Trackman vs. GC Hawk/Quad - Number Readings

[iacas]

19 hours ago, slalomdude said:

Is there any way to easily figure out Swing Direction and VSP on Quad ? Thanks 

 

Swing direction you can do a little trig if you want, though you're going to be estimating the VSP, as that's not a data parameter the GCQuad or QuadMAX measure.

[slalomdude]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

 

Swing direction you can do a little trig if you want, though you're going to be estimating the VSP, as that's not a data parameter the GCQuad or QuadMAX measure.

Thanks for the reply 👍

[Stuart_G]

On 11/30/2024 at 1:18 PM, CallawayLefty said:

Does anyone have any kind of standards for the GC line similar to this for TM: https://www.trackman.com/blog/golf/introducing-updated-tour-averages

 

Or any rules of thumb?  I ask because if you’re a GC user trying to hit the numbers on this TM sheet…good luck.  You’ll just frustrate the crap of yourself trying to hit circus 7 irons that launch at 16.1 but also hit a peak height of 34 yards.  

 

Not sure why no one else commented on this yet - but one MAJOR problem you have here in your thought process is thinking that the tour averages are some type of ideal target you should be trying to achieve with your swing.  Nothing could be further from the truth.    All they are are averages, nothing more.  Plenty of tour pros have numbers higher and many have numbers that are lower - by significant amounts in both directions.    Where your numbers are in relation to those average numbers has very little bearing on how good your swing might be.

 

With the exception of maybe the driver - which can be optimized for distance.  There are no ideal or optimal numbers for the rest of the clubs in the set.   It's all about how you want to balance out your distance gaps vs green holding power for your swing and the courses you play.

 

If you need help figuring out how you might want to change your swing, find a pro you can trust.  Then any LM can be used to check for relative (before/after) changes to the numbers as you work on the recommended changes.

 

Edited April 23 by Stuart_G

[CallawayLefty]

13 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

 

Not sure why no one else commented on this yet - but one MAJOR problem you have here in your thought process is thinking that the tour averages are some type of ideal target you should be trying to achieve with your swing.  Nothing could be further from the truth.    All they are are averages, nothing more.  Plenty of tour pros have numbers higher and many have numbers that are lower - by significant amounts in both directions.    Where your numbers are in relation to those average numbers has very little bearing on how good your swing might be.

 

With the exception of maybe the driver - which can be optimized for distance.  There are no ideal or optimal numbers for the rest of the clubs in the set.   It's all about how you want to balance out your distance gaps vs green holding power for your swing and the courses you play.

 

If you need help figuring out how you might want to change your swing, find a pro you can trust.  Then any LM can be used to check for relative (before/after) changes to the numbers as you work on the recommended changes.

 

 

Yeah, I have kind of gotten used to it now as I have more time in with the Hawk/Quad.  I also have been on Trackman enough in that time to see that I do believe in some cases there are differences between the two.  My estimation is that I have seen generally lower attack angles and launch angles on Trackman than Quad.  I realize that there are videos comparing the two online showing that this SHOULDN'T be the case, but it has been my experience.  

 

I have also gotten comfortable that I launch the ball higher and have a peak height much higher than the advertised tour averages shown on the Trackman sheet.  But it is kind of hard to figure out where Trackman gets their averages.  For example, the average ball speed on PGAtour.com this season is 174 vs. the 171 Trackman shows.  So I don't know (and it's difficult to confirm) what this Trackman sheet is studying/where it pulled its data from. 

 

I have also watched enough pro golf out on the range (my favorite place to go when I go to tournaments) to see that ball flight is definitely not one-size-fits-all.  A lot of pros do hit very picky low shots with their irons, which I think is reflective of the Trackman data averages.  But then there are other guys (Jason Day being the best example I can think of) who hit the ball higher than I have ever seen anyone hit it...the hour I spent behind J. Day at Bay Hill on the range was an incredibly cool experience, by the way.

 

So I guess my takeaway is that I have tried to stop losing sleep over what the Trackman averages are.  They seem maybe a little off on reality (at least vs. the PGATour.com averages) and seem like there could be slight differences with Quad (again, I know in theory "disproven" in some cases...but not 100% my experience).  I think my swing continues to improve as I try to get closer to them, as a high launching/high peak height player, so I guess that's where I'll keep going.      

[Stuart_G]

11 minutes ago, CallawayLefty said:

So I don't know (and it's difficult to confirm) what this Trackman sheet is studying/where it pulled its data from. 

 

Because they are simply averages, I'm not sure it's really that's all that important.

 

11 minutes ago, CallawayLefty said:

So I guess my takeaway is that I have tried to stop losing sleep over what the Trackman averages are. 

 

That's good.

 

11 minutes ago, CallawayLefty said:

They seem maybe a little off on reality (at least vs. the PGATour.com averages)

 

Just realize that the each of the numbers are averaged independently.  So all the combined averages for each club doesn't necessarily represent an actual attainable shot.

 

11 minutes ago, CallawayLefty said:

 

I think my swing continues to improve as I try to get closer to them, as a high launching/high peak height player, so I guess that's where I'll keep going.      

 

I'd say that your swing continues to improve because you are putting effort into it.  The fact that your getting closer to the numbers is likely either 1) coincidence or 2) more like a self-fulfilling prophecy.    Correlation doesn't always mean causation.

 

But that doesn't really matter - as long as you're enjoying the process and the results (and can avoid the frustrations you were running into), that's all that's important.

Edited April 23 by Stuart_G

[CallawayLefty]

2 minutes ago, Stuart_G said:

 

Because they are simply averages, I'm not sure it's really that's all that important.

 

 

That's good.

 

 

Just realize that the each of the numbers are averaged independently.  So all the combined averages for each club doesn't necessarily represent an actual attainable shot.

 

 

I'd say that your swing continues to improve because you are putting effort into it.  The fact that your getting closer to the numbers is likely either 1) coincidence or 2) more like a self-fulfilling prophecy.    Correlation doesn't always mean causation.

 

But that doesn't really matter - as long as you're enjoying the process and the results (and can avoid the frustrations you were running into), that's all that's important.

 

Yup, process is doing fine.  I have been a steep angle of attack, high launch, high peak, out-to-in path player for as long as I can remember.  I spend most of my time focused on angle of attack and path, and then kind of let the ball do what it does from there.  Usually when those two are good, the results are good.  When I get to a more ideal place on those consistently, I'll work on launch.  Though launch has been creeping down both with swing work and some equipment changes.  I do notice it is VERY hard to bring launch down without steepening the AOA, but that's for another day.    

[CallawayLefty]

By the way, one other general comment on my original topic...I have noticed my overall numbers like distance improve with my Hawk over time (and by improve, I mean return to what they "should have been").  I think there are two reasons for this:

 

1. Indoor swing syndrome is a real thing.  I have plenty of room in my simulator to swing all the way up to driver and never come close to a wall.  But it honestly took me a few months to I believe not be subconsciously worried about that.  So while my driver ball speed had historically been in the 170 to 180 range prior to having my own simulator, I was having trouble cracking 170 for a few months.  That is definitely not the case anymore, as I know I can free swing just like I do outside...so my ball speed is back to where it was originally.  I think indoors just kind of messes with your head once you get in a space that is remotely confined.

 

2. My mat is very nice and easy to hit balls off of, but it is a little squishy and grabby.  What this means is if you hit an iron just a tiny bit fat, you're going to lose serious distance.  Since I have been working through AOA regardless, that was affecting me at first...but again, went away over time and all iron distances are "normal" now.