was no different. Because my practise mat is only used by me the pile of the mat is still very plush and teeing the ball above this means the ball is way higher than I would encounter on a golf course. This results in drastically reduced ball speeds which shows in the data and could affect the results slightly?
Next Steps:
Retest without a tee.
Introduce additional clubs to the test.
Perform on course testing?
Thursday, 14 September 2017
Skytrak vs R Motion Part 1
Introduction/Disclaimer:
I did not purchase my R Motion unit, I was asked to use the device and provide feedback to Rapsodo. Getting injured greatly slowed this process down but I have now managed to capture some data and compare it to my Skytrak.
Accurate simulation golf is expensive with the ST marking the current entry point. The R Motion is significantly cheaper and does not measure the ball launch characteristics. It is a clip based system which is attached to the club before the ball is hit.
Can the very affordable R Motion provide sufficiently accurate data to TGC in order to dramatically lower the barrier to entry into simulation golf?
Can it provide additional data which could be used to supplement the highly accurate ball data provided by the ST?
Method:
Within the limitations of my setup I tested by capturing 5 solid shots (not blatant mishits) with multiple clubs. Shots were struck from a soft range mat. Using this mat I have noticed shots launch higher and travel less distance compared to a firmer mat or turf. Spin rates are also higher and less variable than those encountered playing 'real' golf.
R Motion version was 1.3.0
ST version was 2.6.5
The ball used was:
Callaway Chrome Soft
The clubs used were:
PW (45°)
7 Iron (31°)
5 Iron (24°)
3 Iron (19°)
The clip position was measured on each club and the actual lofts were also entered into the R Motion configuration to provide maximum accuracy.
Results and Analysis:
Ball speed is calculated well. As previously noted fractional mishits reduce ball speed slightly and I think this explains why the R Motion ballspeed is generally a little higher. Of additional interest are the three shots where I caught the mat first. It wasn't sufficient to drop ball speed drastically but the R Motion could not tell when strike occurred which led to a large difference.
Excellent correlation with ST.
The R Motion sets its target line at the start of the takeaway (where the clubface is pointing). Obviously this can vary from the ST target line but in general they show a good correlation.
An aggregated summary:
I think this is impressive. In terms of simulation golf you need to know where the ball would have gone. The R Motion is within 3 yards of the Skytrak for L/R and within 3% of the Skytrak for carry distance.
Source data can be found here.
Conclusion
"Can the very affordable R Motion provide sufficiently accurate data to TGC in order to dramatically lower the barrier to entry into simulation golf?"
I think the above proves it can. I dont think this is a game improvement tool like the Skytrak but it is a simple to use entry point into golf simulation.
"Can it provide additional data which could be used to supplement the highly accurate ball data provided by the ST?"
I hope so and this is what really interests me. In theory data from this (or a Skypro etc) could be merged with the Skytrak data to provide accurate ball and club data. At this point it could become a component of a hugely powerful game improvement tool.
I did not purchase my R Motion unit, I was asked to use the device and provide feedback to Rapsodo. Getting injured greatly slowed this process down but I have now managed to capture some data and compare it to my Skytrak.
Accurate simulation golf is expensive with the ST marking the current entry point. The R Motion is significantly cheaper and does not measure the ball launch characteristics. It is a clip based system which is attached to the club before the ball is hit.
Can the very affordable R Motion provide sufficiently accurate data to TGC in order to dramatically lower the barrier to entry into simulation golf?
Can it provide additional data which could be used to supplement the highly accurate ball data provided by the ST?
Method:
Within the limitations of my setup I tested by capturing 5 solid shots (not blatant mishits) with multiple clubs. Shots were struck from a soft range mat. Using this mat I have noticed shots launch higher and travel less distance compared to a firmer mat or turf. Spin rates are also higher and less variable than those encountered playing 'real' golf.
R Motion version was 1.3.0
ST version was 2.6.5
The ball used was:
Callaway Chrome Soft
The clubs used were:
PW (45°)
7 Iron (31°)
5 Iron (24°)
3 Iron (19°)
The clip position was measured on each club and the actual lofts were also entered into the R Motion configuration to provide maximum accuracy.
Results and Analysis:
In order to accurately simulate the shot outcome the R Motion needs to capture/calculate the basic launch parameters and I think it does an excellent job.
The result of these measurements
An aggregated summary:
Source data can be found here.
Conclusion
"Can the very affordable R Motion provide sufficiently accurate data to TGC in order to dramatically lower the barrier to entry into simulation golf?"
I think the above proves it can. I dont think this is a game improvement tool like the Skytrak but it is a simple to use entry point into golf simulation.
"Can it provide additional data which could be used to supplement the highly accurate ball data provided by the ST?"
I hope so and this is what really interests me. In theory data from this (or a Skypro etc) could be merged with the Skytrak data to provide accurate ball and club data. At this point it could become a component of a hugely powerful game improvement tool.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)