First Look: Foresight GCQuad Launch Monitor
News

First Look: Foresight GCQuad Launch Monitor

First Look: Foresight GCQuad Launch Monitor

Trivia question: What’s the #1 Launch Monitor in the World?

I can hazard (or is it HZRD now?) a guess as to your answer.

If your metric is the number of units sold and in use by PGA Professionals, indoor fitting, and retail locations, major equipment manufacturers, along with more than a few entertainment venues and home installations, the answer, by no small margin, is Foresight GC2.

With something in the ballpark of 10,000 units in the field, it’s the most widely-used launch monitor on the planet.

Didn’t see that one coming, did you, Trebek?

gcquad-5

The Official Launch Monitor of MyGolfSpy

Hopefully, you’re aware that MyGolfSpy uses Foresight GC2 launch monitors for nearly every bit of club testing we do. In fact, we’re about to start our third full season of testing using GC2 launch monitors. The technology has unquestionably made our testing better (and easier), which is no small thing considering the volume of work we do. Perhaps as interesting; when we started looking for a new launch monitor, Foresight was barely on our radar.

I was first introduced to the Foresight GC2 by TaylorMade’s Chief Technology Officer, Benoit Vincent. You guys remember the time shooting my mouth off got me in a ridiculous haircut, right? Well, after my trim (and painting), Benoit and I were talking about club testing, launch monitors, and whatnot. I distinctly remember him telling me that if we’re serious about testing, we should consider using this thing called GC2.

He brought me inside one of the hitting bays at the TaylorMade Kingdom and showed me a gadget smaller than most shoe boxes. Enthusiastically, he told me that the device from a company called Foresight had replaced the in-house technology that previously filled the entire hitting bay. More accurate, and unlike their literal garage’s worth of technology, the GC2 was also completely portable.

It sounded interesting, but in late 2011 our testing was still in its infancy, and we weren’t really in the market for a launch monitor.

Fast Forward to 2013. Having wrapped up our 2013 Most Wanted Driver test, we undertook a sizable effort to expand and improve our testing program. Over the span of several months, we had conversations with R&D guys at four different golf companies. While a good bit of the conversation was about testing methodologies, number crunching, and how to go about testing 25 different clubs at once, invariably the conversation turned to launch monitors.

As we talked about our testing plans and our need for technology that could provide consistent and reliable ball and head information those R&D guys each made the same unsolicited suggestion.

Foresight. Without question and without disagreement, Foresight. And so that’s what we got.

For nearly three years, and across two Most Wanted Driver a Most Wanted Iron Test, and countless one-offs we’ve depended on Foresight’s GC2 with HMT, and we haven’t looked back.

Today, we look forward.

A 6 Year Run

The original Foresight GC2 was released in early 2010. The HMT add-on was released three years later, but otherwise, save a few generations of software updates, the largely unchanged system has more than held its own against everything else on the market.

Mizuno-Boron-Iron-100-19

But hey, this is technology we’re talking about. Everything gets replaced eventually, and so after an outstanding 6-year run, Foresight is ready to launch its successor to the GC2.

The GCQuad

“The GCQuad represents the pinnacle of innovation, design, and engineering. Built from the ground up with leading-edge technology and state-of-the-art optics, the compact, ruggedized GCQuad delivers both ball and club performance data with unprecedented accuracy and reliability.”

gcquad-1

Five years in the development, Foresight’s newest technology, the GCQuad, will officially launch at the upcoming PGA Show. Like the GC2, all of its key components – the cameras, lenses, circuit boards and other electronics – were all developed in-house by Foresight’s engineering team. There’s no repurposing of parts, everything in the GCQuad was designed specifically for use in Foresight launch monitors.

Billed as the industry’s first quadroscopic launch monitor, the GCQuad’s overhauled chassis holds four cameras. In addition to doubling the optics, Foresight moved the cameras farther apart, creating a wider field of view. With four cameras providing four unique perspectives, the GCQuad can perceive even the most subtle changes in angle and rotation.

Effectively we’re talking about a higher resolution system that offers significantly tighter tolerances (standard deviations for measurements have been cut in half); raising launch monitor reliability to a new level.

The under-the-hood stuff is why the GCQuad can deliver ball and head data more accurately than any other launch monitor on the planet, but it’s hardly the whole of the GCQuad story. Foresight has rolled in a significant number of usability improvements that fall under what Foresight calls You-Asked-For-It Upgrades. We’re talking about features that made it into the GCQuad because end-users asked for them.

gcq-massive

Here’s the rundown:

  • Target Alignment Stick – It’s fair to say that aligning the GC2 with an outdoor target wasn’t the most precise operation. That’s fixed with the GCQuad. The new model ships with a reflective alignment stick. Point the stick at the target, press a couple of buttons. Boom precise alignment. Seriously, it’s every bit as easy as I just made it sound.
  • Larger Outdoor Viewable Display –A larger, easier to read display provides shot info and quick access to menus. The ball and head data displayed is customizable, so that what matters most to you will always be visible on the screen.
  • Expanded Ball Capture Area – With GC2 the ball needs to be positioned within a relatively small hitting area. By comparison, the hitting area for the GCQuad is massive. Not only will this reduce the time users spend rolling balls around, but it should eliminate the need to move the device when moving from a tee to the fairway and back (particularly indoors, off mats).
  • Greater Device Connectivity – Connect your computer to the GCQuad via WIFI, Ethernet, or USB.
  • Built-in Barometric Pressure Sensor – Automatically adjusts ball flight algorithms based on altitude, providing more precise down-range measurements.
  • Swappable Lithium-Ion Battery – GCQuad’s battery should last about 10 hours, but there may be times when you need to swap or replace a battery. The GCQuad allows for simple, tool-less, battery replacement by the end-user.

gcquad-3

If that wasn’t enough, the new model has a weatherized rugged outer shell to protect the cameras and other internal bits. Impact has been tested up to 60MPH, and while that may not sound like a lot, considering where the GCQuad is positioned relative to the golf ball, you’d need to hit the mother of all power shanks to do any damage.

The GC2’s flash unit has been replaced by solid-state LED lighting, which eliminates the need for the occasional flash replacement.

The HMT functionality has been integrated into the GCQuad. Unlocking its full capabilities, which now include the ability to capture putter data (both ball and head), will require an additional license. All users will be able to record swing speed regardless of their licensing level.

Also in development and expected to be released soon is a more user-friendly and easy to read (in sunlight) iPad app. Stay tuned for more details on that.

 

gcquad-4

Trade-In, Trade-Up, and the Pre-Owned Market

To coincide with the launch of the GCQuad, Foresight will be implementing an aggressive trade-in program. The goal is to incentivize current Foresight owners to upgrade to the new technology, while at the same time to create something a certified pre-owned launch monitor program.

During the in the first few months of release, only existing users will be able to purchase the GCQuad. Foresight is predicting heavy demand for the new unit, and they want to ensure that loyal customers who want to upgrade won’t have to wait in line.

Users who trade-in an HMT will have club data capture enabled for no additional charge and anyone who purchased a GC2 after December 1, 2016, will get maximum value on their trade-in, including the HMT.

While a new GCQuad may be outside the price range for the average consumer and even small pro shops, Foresight’s trade-in program will create opportunities to purchase certified pre-owned GC2s at discounted prices. This has the potential to breakdown some of the barriers to ownership and help bridge the market gap between the consumer and the professional.

gcqtrade

COMING SOON – FORESIGHT PEAK PROGRAM

Later this year Foresight will launch its Peak Program, an educational platform powered by top instructors, PGA Professionals, the newly formed advisory board, and Foresight’s growing list of brand ambassadors. As some of the world’s top coaches join the Foresight team, you should expect to see some faces you know contributing to the learning suite.

Check Out the Foresight GCQuad at This Month’s PGA Show

While the release of the GCQuad is particularly exciting for us, this is just the beginning of what’s shaping up to be a very big year for Foresight Sports. There’s more news in the pipeline, which we look forward to sharing with you in the coming months.

In the meantime, if you’ll be in Orlando later this month, swing by the Foresight booth to check out the GCQuad.

Pricing and Availability

The Foresight GCQuad is expected to begin shipping this spring. Pricing will be announced when the GCQuad officially launches at the 2017 PGA Show later this month.

Fore more information, visit ForesightSports.com.

For You

For You

Golf Shafts
Apr 14, 2024
Testers Wanted: Autoflex Dream 7 Driver Shaft
News
Apr 14, 2024
A Rare Masters ‘L’: Day Asked To Remove Sweater
Drivers
Apr 13, 2024
Testers Wanted: Callaway Ai Smoke Drivers
Tony Covey

Tony Covey

Tony Covey

Tony is the Editor of MyGolfSpy where his job is to bring fresh and innovative content to the site. In addition to his editorial responsibilities, he was instrumental in developing MyGolfSpy's data-driven testing methodologies and continues to sift through our data to find the insights that can help improve your game. Tony believes that golfers deserve to know what's real and what's not, and that means MyGolfSpy's equipment coverage must extend beyond the so-called facts as dictated by the same companies that created them. Most of all Tony believes in performance over hype and #PowerToThePlayer.

Tony Covey

Tony Covey

Tony Covey





    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

      Drake Nez

      5 years ago

      Great article Tony. Here we are two years later with the Quad out and now the Hawk is out as well. Absolutely amazing new products for really dialing in that swing and fixing some problem areas.

      I’m behind the curve aways, I actually picked up a pre-owned GC2 with HMT from shopindoorgolf.com for $8600. Been hounding the wife for years to let me get one and this trade in program finally worked in my favor.

      I really like having that club head and smash factor data. I hit in the mid 90’s so I have a lot of room to improve on, I’ve dropped 3 handicap points so far. Lessons played a big part of that and then practicing with the GC2 really helped me to focus on my problem areas.

      Hopefully in the future I’ll get to upgrade to one of the newer systems.

      Reply

      Joey

      7 years ago

      I have a GC2-T model for my son that I want to upgrade since it always needs a power supply attached. I am curious if the new cameras have advanced the approximate distance of ball carry or is that just for club head data. I have found big differences in similar iron shots +- 20 yards.

      Reply

      Frank Tower

      7 years ago

      Fantastic article about GC4, I wish I could get one. I think this space is due for a shakeup. 18k for GC4 or TM is way too expensive. Es16 to be seen but I have played with that at PGA and I was not impressed. I wonder Rapsodo, the maker of Skytrak will disrupt this space or not.

      Reply

      Ben Marchio

      7 years ago

      Yours for only $18,000!

      Reply

      Justin Hutson

      7 years ago

      I’d like to know the price of the quad.

      Reply

      Ben Marchio

      7 years ago

      $15,000 and $18,000
      You get two options with the GCQ

      Reply

      Justin Sandler

      7 years ago

      Could agree more. GC2/HMT and GCQuad out performs everything. Why guess when you can measure.

      Reply

      Sean Cartwright

      7 years ago

      GC2 HMT/GC QUAD are the best out there! Easily⛳️

      Reply

      Older_not_Wiser

      7 years ago

      After a couple of serious (cold) days researching launch monitors and (as an engineer) trying to understand what is measured and what is estimated/computed, and what’s best for my indoor/outdoor situation. I haven’t found anything on the internet that seems a thorough and unbiased as what I’ve read here. Tony’s doing a great impartial job it seems, based on my first visit. If he weren’t honest on this (or any) topic, it would prejudice his entire site/business model.

      Reply

      Joel K

      7 years ago

      I think tour players will stick with radar. They need to know exactly what their real world balls are doing in the real world conditions that day. Teaching pros, indoor simulators and product testers are better off using a controlled environment like Foresight. The obvious unfilled niche is a simulator that allows multiplayer rounds of golf with friends over the internet or at home / parties. Does is need to be $2k, $1k or $500? I also think that will grow the game since that’s how the next generation will get hooked.

      Reply

      Syn47

      7 years ago

      I attended a few of the Fall series events out on the PGATour. I counted 1 Foresight at Safeway and 2 Foresight at the Shriners event. The number of TrackMan goes without mentioning, 50+ at each event easily. I’m with many of you, it’d be interesting to see what this does in the major markets and at what price point. Success on Tour will be #1, until you see it more than anything else it’ll be a tough sell to the masses.

      If they charge $15-18K for this new model, the TrackMan 3 will still be the preferred machine at a better price with no strings attached (no dots, bigger hitbox, etc.). Once you get to the TrackMan Software its Game Over.

      Surprised to see this come out after TrackMan was the preferred device for the K-Sig study, which was sure to be one of your most viewed and shared reviews.

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      As I’ve said continuously, each unit has strengths and weakness. I’ve talked about strengths here, but I think it’s fair to discuss weaknesses. One of the things we can’t do with Foresight is measure actual full flight distances (note that both Trackman and Foresight have tolerances in this regard and neither is precise to the degree that some assume). In 99% of our use cases, this isn’t an issue. It’s physics, right? If a ball leaves the face at a speed of X, launch angle of Y, axis tilt of Z (along with some other variables) you will get the same number every time, provided identical conditions. The ability of a camera system to precisely measure initial launch conditions is in-part why the results are so consistent and repeatable. With the ball test we needed to account for the differences in lift and drag attributable to the dimple pattern and design of the ball, and for that the reality is you need a radar-based system.

      This isn’t something we do often, and again, for our purposes, the strengths of the Foresight system best align with our needs. I’m sure FlightScope and Trackman users would say this as well…there are certainly unique features to each system that I wish I had access to.

      I’m certainly not knocking Trackman, great device, with outstanding software, but it’s also true that the most exceptional piece of the Trackman business model has been owning the idea that it knows more about ball flight than its competitors. Certainly the company has done an outstanding job owning the launch monitor/ball flight educational space. That has helped build the perception of superiority – which has helped to justify what is by any reasonable standard an inflated price point. As with basically everything we cover, there’s reality, and then there’s marketing.

      As for being a tough sell…let’s wait and see. As it always is, the proof is in the proverbial pudding, right? If what I’m hearing comes to fruition, you’re going to see Foresight make tremendous strides on the educational side, and if/when we start to see prominent names previously associated with Trackman making the switch, I believe more will open their minds to the reality that Foresight is the real deal.

      Reply

      Charles

      7 years ago

      I almost upgraded to a GC2 w/ HMT but I am so happy now that I didn’t seeing they came out with this. My thoughts are that having to use anything like stickers on the club face to get a reading with this type of price tag is rediculous. I’ll stick with my Skytrak without club face data and save my 13k for my club dues.

      Reply

      Roch Ouellet

      7 years ago

      Athletic club membership at $500 comes with simulators, hitting carpets, sand practice area, sand putting green and an average of 4 pros on staff all inclusive no extras, better than buying on of those machine every 12 years.

      Reply

      Chance Scheffing

      7 years ago

      As a Trackman owner I find this information very interesting. Thanks for sharing and coming up with very good and reasonable answers. I can’t wait to see how much this device will cost. I used the GC2 when it first came out. It gives great data but I found that using different balls really threw the numbers off.

      Reply

      Petri Keskitalo

      7 years ago

      The reason different balls threw the numbers off is because they do. (different balls don’t behave the same)
      That’s one of the strengths of the gc2, it’s got something like +/- 50 rpm as margin of error on spin accuracy. Trackman uses club data together with ball data to give spin numbers. This is why it needs you to choose club. Try it, if you choose 3wood and hit a wedge and then choose wedge and hit again- spin numbers will not be the same.

      Reply

      Frank

      7 years ago

      I’m interested in testing this. Curious you referenced TaylorMade because they are in process of switching ALL their technology to TrackMan this month. And if you go to demo day at this years PGA show you’ll see Trackman at every OEM display.

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      One of the advantages of Trackman is that it gives you full flight in actual conditions (which includes wind). That can certainly be beneficial in some scenarios. This certainly wasn’t a Foresight good, everything else bad article. Trackman is a great product with robust software. It’s true strength is full flight, outdoor performance. It’s not as strong indoors or with head measurements. There is no bad choice for anyone looking into this technology, but as with anything else, you need to balance your needs with the feature set of each model.

      I would expect Trackman to be the most prevalent at the PGA Show, however, my understanding is that TaylorMade uses Foresight extensively inside their R&D department, and I’m relatively certain that’s not going to change.

      Reply

      Marcus Synegal

      7 years ago

      Where are you getting that TrackMan struggles indoors and with head measurements?

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      Marcus – the issues we saw indoors were directly related to spin measurements. What we found comparing camera-based systems (both Foresight and Skytrak) to radar-based systems was that outside spin numbers were what most of us would consider within the margin of error between devices. When we move indoors, with the same testers and the same clubs, the camera numbers remain consistent with outdoor numbers while we saw both greater fluctuation and overall discrepancies in the numbers from radar devices.

      Full disclosure, both of the leading radar providers have updated their hardware since we last evaluated, so it’s entirely possible some or all of the issues have been resolved. That said, if you look at the Kirkland ball test, the low wedge spin numbers we got from T-Man were puzzling-enough that the operator told us he was going to contact Trackman to see if there was a simple explanation.

      My bottom line is that regardless of what’s calculated and what’s measured, my expectation is that what’s true outdoors will be true indoors, and in previous experiments, we simply didn’t’ see that.

      Jonas

      7 years ago

      This smells a lot like sponsored content…

      Every manufacturer says they produce the most accurate product, but I don’t see much except for TrackMan in use on tour by the pros and the vans. Someone (perhaps a university or physics expert of some sort) needs to do a truly independent side by side test. They all stand up fine on their own, but that doesn’t mean much.

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      Hey Jonas – Not sponsored, this is a story I was particularly excited to tell.

      We rely on Foresight GC2 Technology for nearly every test we do. It’s the perfect fit for our testing program, and we are incredibly excited about the release of a new model and its potential to improve our testing program. We hope to start taking a closer look at the putter measurement stuff in the near future as that could allow us to capture a completely new set of data.

      Regarding side by side tests…they’ve been done. Again, as I stated in the article, Foresight was barely on our radar when we started looking into launch monitors. The comparisons we have come from the R&D guys (PhD’s who develop and test product) who unsolicited and unanimously told us that if we want accurate head data and we’re going to test extensively indoors, Foresight is the right answer.

      Before committing to Foresight, we actually did test one of the leading radar systems. Certainly, it had some features I LOVED, but it wasn’t reliable-enough indoors (spin axis problems: what I would describe as toe draws would read as dead pushes a healthy amount of the time). That’s fine if your use case allows you to write off those shots and move on, but with the volume of shots we hit, it’s problematic. The other place we saw clear advantage was on short chips around the green. Radar would give us obviously wonky spin measurements, while the Foresight was consistent.

      Again, these are the types of strength/weakness argument where individual use will be the deciding factor, right? Trackman has outstanding software. FlightScope gives you shaft data nobody else does.

      The strengths of Foresight align beautifully with how we use launch monitors. There are certainly other choices, and while we believe the accuracy – especially when it comes to head measurement and capturing axis tilt – are second to none, it would be unrealistic to think that other options may not fit other use cases better.

      Reply

      Scamaroo

      7 years ago

      You kidding me with this gimmick? Arnold Palmer didn’t have this and won Majors! It’s all about beating massive amounts of balls at the range and developing good swing thoughts and muscle memory.
      These guys are lunatics if they think the average Joe Schmo is gonna plop down G’s and G’s for these things. My G’s are for the hooks and golf is meant for the course. Not in my basement or garage, close to a nagging wife!

      Reply

      FTWPhil

      7 years ago

      “Settle down Francis.”

      This isn’t for Joe Schmoe.

      1. Go buy an Optishot
      2. Use it.
      3. Come back and complain about how inaccurate it is.

      Reply

      Steven C

      7 years ago

      Sounds like a great upgrade to the technology. This is pretty exciting from an accuracy standpoint, though I doubt that I will ever be able to get one.

      Reply

      Harry

      7 years ago

      The unit is going to cost 18k.

      Reply

      Roch Ouellet

      7 years ago

      do t know about that a GC2 will cost you about 6,000 USD this new one id say will be more in the 12 to 15 K US if I was a betting men

      Reply

      Sharkhark

      7 years ago

      what model device would be the best poor man’s gc2?
      something that gives basic swing path into

      Reply

      ftwphil

      7 years ago

      Skypro by Skycaddie.

      Reply

      Matt

      7 years ago

      That 110 number is fishy. I’ve went to 7 PGA tour events last summer & spent a lot of time on the range. Ryo Ishikawa was the only one I ever witnessed using a foresight, and he wasn’t using hmt.
      Foresight is great and superior indoors but outdoors Trackman is still the bar. Better software, wireless high speed cam integration, one button optimization, no club stickers to mess with, easier target acquisition, and the ball distance is measured, not calculated. All reasons the tour vans and players use it over foresight.

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      The stickers are part of the reason why Foresight’s head data is more consistent and accurate than its radar counterparts. All of the top 3 launch monitors have areas where they excel and where they don’t. Head data (along with consistency of data in any conditions) is an unquestioned strength of the Foresight system.

      Regarding the 110 number. My guess is it’s across all professional tours. I can also assure you that the overwhelming majority of tour players don’t travel with their launch monitors. The OEM tour staff provides that stuff. Majority of ownership is at home/off-season use.

      Reply

      GM

      7 years ago

      If I’m spending over 8k I’m getting a trackman.

      Reply

      Syn47

      7 years ago

      Especially with their new Refurb pricing!

      Josh Wright

      7 years ago

      I’m in line to trade in my GC2 & HMT. They were expensive, but having an in home simulator helps me keep my sanity and swing during these cold Northern Colorado winters!

      Reply

      Dana Best

      7 years ago

      Best investment ever made

      Reply

      JD

      7 years ago

      They need to get the GC2 in the 1k-1.5k range to be a realistic option to flip old inventory. I wonder how many they’re sitting on. It’s a niche market in itself given the % of golfers (already dwindling) that would even understand how to interpret the data and justify the investment.

      Reply

      JD

      7 years ago

      To follow… if they are going to charge 3-5k for these things, I would sooner just go to Golfsmith or GG and just hop on one for free for an hour or so when no one is in there.

      I would love to know their cost to make these things…. their margins have to be INSANE.

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      As you might imagine, Foresight hasn’t provided us with their actual costs, nor the resulting margins. That said, I’m sure the margin on the raw parts is solid, but you have to account for the costs incurred in developing the technology. An entire team building a launch monitor from the ground up – developing every piece of technology (boards, cameras, lenses, and other electronics) from basically scratch. As I’d wager is the case with the other major launch monitor providers, on parts alone margins are probably decent, but I would image that with all that goes into developing the technology, it takes more than a few units to break even, and a few more than that to pull ahead and put you in a position to develop the next generation, and the one after that.

      jec

      7 years ago

      Use to have a gc2 at a store i work at. customers would regularly toe the ball directly into it throwing off the sensors. it was kept in its steel safety cage that was dented up pretty bad from the hits it took. had to send it in for repairs 3-4 times in the 2 years we had it. have an old full swing golf simulator now, the ball speed and launch angle are good but spin rates are garbage, customers think its better because its a room not just a box.

      Reply

      Chad Anthony

      7 years ago

      I am going to guess at least $10,000

      Reply

      Santiago Lahitou

      7 years ago

      15,000+

      Reply

      Chad Anthony

      7 years ago

      Santiago Lahitou wouldn’t surprise me. Original was around $7600 then add the other ? and it added $4000+ to it. A shame. Would love to get one for my shop for fittings…but as a small shop we do not do that many fittings to justify.

      Reply

      Derek H

      7 years ago

      Fantastic article. Really love the improvements, but even more the opportunity that i may be able to purchase one of the old units and have it for my own use. Really hoping they’re in an affordable spot for the average consumer.

      Reply

      Perra Sandström

      7 years ago

      In a few years we will all have launch monitors when the prices has dropped.

      Reply

      Brian Fergusson

      7 years ago

      Great marketing strategy: protect your current customers, incent them to upgrade, and expand your base by remarketing older versions at a lower price.

      Reply

      Mike Smith

      7 years ago

      How much could we expect a used GC2 to go for?

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      Not sure yet. Pricing details and likely additional program details will be announced at the show.

      Reply

      Eric

      7 years ago

      +1, even if they sell them at 60% they’ll drastically broaden their consumer base. Sub-$5k and it becomes a realistic option for people considering in-home simulators.

      Stephen

      7 years ago

      How many if the top golfers use GC2 compared with trackman?

      Isn’t the main reason MGS, Mark Crossfield & Rick Shiels use GC2 is because they give you one for free?? Trackman don’t give them away. Tour pros choose to pay £14,000 instead of getting a freebe

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      I don’t believe Foresight gives many freebies, but it’s true that Trackman gives none. That said, I suspect you’re going to see a growing number of both tour professionals and teaching professionals make the jump. The primary reason will be because of the comparative accuracy of the head data. It’s why Foresight is already in use in the R&D departments of every major golf company – and has been for some time. We made our decision based on feedback from the guys who test golf clubs for the big OEMs.

      But hey, you’re entitled to your opinion just like everyone else. No point in arguing, let’s just see what happens next.

      Reply

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      We heard back from Foresight regarding your comment. Here’s what I can share:

      Tour player use exceeds 115 units and counting. Every last one of those units was purchased, not given.
      Both Mark Crossfield and Rick Shiels purchased their units as did Martin Hall, Peter Kostis and others.

      There are plenty of accusations and misinformation on the internet, so we like to set the record straight when we can.

      Reply

      ThinkingOfGolf

      7 years ago

      Awesome! Thanks for sharing that, and thank Foresight for providing you that info. Also, can tell them to start a lease to own program =)

      adrien

      7 years ago

      115 players from what tours? Purchased at what prices, $10? You are the misinformation of the internet

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      Forgive me if I’m overstepping, but I took the liberty of rephrasing your questions from an adult perspective. I’ve provided answers as well.

      Do you know what tours are counted in the 115 claim?
      I don’t know specifically, but the general metric used by the industry is across professional tours. This would include the PGA, LPGA, Web.com, and senior tour.

      Did these tour players receive any discounts?
      Please check this space for any corrections on the chance that anything has changed, but as I understand it from past experience, Foresight does offer discounts to professional golfers, however, it is by no measure substantial.

      Are you sure about those numbers?
      The information is accurate to the best on my knowledge and comes from a credible source. If that’s insufficient for you, I would encourage you to seek out information that better aligns with your world view. Have an enlightened day.

      Peter Cusanelli

      7 years ago

      Are you still going to have to put dots on clubs. What are your thoughts on the Ernest sports e16. Reads same data no dots one unit as well?

      Tony Covey

      7 years ago

      Yes. Stickers are still required. They’re what make HMT as consistent and accurate as it is. With the latest software, you have the option of using a one dot system. That gives you a good bit of the data most guys want (swing speed, smash factor, and angle of attack). We want everything (dynamic loft, impact location, etc.), which requires 4 dots. It’s a small price to pay for the detail we get from it.

      As far as consumer grade units go. Ernest sports units are solid for what they are, but they certainly aren’t in the same class as Foresight, Trackman or Flightscope. Those are the A tier. The B tier is SkyTrak…really good at the 2K price point, but not as feature rich or precise. ES is in the next tier. Affordable, but far fewer features and not as accurate. Solid for personal use though.

      Tony

      7 years ago

      Are you referencing the Ernest Sports ES14? If so I agree its not in the same league as the SkyTrak, GC2, or Trackman…. but what about the Ernest Sports ES16. It directly measures, and seems to be a direct competitor to the GC2 with both doppler and camera measurements… at a better pricepoint.. at appx $4500, the ES16 looks like a contender, so a broad statement that Ernest Sports is not close to the others may be misleading.

      mcavoy

      7 years ago

      We’ll have to wait to see what Tony (Covey) responds with but I think the ES16 is a fairly new product if I’m not mistaken and not sure how much independent testing has been done on it to compare to other, more established, systems.

    Leave A Reply

    required
    required
    required (your email address will not be published)

    This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

    Golf Shafts
    Apr 14, 2024
    Testers Wanted: Autoflex Dream 7 Driver Shaft
    News
    Apr 14, 2024
    A Rare Masters ‘L’: Day Asked To Remove Sweater
    Drivers
    Apr 13, 2024
    Testers Wanted: Callaway Ai Smoke Drivers
    ENTER to WIN 3 DOZEN

    Titleist ProV1 Golf Balls

    Titleist ProV1 Golf Balls
    By signing up you agree to receive communications from MyGolfSpy and select partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy You may opt out of email messages/withdraw consent at any time.