But it would show you exactly where your shaft is in time and space, where your center of pelvis location is in time and space and how it traces, how your pressure is transferred from foot to foot and what the vertical pressures are, where the max grip speed is, where the max clubhead speed it, how the arms are flexing, how the hips and shoulders are tilting and turning in time and space, how the shaft is loading and unloading, what the grip twist rate is in time and space, etc. It would allow you to isolate body parts, the arm motion for example, from the torso so you could see independent movement. It would let you view things in a global frame of reference or move the frame of reference around 3 dimensionally. It would allow you to remove parallax and distortions causes by a 2D camera not being set up exactly in the same location each time. It would allow you to hit shots with different pressures or feels and then see if the things changed that you expected to change.
It’s been that way since Allan Robertson. Apply speed-pressure to round thingy sitting on ground and watch it fly. If not happy with flight of round thingy change application until satisfied.
I’m talking about changing internal pressures or feels within the body and seeing if or how or how much those changes shift the biomechanical function of the swing. See if it matches what your expectations or attempts were. See if you need more of something or less of something. See if something you thought was happening really was. See if something you felt was happening earlier or later than you felt it. All kinds of good stuff a player could tap into.
Go see if your spaghetti sauce needs a bit more salt…
You’re a very odd individual who doesn’t add very much to anything.
A waste of money imo. Absolutely ludicrous. I have never seen a tour player promote GEARS as a viable option for really anything significant.
To be frank, its also sickening the cost for an retail golfer @ $900.00 a month for limited use even if a tour player promoted.
Just clearing up the “salt in spaghetti.”
A Trackman 4 is about $25,000. It’s incredibly common for instructors to own one or for their facility to own one. A quality simulator is $40,000-$50,000. Gears is about $40,000. It’s not something that a player, Tour or amateur hacker, would buy to own themselves. It’s something a high end teacher would have in a studio. It’s something a club manufacturer would own. It’s something a clubfitter, like Cool Clubs or True Spec, might own.
There are golf instructors out there making $250,000 a year. They’re booked solid months out. If someone wants unlimited access to their gears studio that is taking time away from their other lessons and from their ability to use the system in other lessons. So someone who wants that type of access is going to have to pay for it to compensate for lost lessons or time spent dropping other tasks to run it for them. $30,000 is about right to have unlimited access to a golf instructor and their studio.
And instructors across the board are moving toward monthly instruction plans. The arrangements are all across the price range spectrum. There are clubs out there with $50,000 initiation fees and $1,500 a month and $500 a quarter in food and beverage.
People have different goals and some people have money. And when you put goals and money together people will pay for time and access. Golf instruction is a business. It takes time and money to learn what you’re doing, it takes time to develop skills, it takes years of working for next to nothing to develop a reputation, and in lots of cases it takes $100,000 of investment to set up a teaching facility. Those guys aren’t giving it away for nothing. There has to be an ROI.
You be surprised. I wouldn’t be at all shocked if somewhere a few amateurs have or will have GEARS in their homes. No matter what score we shoot. If someone has the drive to improve… they will. We have a few guys here that bring their trackman and flightscopes on the range or even on the course (during slow days). Heck, even have a guy whose wife flies a drone while he plays. So he can see his game from different angles.
I just think $30k is a little steep for a year of use.But some will do anything to figure out this devilish hard game.It’s almost like the quest for the Holy Grail.
Imo people are being marketed and taken advantage both this technology and light equipment.
This is the wrong direction for the golf industry as a whole imo. The technology is ruining the golfing world w a super ball and a cannon.
We need more Harvey Penicks in the world.
I say we do a 180 and play hickory and gutta perch see how these 40-50,000 machines ROI out of a pot bunker or the hay in Scotland.
If I had the money and space I’d have a gears studio in my house. I’m not extraordinarily wealthy though and $40,000 isn’t an amount I would spend. But I would spend $15,000-$20,000 for a GC Quad with a sim screen if I had an extra room with the ceiling height necessary.
Are the older trackman supported software update wise ?
Or is it like apple products. When an iPhone or iPad get older they stop updating
Gears would measure the same stuff even with hickory shaft and gotta percha. Biomechanics are biomechanics. You can think people are being taken advantage of all you want, but the fact of the matter is that high end players are being captured in 3D and decisions about their games are being made with those captures. And there’s not a Tour range on this planet without a line full of orange boxes and Quads.
I’d love to see the ball standardized, limited, or rolled back to same degree and maybe equipment specs too. Mostly to protect older courses and to reduce the land and maintenance required to build and run courses. But we are where we are and I don’t see it going backward. I simply don’t see the purpose of a player who wants to be competitive banging their head against the wall railing against the game and hitting persimmon. Distance is critical, hitting shorter irons and wedges into greens is critical, reaching par 5s is critical, and hitting the ball with appropriate launch, spin, and descent angles is critical. The stats bear it out. You can disagree, but you are wrong. It’s been studied multiple times and the facts are what they are.
Older devices are supported from a firmware and software standpoint. Trackman customer support is great. There are yearly hardware and software fees.
But each release of Trackman improves. The current Trackman 4 is dual radar and camera. It can do things that previous radar models can’t and that’s reflected in the software capabilities.
Flightscope customer service leaves a lot to be desired, but their products are good. I have a Flightscope X2 Elite I bought used. The data is on par with a comparable Trackman unit. The software is nowhere near as good. Trackman’s TPS software is genuinely incredible.
Foresight products are a different animal. They are camera based, not radar.
There is also Uneekor. On a par with GC quad, about $5k less, and no annual subscription costs.
My big draw to radar or Quad is that it can be taken out of the sim room to the range or even onto the course. If I was going to spend $15,000-25,000 for a setup I’d want the flexibility to use it in other ways than just being tethered to my sim. But I wouldn’t really be using it for simulation. I’d be using it to work on swing mechanics. If someone strictly wanted a simulator for entertainment there are a handful of really good options.
…and after all that work is one awarded a white leather golf belt.
Then why doesnt Major League baseball allow for a different ball and stick. Your a tech guy good for you, but some of us dont give a rats ass about much of whats going on and want the ball and stick to stay the same as baseball, crickett and hockey.
And in regards to distance, the true long hitters are not in todays game. You are totally wrong. A persimmon driver would bring out the long hitters and there wouldnt be a heads pin on who they are. Technology is making it the driver the equalizer instead of Hogans wedge.
If MLB played w metal bats w the shortest hitters pumping them to the stands they would
Roll it fricken back. <<<<<
Just because golf has endless rolling hills doesnt make it right to pound supwr balls 380 yards
Thats just being stupid
I grew up on Scioto CC and OSU Scarlet and Muirfield Village . One is now obsolete bc its surrounded by residential roads. They cannot make it 7,500 yards. And its one of the beat in the country.
Technology is ruining alot of courses I agree
I’m not arguing about what it should or shouldn’t be. It is what it is and I’m not the one in charge of the direction of the game or the rules of the game. You are free to not care about the modern game. If you want to go to an old course and beat it around with persimmon then so be it. That is 100% fine and your right to do. But there are people with different goals. Junior golfers playing in national level tournaments, collegiate athletes, and those hoping to move up to the next level and play for a living. They have to adapt to where the game is and they have to be on a level playing field equipmentwise to their competition.
There have been numerous people who have done the analytics on golf. We have Shotlink. Mark Brodie has done it. Rich Hunt has done it. Scott Fawcett has done it. The way to maximize strokes gains is mapped out and it’s not debatable.
They’re awarded a red pill and the reality of golf swing mechanics.
It’s the same reason why people collect old classic cars. It’s very nostalgic swinging the old gear. And very beneficial to your game as well for overall club head and face control. It’s like playing a video game on the hardest difficulty. And than coming back to regular difficulty. The sweet spot will feel like a mile wide after hitting the old stuff. And it really does develop a better motion in general. You ever see the swings that the current gear is developing on ranges and courses world wide. It is promoting a wide to wide throw it from the top slash. The lighter shades are all about speed now. Accuracy isn’t at a premium. Now being 290 plus in the rough versus 255 in the middle is no big thing when you have current wedges and balls that stop on a dime
Last week I drove a 278 par 4 on a course that would be obsolete by tour standards. But back in the day. A 250 yard drive was like 300 now. So the 278 par 4 was not reachable but by the longest of the persimmon bombers.
The thing is the current pros are the ones really benefiting from the new tech. I don’t see amateurs improving very much at all. Infact I can even say that they are getting worse. As their understanding of the game with all these launch monitors is swing has hard and as fast as possible